You make a lot of good points about LCD’s for gaming. But I think a lot of people have an understanding that there is no definitive source for ratings or advice. I am one of those people and it screwed with my head so much (that I didn’t want to get a lemon for gaming) that the last time I was in the market for a monitor I just went with a solid CRT (running a Samsung SymcMaster 997df.) But the time is coming where people can’t fall back on CRT’s. Besides the space and power usage issues with CRT’s the fact is that some solid LCD’s can meet or even beat a CRT in response time and image quality.
Which leads me to your point about how people make assumptions about monitors from specs without ever seeing them. A buddy of mine does a lot of graphics work on his comp (professionally) and had his heart set on a LaCie LCD 526, it was certified for color matching and some kind of other ratings. Then all I had to do was tell him about the new Dell Ultra sharp 3008WFP and how it has better NTSC color (whatever that is), contrast, Response time, etc. Now he can’t make up his mind, but the fact remains with out seeing either monitor in person neither of us can really know, which is better.
It just comes down to making the best decision you can just like every other component in a gaming rig. You look at as many reviews as you can, Specs, price, warranties, and if possible go somewhere to see it in action. After that all you can do is hope you don’t get a DOA or in the case of a LCD monitor dead/stuck pixels.

In reality, LCDs CAN’T match response quality of a CRT. So, for gaming, I still miss my CRT. Its a fact, google for it.

VaultReader Said:
“the fact is that some solid LCD’s can meet or even beat a CRT in response time and image quality”.

I am not being a pain but I would like to see the reliable report that confirms this fact.
I have never seen any flat panel type monitor able to compare with a CRT in response time. I mean the best I have seen are 2ms for a flat panel, and that is way slower then a <1ns (instant) CRT response. A CRT does involve a refresh rate that the LCD would not; however any decent near new (less then 5 yrs old) CRT is fast enough on refresh.

The image quality is often subjective so that is hard to qualify but some LCD or other type panels may be better?

I have no problem gaming on my dell 30″. While it is true that it requires more eye movement, it’s rare that i turn my head and it has never bothered me. I love the super small dot pitch and almost never notice pixels while playing a game. The only beef i have with it is having to always buy the latest video cards. Not using a LCD monitor at its native resolution has to be some kind of sin.

Resolution is king …

Myth #1 is not a MYTH. its an opinion. Where does some one get his balls that he would come out and tell other people what size LCD monitor they need to buy? The bigger LCD monitor you can buy the better. Because the bigger it is, the farther away you can sit from your monitor. The farther away you are sitting from your monitor the less eyestrain you feel after long periods of looking at the monitor. Most “stupid” people sit anywhere from 12″-24″ away from the monitor because they have it on the same table or desk as their keyboard. I haven’t done that for years. I put my computer and keyboard on one table and set my monitor on a microwave table stand. It sits about 48″ inches away from face at all times. The reason most people have to wear glasses in because they abuse their eyes from sitting too close to the computer screens.

Seriously 48 inches…. I think its you that are crazy. Most people wouldn’t be able to read anything on the screan much less play and enjoy it.

You’ve left out one important consideration related to size: native resolution.

You’re going to want to run at native resolution for best image. If the native resolution is too high, you’ll be forced to choose either low FPS or blurry image. For me, that change comes between 22″ widescreen (1680×1050) and 24″ widescreen (1920×1200)

I looked into this. I have a 34″ Sony WEGA Super Fine Picture Tube CRT about 30″ from my face. At 720p the beast is an amazing game machine. 1080i is nice but action is not as crisp. A big desk with the beast at the back helps here.

I am glad my article generated so much controversy, as that was its purpose. For those who disagree, with my points, that is fine, as I did say to be skeptical of anyone’s opinion.

However, there are two issues I want to clarify. First, as to the maximum size of the LCD monitor for PC gaming, I explicitly stated that the 24″ maximum was for those whose monitor was the normal (half-a-desk) distance from where they are sitting. You can of course have a larger monitor if you sit farther away, but I for one would never do that. Second, as to the issue of native resolution, that has been pretty much standardized across monitors of a given size, so it is no longer as much of a discriminating element as it was in the past. But monitors do vary greatly in terms of how well they display non-native resolutions.

Bob

Sorry with late response, to clarify my position on SOME LCD monitors being as good or better than some CRT’s I was referring to some very high end models (example: Samsung XL30) that with their paper specs and comparing the trade offs to a CRT refresh rate etc. Obviously real world performance and subjectivity of “image quality” has to be taken into account. Its not the average but my point was that it’s getting there.

MacK said:
“…<1ns (instant) CRT response”

Maybe I miss something here, but…:
Response time in CRT is actually refresh rate, as I understand. And having 100Hz refresh rate while gaming is pretty common. 100Hz means that picture changes 100 times in a second = 10 ms response time (each 10 millisecond), which is worse than 2ms of LCD monitors. So I guess response time of LCD is not an issue.
As for me – I still play on my 19″ CRT monitor and cannot switch to LCD. Cannot understand why – I just don’t like how games look on LCD, although at work I prefer it.

Philip Patrick said: “… having 100Hz refresh rate while gaming is pretty common. 100Hz means that picture changes 100 times in a second = 10 ms…”

LCD refresh rate is 60Hz to 75Hz (85Hz in a near future) and has NOTHING to do with response time. Response time is the time a pixel takes to change its color (usually from black to white or vice-versa, can’t remember). A 75Hz 2ms LCD is as good as a 75Hz CRT but worse than a 100Hz CRT.

When will they release 100hz flat screen computer monitor? LCD or something else?

LCD’s are the most overrated display technology ever. for starts, i cant believe how many people say they dont notice ghosting on 5, 8, even 12ms monitors. are there really that many people with ultra-low response time for their own eyes? i doubt it, chances are most of these people just havn’t played a game with over 40 frames per second or something…if you just watch tv shows, you probably wont notice since things are usually filmed at like 23 fps. let me dispel another myth, the refresh rate hardly has anything to do with how smooth it is. most people wont notice anything better than 75hz anyway, and even an lcd can at least do 60hz which can be very smooth, but just flicker. if you set a CRT to 60hz with v-sync and an LCD to 60hz with v-sync on, the difference in smoothness will blow you away unless your eyes really really suck. i bought a 2ms samsung monitor a few months ago that sells for 330. i did this to avoid the awful ghosting ive seen in so many 5ms monitors. it hardly made a difference. nothing can beat the silky smooth animation of a CRT with 75hz refresh rate with v-sync on. trust me on that. dont trust the other 95% of LCD owners who just dont have a clue.

To clarify one point: LCD response time it the time it takes for one pixel to change from black-to-white-to-black. Basically the latency of the LCD. Refresh rate is entirely different. I always allowed my video to use v-sync and count on the video card to be fast enough generate images to support the refresh rate, usually 75-85hz. Since the eye doesn’t notice frequencies above 40hz and the monitor won’t refresh faster this is good enough. [IMHO]. 300-fps doesn’t tell my eye any more than 75hz, I can’t see it. However monitors that support higher refresh rates tend to be higher quality – they usually have a finer mask, better beam control and generate a sharper image. Latency on a CRT is dependent on the phospher and the energy in the beam, it is considerably faster than 5ms.
Back to latency – @ 1600×1200 there are 1,920,000 pixels displayed every 11mS @ 85Hz. Theory says that all things being equal, evey pixel should be able to change states twice during this period. Truth is that different manufactures measure response time differently. Also black-white-black is an unusual transistion, LCD response will vary due to the color change required.
Latency is a good guideline and starting point but not definitive. See what the reviews say.