Hello guys,
I'm recently searching for a good monitor with a refresh rate of at least 144Hz and a response time below 0.5ms (Gray To Gray). Unfortunately I can't really find monitors below 1ms response time in combination with at least 144Hz refresh rate. I would really appreciate some links, if you found some monitors that meet the requirements.

crt V: ~0 ms delay, take a lot of space. weight a lot and you need to find a good one for 100-200hz

i checked german sites some months ago and there were good ones around

bla wrote:

crt V: ~0 ms delay, take a lot of space. weight a lot and you need to find a good one for 100-200hz

i checked german sites some months ago and there were good ones around

Hello bla,

thanks for replying. Would you mind to link some of them? I really can't find them by myself. By the way, I would prefer LCD monitors over CRT. I know that CRT's nearly got no delay, but image quality etc. is not that good. That's why I would rather take LCD screens.

I use the ASUS VG248QE (144hz) and get 0,48ms ingame (Unlimited)


Edit: Nvm, it's 1,24ms-1ms~ GTG, I forgot Osu response time isn't the actual rate. I can't find any monitors below 1ms anywhere, though.

Rayne wrote:

I use the ASUS VG248QE (144hz) and get 0,48ms ingame (Unlimited)


Edit: Nvm, it's 1,24ms-1ms~ GTG, I forgot Osu response time isn't the actual rate. I can't find any monitors below 1ms anywhere, though.

Alright, thank you! Hmm np

>CRT image quality is not that good

uhh, maybe if you're only looking at crappy low-end CRTs... My CRT runs at 1080i @ 180Hz and it looks a lot better than most LCDs I've seen.
(the only downsides have to do with setup, size, and electrical usage, none of which have to do with image quality)

I know that CRT's nearly got no delay, but image quality etc. is not that good.

High quality CRT (160-200+ hz) have way better image quality than any LCD. Big downside of them (and main reasons why almost nobody uses them) is extreme power usage in comparison to LCD, you really need dedicated space and big desk for it (due pretty big dimensions) and only 4:3 resolutions.

Yeah, you guys are right. Modern CRT's aren't that bad. Still, I would prefer a decent LCD screen.

Benq XL2411T

You will not find better one in this price.

There are no LCD with producer confirmed reponse time below 1ms for gaming monitors.
Highest what I know are 0.5 Smart LED on 100-120hz 47"+ TV which cost A LOOOOT and are hard to get (due being mainly corporate class hardware).

Ok, thank you. I already thought I'm just to stupid to find some, but maybe LCD's with less than 1ms reponse time still don't exist - like you said.

Edit: Thanks Taiga, that BenQ screen is really good.

OLED

I was thinking about buying a 144hz too but they are so expensive. Not sure if it's worth spending €200/300 if all I really play is osu and league...

Yeah.

Hmm, that's right but it's healthier for your eyes too.

sHootR wrote:

Yeah.

Hmm, that's right but it's healthier for your eyes too.

Not that much as you think.
Doctor ophthalmologist who treats my eyes since my childhood already told me that difference is between CRT and LCD due the amount of radiation emitted.
There is barely any difference for your eyes health between 60 and 144hz. It is more about how fast you notice created object which at some cases may even harm your eyes if it comes to high amount of objects in short amount of time.
If it could be a real case, work safety regulations would force using 144hz monitors for full time computer workers. Right now they force only LCD screens / CRT with radiation filters.

crt V: ~0 ms delay, take a lot of space. weight a lot and you need to find a good one for 100-200hz

Yeah, sure, if you want to

-play at super low resolutions to get good refresh rates

-have inferior image quality in every way aside from motion blur/refresh rate

-don't mind playing on a tiny screen size

-enjoy handling absurdly heavy objects (I once had a 36'' CRT in my room that weighed 250 POUNDS)

-have a GPU that can output in analog,

-are willing to possibly deal with a whole gamut of issues an LCD monitor will never have

-are willing to pay highly inflated prices for a CRT of decent quality, since they're not making any more of them, they die all the time and are nearly impossible to fix because the monitor is super high voltage due to the electron gun and will kill you if you touch the insides wrong, and almost all of the remaining good ones have already been snapped up by tech savvy CS:GO players, as well as the humongous shipping costs if you buy online

then sure, buy a CRT. Good luck.

For anyone who wants to spend money in a practical manner:

http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/

-play at super low resolutions to get good refresh rates

Doesn't matter, XGA+ / SXGA were often used with 200hz 0ms. You can even affort HD+/FHD but screen is shrinked due to how CRT is builded and still get higher refresh rate and lower reaction time than any LCD.

-have inferior image quality in every way aside from motion blur/refresh rate

Not even gonna comment, you have zero, null, 0 knowledge about CRT screens.
Only thing what I will tell is that CRT is not limited to CMYK/RGB color palette and doesn't have contrast limitation which allows FAAAR better black+white contrasting than ANY newest LCD/Plasma.

