Article by Christian "ZeGermans" Koebel
Art by AZTK

We often hear on gaming websites about how CRTs are superior to LCDs for gaming, with the exception of special "gaming" LCD monitors that cost an arm and a leg and supposedly offer an indecipherable difference from conventional CRT monitors. Are these claims true? This article examines the various specifications associated with both CRTs and LCDs, what to look for in these specs, as well as examining the advantages and disadvantages of both types of displays.

Starting off with CRTs, there is a whole plethora of specs to look for when you're picking one out. First off, the basics. Which size should it be? In my experience, 19" is large enough to be well visible yet still small enough to be moderately movable. Also, weight ought to be a consideration, assuming you're going to move your computer to LANs. A 19" monitor will usually weigh around 50lbs. Every monitor has a maximum resolution that it can display. This one is pretty self explanatory, as a monitor can only display as many pixels as it physically has. The higher the max resolution the better, but normally people don't use much above 1600x1200. The next is the refresh rate. This is how many times the monitor can draw a picture per second, and is measured in Hz. Naturally, the higher the resolution, the lower the refresh rate, as it has to draw more individual pixels at a higher resolution. Next is the screen shape itself. Cheaper monitors have a curved, convex surface, whereas more expensive ones have a totally flat screen. The flat screen causes less distortion in games at the corners. Then there's the tricky specification known as dot pitch. The general definition is the diagonal distance in between pixels. Obviously, the lower the better. Sometimes, however, we encounter CRTs that give a dot pitch followed by the term "aperture grille." Aperture grille is simply a type of CRT that doesn't have pixels in the shape of red, green, and blue dots, opting instead to use red, green, and blue strips, which produce more color and less "blank" space. More expensive monitors generally use aperture grilles instead of traditional pixels, as it allows for fuller coloring. The optimal gaming monitor should feature at least 19" of size, a max resolution of at least 1600x1200, preferably more, with a refresh rate of at least 80Hz at normal viewing resolution, which is generally 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (unless you have super eyes). The dot pitch should be about .25mm diagonal, and preferably feature an aperture grille.

The list of specifications on LCD monitors is much more confusing than that of CRTs. The options on LCDs are native resolution, pixel pitch, brightness, contrast ratio, response time, and viewing angle, as well as the normal considerations about size and weight. LCDs aren't as adept at turning multiple pixels into one pixel for the sake of going below the maximum resolution as CRTs are. So, the maximum resolution of LCDs is also known as the "native" resolution, because it's the resolution at which the picture looks visibly the best. Pixel pitch is very similar to dot pitch, except in this case it's a measurement taken horizontally as opposed to diagonally. Brightness is pretty simple; it's a measurement of the amount of light emitted by the monitor. It's measured in candelas per meter squared. Contrast ratio is a measure of the difference, in brightness, between the brightest white and the darkest black the LCD can possibly draw. The higher the setting, the more vibrant of a picture the LCD can draw. Response time is the cream of the crop with regards to LCD settings. This, more than anything, is what separates LCDs from CRTs. To put it very simply, this is how fast a pixel can change from on to off. With LCDs, a circuit closes and sends a signal to a specific red, green, or blue pixel, causing the molecules in the liquid to twist, and to allow light produced from a backlight to come through. If the response time is high, it will produce a type of pixel "lag" that causes images, especially fast moving ones, to get blurry. Obviously this is undesirable, so a low response time (measured in microseconds) is what you should look for. Finally, there is viewing angle. One of the problems with LCDs is that due to the massive amount of materials the light has to pass through between source and LCD surface, the angle from which a clean image can be viewed from is dramatically cut down. In newer LCDs the viewing angle has been improved dramatically, but it's still a concern. Optimally, you'll want an LCD with about 19" of viewing area, with a contrast ratio of at least 500:1 and a response time of 16-12ms.

So why do these two sets of displays only share a few similar specifications? Do CRTs not have response times? Do LCDs not have refresh rates? The answer to that is 'sorta'. For example, CRTs do have response times, but the time is so incredibly small there's no way the human eye would ever perceive it. Pixels are turned on by an electron beam which moves at the speed of light, and produces an instant reaction to create light. Also, brightness isn't an issue with CRTs, either, since they require no backlight to brighten them; they naturally produce more than enough light. This goes hand in hand with contrast ratio not being measured for CRTs, since the brightest white for CRTs is so far beyond the darkest black, there's just no point in determining it. LCDs don't have refresh rates because LCDs don't redraw pictures every second. They merely keep the pixels on, and turn them off when they're not needed anymore. With a CRT, a movement on the screen is displayed by redrawing the same image, but slightly moved. With an LCD, movement is portrayed by turning off a pixel on one side and turning on a pixel on the other side. Thus, it has no clear refresh rate.

So which should you go with, CRT or LCD, and why? CRTs produce better images and cost a whole lot less. However, a good CRT will weigh about 50lbs, making it hardly an ideal solution if you attend a lot of LANs. On the other hand, LCDs are much smaller, consume much less power, and don't emit harmful electromagnetic fields like CRTs do. They also are at about 33% of the weight. However, the money saved on power is dwarfed by the amount the LCD costs above a traditional CRT. To be perfectly honest, there's no reason to buy an LCD unless you absolutely need the space, want to move around a lot, or you're some kind of phobic of electromagnetic fields.

Though the ways that both types of monitors create their images are vastly different, and the standards used to compare them to each other don't come close to matching, both are viable options for the modern gamer. If you've got the money, go for and LCD. If you don't, go for a CRT. It's your choice. But now you know what to look for.