Graphics Help with monitor decision

ive got a 27" toshiba crt television. I'm planning on buying a 6800gs which i saw came with hd component cables. io was thinking of using the tv as the main monitor for my computer. Would the picture be tolerable? im looking for no ghosting while playing games and high resolution.

heres the television, all comments are welcomed and appreciated.

thanks



Nick

 

Quite simply NO! Standard CRT TVs are designed for low-resolution and although okay for gaming and movies they're pretty hideous in Windows esp when reading text. The problem is exacerbated by WinXP inability to scale things like fonts and icons well, something Vista addresses. You could go for WinXP MCE2005 which is much clearer on low res displays like CRT TVs but it mostly depends upon your own prefs, requirements and hardware compatibility.

What you really want is an LCD/TFT of 26" or more ideally with DVI and HDMI (for HDTV broadcasts) and a native res of at least 1280x720 (or there-abouts) but for Windows and games an approx 4:3 ratio may be better such as 1280x1024. For reference CRT TVs are capable of imperfectly displaying 640x480 to 800x600 (although 1024x768 is possible it lacks the physical resolution). Ghosting is irrelevant for CRT displays and all modern LCD/TFT have a fast enough response for it to be largely irrelevant too. If you want more specifics on LCD/TFT displays please ask.

 

Thanks

Thank you very much for your reply, ive been debating this myself for a hwile and the 27" viewsonic on newegg caught my eye, now i just need 740 bucks...
crap


ive seen a few 20" lcds for around 200 bucks are these even worth it? some of them have pretty low response times too.

 

A 20" LCD would be superb for a PC display but not so good for a primary family TV replacement nor for maximising the high definition due to the comparatively small size. For Windows work the 20" LCD would be supremely better than a 27" CRT but the extra screen size of the CRT would be more practical for shared viewing from settees etc. For gaming the LCD would show much better detail and enable higher res but may largely restrict you to the native res whereas the CRT would enable you to choose any resolution between 640 and 1024 as needed for optimal FPS/details and the blurriness of it would help hide the pixels and aliasing. A large LCD would be pretty ideal but they're still pricey despite coming down in price over the last few years.

When choosing an LCD it's best to compare them 'in the flesh' (BestBuy?) ideally using HDTV signals and a variety of other sources such as DVD (tests scaling) and even Windows via a PC. Many of the specs are misleading, things haven't improved as much as the specs would lead you to believe. There are very few agreed standards and the methods of measurement also keep changing too, even within the same manufacturer! Opinions vary but I'd say any response time 20ms and below should largely be fine for movies and games (the most demanding tasks), many displays quoted as lower are the same thing just calculated differently or with Overdrive bolted on (see below). Going too low will often mean trade-offs, for example colours where there's often thousands instead of millions (like playing games in 16bit instead of 32bit). These are usually quoted as 16.2 Million colour displays instead of the standard 16.7 Million but don't be fooled as 16.2M is calculated by dithering which is pretty pathetic IMHO, the actual number of shades of all colours available is 262 Thousand. IMHO if you really like pictures, video and games to you want 16.7 Million (also quoted as 8bits per pixel / 24bit RGB instead of 6bits per pixel / 18bit RGB). The response time for 16.7M displays has been low enough for at least 2 years now, in the past you had to choose one or the other. I'd definitely have a 16ms 16.7M display than an 8ms 262 Thousand display (and that's if the response figures were directly comparable).

"Overdrive" is commonly used to lower response times by using extra voltage to change the pixel but it is a mixed bag as response times can vary dramatically depending on what a pixel is changing from and to, it also often produces minor visual artifacts known as 'twinkling' which are usually evident when watching DVDs in scenes with large monotone areas. It's by no means a bad thing as the display will seem more responsive. Viewing angles haven't really changed much for years now, it's just that poor angles are now accepted as passable! For the last 18 months or so the widest accepted angle only needs a contrast ratio of 5:1 which is both dire and unwatchable, the standard was 10:1 for ages but this was still awful but it all helps manufacturers quote better numbers. The angle where contrast drops down to 100:1 would be a more realistic minimum. Consider the kinds of angles (horizontal & vertical) that the display will be viewed at in your home and then test these yourself when you see the displays.

Specs for contrast will usually be reliable, the manu can either make the black darker or the white brighter. A darker black is more desirable as this is now one of the weakest parts of LCD technology (perfect colour reproduction and fixed native res are others). Dark blacks really help keep the atmosphere in many movies and of course games such as Doom III.

There are three key types of LCD display; VA (wide view angles, 24bit), TN (fast response but never 24bit) & IPS (aim for fast response with wide angles BUT blacks are poor). In recent times VA has improved response times which was its main weakness, I'd say that now represents the best technology. For an idea of actual angles VA tend to be perfect to 80' perfect, good until 90'.