We played modern games on a CRT monitor - and the results are phenomenal

From Eurogamer: "It's true. Running modern games on a vintage CRT monitor produces absolutely outstanding results - subjectively superior to anything from the LCD era, up to and including the latest OLED displays. Best suited for PC players, getting an optimal CRT set-up isn't easy, and prices vary dramatically, but the results can be simply phenomenal."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
33d ago Replies(2)
UltimateSanto33d ago

I mean, CRT are nostalgic and have a warmer feel. But they can't beat a 75 inch OLED 4K HDR TV.

NiteX33d ago

You'd be surprised. It's all about motion blur, which all LCDs are notorious for.

fr0sty33d ago

That's a bunch of crap. CRTs motion blur just as badly if not worse, as their phosphors retain the light that hits them for a split second.

Whoever wrote this is insane. No CRT can even start to come close to my OLED. Not to mention, who wants to buy a monitor that weighs 500lbs, will have messed up color and burn-in issues after 10 years?

fr0sty33d ago (Edited 33d ago )

Also, LCD and OLED are not the same tech, not even close (light is filtered through pixels on one, light comes directly from the pixel on the other), so motion blur issues on LCD are not going to affect OLED. Some cheaper OLED displays do have motion blur for different reasons, but the more expensive sets do not.

Modern LCD panels have a 1-2ms pixel response time, bringing them in line with CRT monitors.

UltimateSanto33d ago (Edited 33d ago )

Not really. Aside all the benefits of color accuracy, brightness and screen size from OLEDs on consumer TVs, when it comes to gaming Motion Blur is not an issue anymore. That's why you don't see competitive Gamers carrying around a CRT to events, when they have a 1440p 240Hz 1ms thin monitors.

CRTs are great to play 6th gen consoles and old games for their resolution, aspect ratio and for nostalgic value. The Digital Foundry video is CRT circlejerk.

Hard8times32d ago

OLED doesn't have motion blur response time is 1-2ms which mean no motion blur now LCD is a different story

Cobra95132d ago (Edited 32d ago )

CRTs have subjectively perfect motion. No LCD has that, not even the most expensive. Watch the Digital Foundry video on this subject.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 32d ago
TheFirstClassic33d ago

They can in terms of input lag

SierraGuy33d ago

I have a 65" oled and I can tell you it's garbage for gaming compared to my Trinitron CRT. We definitely took a step back in my opinion...input lag is a killer.

Truth be told the last decent gaming TV's we had were plasma displays.

Hard8times32d ago

You're a liar my LG OLED C9 at 120hz is only 6ms which is close to and better then most monitors I doubt you even have a OLED or you're not playing in game mode

Cobra95132d ago

Glad to find someone else who gets it. LCD is cheap tech for the masses. The truly good stuff has been abandoned. For CRTs, it makes practical sense. They're heavy, bulky, and eat a lot of power. Plasma, though . . . OK, so it eats power too. But otherwise, I thought it was a brilliant replacement for the old tube tech. Then it too got the axe.

VariantAEC33d ago

A lot of people who forgot (or never knew) about the cons of CRT disagreed... Why am I am not surprised?

Cobra95132d ago

So did a lot of people who never lived the glory days of the tube.

WiiU-Dude33d ago

What could I add that hasn't been covered in the comments or in the Digital Foundry video. There are cons. Size is one. I don't know that you will be seeing 65" to 75" CRT monitors and even if you did the weight alone would be ridiculous.

Cobra95132d ago

Yes. Cons are: weight, bulk, and power use. The screen usually has some convex curvature (though not always) and scan lines may not be perfectly straight. They need to be kept away from strong magnetic fields too. They're superior in every other important way: quality of motion, contrast, range of native resolutions, input lag. The best CRTs can even scan progressively at resolutions above 1440p, and at high refresh rates.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 32d ago
timotim33d ago

The screen on my Surface Studio has some of the best IQ I've ever seen in any screen. 4500 x 3000 and a very good PPI, the results are stunning. It's making it hard to even play games on my OLED.

dRanzer33d ago

Yea i know what you meant

timotim33d ago

Not following...the discussion is about screens right...

frostypants33d ago (Edited 33d ago )

That's some low quality astroturf, son.

timotim33d ago

How is it astroturfing to be on topic haha??? This is a tech conversation about screens... to bring up the screen we currently use would be considered common. If the conversation was about PS and you mentioned your PS4, would that also be astroturfing? While I understand not a lot of people have my screen, Im just mentioning my personal experience...what screen tech do you use...

2pacalypsenow33d ago

"It's making it hard to even play games on my OLED."


timotim33d ago

I mean...dont misunderstand me, you cant really go wrong with either one. Love both of them, but when you factor in the color calibration mixed with the fact that the Studio is almost 5K vs 4K and a optically bonded screen, then it starts to set itself apart. It doesn't hurt that the Studio is also a little more powerful than the X which means I can squeeze a little more out of it performance/visual wise.

Their is a couple of drawbacks with the Studio...the aspect ratio is 3:2 vs my OLED which is 16:9. Then theirs HDR that my OLED is capable of vs none on the Studio. However, the Studio kills it in the PPI department...192 vs about 70...thats the real killer. LG is suppose to be coming out with some 1443 PPI screens that I cant wait to see in person, but between the 2 that I have, its the Studio all the way in terms of IQ.

Cobra95132d ago (Edited 32d ago )

No, the discussion is about how the CRT display technology perfected for the better part of a century was abandoned, and replaced with something that can't hope to come close to several of its important qualities, in particular blur-free fluid motion, black level/contrast, and the ability to display natively a wide range of resolutions (no scaling required, no scaling blur).

Plasma is much superior to LCD too; but that got abandoned as well. OLED is too new and too expensive. Who knows what its ultimate potential will be; but right now, it's still in its infancy, and has too many issues.

timotim32d ago (Edited 32d ago ) of course gamers are going to discuss that and give their view points haha. I use to own a 27" Sony Wega back in the day...bought it for the original Xbox to play Halo on it...damn good TV! Had to connected with component cables, you couldn't tell me nothing haha. But screens of today have their own advantages and I'm happy weve moved on from those huge heavy clunkers. My current screens are better than any screens I've ever owned. My OLED is pure black when it should be and HDR puts it over the top.

Just 4 you playa 🥱

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 32d ago
33d ago
bluefox75533d ago (Edited 33d ago )

I've never had a 16:10 CRT monitor, I was speaking about my own personal experience with CRTs, hence the comment, what is wrong with people here? While I loved my giant 1600x1200 17" CRT, it just doesn't hold up today. People are so sensitive on N4G, lol.

TheRealTedCruz33d ago

You do realize all he did was address the fact that the article we're speaking on used a 16:10 monitor. You care enough to respond with a full paragraph, and then call him and others "sensitive".

Pretty sure that makes you the fragile one here, guy; and over the dumbest of things.

indysurfn33d ago (Edited 33d ago )

Your right if only he had watched the DIGITAL FOUNDRY video in the article he would not have said that (I hope).

windblowsagain33d ago

Problem with people here are some of them are arsehats.

don't worry about it.