Main > Main Forum
Old LCD Monitors vs. New LCD Monitors
RandyT:
LCD lag is the result of pre-processing the signal before it is displayed. This pre-processing is the conversion of an analog signal (if used), scaling of non-native resolutions, color translations, etc.... When using a TV as a gaming display, this usually ends up being worse, as there is sometimes other added processing specific to smoothing video.
To state categorically that LCD (or any modern display technology) is slow, or poor for gaming, is simply inaccurate. About 10 years ago, even inexpensive TV's started employing 1:1 pixel modes, bypassing the slow pre-processing that muddied native resolution images. Most sets will have "game" modes which also strip out a lot of this.
Smearing, or blur, is the result of slow crystal transition times, but even that has been largely a non issue for quite some time. As for contrast levels, it's been hard to find an LCD which wasn't jet black in it's off state for just about as long. Compared to the awful state of some CRT's in gamerooms (burn in, bad convergence, old monitors in need of caps or just plain adjustment to correct for their age) it's a stretch to say that even old LCDs are necessarily worse.
I have an old cheap Sceptre 4:3 monitor which is going on 10 years of service and used every day. The black levels and viewing angles aren't what LCD can do today, but I have done some gaming tests with it in the past, and it is perfectly acceptable, even with an analog connection. Heck, the video card I was driving it with failed and had to be replaced a few years ago, but the monitor is still fine. At the moment, I am typing on a 42" 1080p 1:1 LCD TV, through HDMI, that is on it's 5th year as my primary computer monitor, with no degradation or issues. I still have to run it at a fraction of the brightness it's capable of, or I'll go blind from staring at it all day. :) Again, just fine for gaming, and being a TV, I researched the capabilities well and have not been disappointed.
So, in short, if using an older LCD PC monitor for gaming, the best results will be achieved with a digital (HDMI / DVI) connection and driven at it's native resolution. Some light grey acrylic for the window will increase black levels, without hurting the brightness too much. TV's are another beast entirely, so it pays to research them a bit more before deciding to use one, but the digital connection and native resolution recommendations remain the same.
BobA:
Good points Randy. I personally like 4:3 LCD monitors with VESA mounts for my bartops as they give the best bang for the buck. They are lighter and easier to mount than CRTs of any sort. Plus in a lot of cases they are free or close to it as people upgrade their monitors to the HD style that display MAME poorly due to their height to width ratio. You get the best screen usage with the 4:3 monitor.
I could not build my bartops now with a CRT as they do not have the room internally and that is how I like them.
The differences between the newer 4:3 LCDs and the older 4:3 LCDs is not noticeable to me and since they all fall in the same category as Cheap or Free I will take either without worry for my bartops.
RandyT:
Another very simple point to consider: If all LCDs actually were horribly short lived pieces of junk, as being characterized here, there would not be nearly the number of old, perfectly serviceable LCD monitors as there are out there, nearly free for the taking. ;)
dkersten:
That is another good point for this topic: Technically a 4:3 is better for arcades until you exceed a 24" 16:9 format, at least in horizontal mode. 19 and 20" 4:3 LCD's are easy to come by, and are taller than anything smaller than a 24" 16:9. And when you DO go to a 27 or bigger, you either have to go vertical or have a really wide cabinet, and even so until you get above 30" you are not gaining much height.
Combine this with the arguments above and for MOST arcade users, an older LCD or CRT is going to be superior for the use. I spent hours searching for the biggest 4:3 LCD I could get, and they never manufactured one over 21.6", and I think the height on that ends up being around 13.5", just about the height of a 27" 16:9. For the cost, it was cheaper and easier to get a 27" widescreen, and THAT was the swaying factor in my decision to use a newer LCD in my cabinet, NOT the technology or display quality. If I were viewing photographs or playing first person shooters competitively, that would be a different story.
Even so, my primary gaming monitor for the past 9 years has been a Dell Ultrasharp 24" 16:10 LCD, and like Randy said, while the color brilliance, black levels, and off axis viewing may not be quite up to par with the latest LCD panels, it is still a completely viable for ANY game, and trust me, I have logged well over 10,000 hours on this monitor with all genres of games. Heck, just League of Legends alone I have easily topped 2000 hours of play (probably closer to 3000 hours), and since that game came out I don't play nearly as much each day as I used to. It never once degraded my ability to play, even when playing first person shooters.
Just sayin...
yotsuya:
Personally, I'll always use a 19 or 20 inch 4:3 CRT because I don't care for cabinets wider than two feet.