Okay DVI-A has been long dead. But pretty soon so will VGA and DVI-I. AMD already announced they were dropping it and NVIDIA seems to be doing the same. I own the NVIDIA GTX 1070 and was very disappointed to see it lacking a DVI-I. I had to go out and buy a new cable for my monitor. For the record it has a DVI-D, three display port, and one HDMI port. But pretty soon DVI-D will be gone as well replaced by displayport. The only reason anything has been left is for legacy- and I'm pretty let down there's not any legacy options for this graphics card. I'm kind of confused why not include a dual link DIV-I, isn't it functionally the same only it carries analog signals + digital (so two for one.) The only reason I even brought this up? I really wanted to go get a CRT for it's refresh rate. But now I'd need a converter- but all of those use electricity + improve lag soooo... It'd negate the whole bonus for a CRT. Now I'll have to go save up for a 144hz monitor. Rip. D:
Two of my screens are plugged into a dvi to mini display port adapter each which are plugged into mini display port to normal display port adapters which are plugged into my graphics cards. Yey for switching from AMD (mini displayport on graphics card) to Nvidia (normal displayport on graphics card). But I dunno what kind of dvi. Probably d?` If they replace the dvi output on graphics cards I'll need one more adapter. Won't make that much of a difference, already have spent 70€+ on those... Wanting to get a CRT is beyond me. Those gigantic boxes fit nowhere, they are ... gigantic. Also have a weird shape of the screen.
I play 4:3 in most games so that's a non-issue for me- Not to mention they have the highest refresh rates on market. (And are a whole LOT cheaper.)
Do they really have the highest refresh rates? Doesn't that depend on the resolution? https://www.amazon.com/Asus-VG248QE-24-inch-Ergonomic-Back-lit/dp/B00B2HH7G I have used this one for years, it's perfect.
Well due to how a CRT puts up it's display it will just always be faster. The only way to get something similar is through a monitor that supports lightboost- Which like a CRT renders all pixels in a flash/strobe rather than going from top to bottom.
I wonder. CRTs actually flickers all the time don't they? You can only see the it clearly when you make a video of it, but the switching from CRT to flatscreens is something I generally found very pleasant to the eye. Yes reaction times are an issue, but oh well, I don't play that many shooters. Also lol at playing in 4:3. What reason do you have for that? I dunno how CRTs are cheaper, the average price of my 21,5" screens is around 110€.
http://superuser.com/questions/333940/what-is-the-maximum-refresh-rate-for-crt-monitors Below 75Hz you start to see the flickering
Well the only CRTs I ever used were really old boxes. Probably unfair to compare them to state of the art 2010+ flat screens.
Yep CRTs display in a different way than most led monitors. Rather than refreshing from top to bottom all pixels are refreshed at the same time- some people are able to see/feel this more than others. (Light boost does this too in new monitors, adding a couple ms of input lag though, not a super big deal) I play 4:3 in most fps games. Especially source games. It's just what I've come accustomed to and it helps me focus more. There's no real advantage, (other than higher fps I guess) CRTs are cheaper because they're old! I can go get one used for super cheap. And a new one still costs a good amount less than a 144hz monitor.
errr.... are you sure you know how a crt monitor works? I mean it uses an electron beam to illuminate the pixels on the screen. It uses magnets to oscillate the beam from left to right, top to bottom.
As Dom said its a beam of light that travels left to right, up and down... Lightboost will not add lag!!!!!! It is a method of strobing the backlight to give the pixels lower persistence and reduces the ghosting artifact. As for price the good ones have not been made for over a decade, they are only going up in price... For example: http://serverpartswarehouse.com/dp2070sb-bk-dp2070sb-bk-22in-20vis-24mm-2048x1536-black.html I owned one in college it was great.... for 2007.
No it will always add about 5ms of lag- At least that's what I got from the site giving info on how to set it up. I'm confused then, what keeps led monitors from keeping up the pace in refresh rate? Because anything trying to say it's at the rate of a CRT isn't "real" hz.
I *think* -somebody correct me-, it is like this: An LCD has little glowing pixels that constantly glow in some color. The color can change within a few ms on command. But even if there is no command it will glow constantly in whatever color it was configured to glow by the last image. That's why I say an LCD is more pleasant to look at: It really has no flickering. So a 1hz LCD would still look decent as long as you don't try to watch a moving *anything* on it. A CRT has that electron beam that is shot at the screen that makes the parts of the screen glow up. If the electron beam slows down too much you'll see what a video recording of a crt shows: How the electron beam moves across the screen lighting up the pixels temporarily. But the pixels stop glowing after being hit and need to be hit again. Now this means a 1hz CRT would suck really hard. It would not even qualify as a screen for static images, as the screen itself would make it look like a moving light show. So an LCD simply does not need more than 60hz, while a CRT profits from more to hide the inherent flickering. The reaction time issue is another one: The CRTs electron beam instantly glows up pixels. The LCDs little pixels however need a small moment to change their color from one to another. That's what the main disadvantage of a LCD is for gaming. Well and that the LCD standard is 60hz, if you're into super high fps gaming. But 144hz LCDs are a thing by now, for you gaming enthusiasts
The color doesn't change; instead, the brightness changes for the subpixels. The liquid crystals in between the RGB pixels and the backlight are the actual things that make LCD screens appear to have motion because they receive certain voltages of electricity to change their brightness. LED is the same except the backlight kinda acts like a second, lower resolution screen where it can light up the bright parts more than the dark parts.
A pixel is made up off subpixles for the basic colors. The subpixels do not change the color, but only their brightness, but the result is that the pixel "changes" the color the viewer perceives from the whole pixel. ?
I can't believe as a young person you can stand CRTs... they make this insufferable high-pitched noise