Here is quote from Lifevire journal site:

"The primary advantage that CRT monitors held over LCDs were their color rendering. The contrast ratios and depths of colors displayed were much greater with CRT monitors than LCDs. While this still holds true in most cases, many strides have been made in LCDs such that this difference is not as great as it once was. Many graphic designers still use the very expensive large CRT monitors in their work because of the color advantages."

-don't mind playing on a tiny screen size

Last gaming CRT monitors were 28-32", if you call it tiny screen...

-enjoy handling absurdly heavy objects (I once had a 36'' CRT in my room that weighed 250 POUNDS)

Nobody said they are lightweight.

-have a GPU that can output in analog,

Any port can carry analog with proper conversion. One company which I have contract of service uses CRT in wall for advertisments due contrast of room and LCD not being able to output good quality image in very bright room. It is connected to PC using DP > VGA dedicated converter which outputs very good quality.

Rest is just.... facepalm, please educate yourself before you speak.

Almost every specialist in this term, including people who design monitors and are allowed to speak about certain specifications claim that CRT is superior in every way except resolution and image ratio to LCD/Plasma. Good start for you could be Quora.

TL;DR: CRT will be always superior to any LCD due how they handle color, contrasting and image rendering alongside with refresh rate and reaction time.

googling crt kaufen:
https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anz ... 0-225-2883
https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-anz ... 7-225-8804
i'm bad at searching german sites but if you look for a crt always google the model/size. the higher the resolution it supports, the better hz you get at a lower res usually. best finds are from less popular sites/forums etc where people try sell good stuff but it goes unnoticed.

i'd not get any 17'' and check the 19'' models individually. anything bigger than 21'' is usually pretty nice

OLED>CRT>LCD

Thanks for all of your post's

-play at super low resolutions to get good refresh rates

Doesn't matter, XGA+ / SXGA were often used with 200hz 0ms.

How do you not consider 1024×768 or 1280 x 1024 to be a low resolution? That's between 38% and 63% the pixel count of 1080p and 1080p is already a low resolution by modern standards.

You can even affort HD+/FHD but screen is shrinked due to how CRT is builded and still get higher refresh rate and lower reaction time than any LCD

This is 100% wrong. You can get LCDs today that are 240Hz at 1080p and use backlight strobing to have essentially zero motion blur. Go find me a CRT that displays 240Hz or more at a resolution substantially greater than 640x480. Hell, I have a monitor (XL2720Z) that is "only" 144Hz with backlight strobing and I can't really detect much of, if any, motion blur at all.

-have inferior image quality in every way aside from motion blur/refresh rate

Not even gonna comment

proceeds to comment

Only thing what I will tell is that CRT is not limited to CMYK/RGB color palette and doesn't have contrast limitation which allows FAAAR better black+white contrasting than ANY newest LCD/Plasma.

Okay, I concede that CRTs can have better color than LCDs, if you can find one in proper condition that is still functioning like new after 20 years of use. But is that really relevant to our situation here? I don't play osu! to marvel at colors. You know what is relevant? They are not anywhere near as sharp as LCD monitors, especially at the resolutions you'll be playing at to get high refresh rates. I hope you don't have to, like, read text or anything on your fullscreen 640x480 blur.

-don't mind playing on a tiny screen size

Last gaming CRT monitors were 28-32", if you call it tiny screen...

1. Good luck finding one available for a reasonable price.
2. Have fun getting it shipped to your house. Bet it won't be expensive to ship something that weighs 200 pounds.
3. Hope you'll never have to move it anywhere for the rest of your life. I had to have four of my friends carry mine to get it up a flight of stairs.
4. I bet sub-HD resolution will look awesome on a 32'' monitor, even without a native resolution. I bet the dots will be the size of postage stamps.

Here's the real meat of the situation, though - all your arguments are at the theoretical level which mean precisely dick. The reality:

1. A CRT that has all of these awesome ideal specs you are ratting off will be incredibly difficult if not impossible to find in 2017.
2. If you want to try to find one, you'll have to do a ton of research on CRTs and CRT models, and search all over the place all the time for the ones you want - all around, an enormous, time consuming hassle.
3. If you manage to find one (in decent condition, these are old!), it will be prohibitively expensive to buy and ship.
4. If it ever has an issue, or its pre-existing conditions worsen, you are fucked because almost nobody repairs these things anymore and you will get yourself killed playing with high voltages fixing it yourself.

Why go through all of that when you can just buy a decent new 144Hz+ gaming monitor with backlight strobing, have equivalent or better performance, spend less money, have something that is enjoyable to use for anything other than gaming/graphic design, have a warranty if something is wrong with it, and be done with it?

The only reasons anyone should buy a CRT today are

1. if you can find some random passable one for cheap in your local area at a garage sale or flea market or charity shop
2) if you have tons of money to burn and can find/afford one of the rare ones that compete with today's best LCD monitors.

Oh, while I'm here and I have your attention - I passed you on the leaderboard yesterday. Suck it.

50 eur or less is a pretty good price for a monitor that can output 100+ hz and has 9-10ms less input lag than any gaming lcd (according to https://displaylag.com/display-database/ best lcds have 9ms input lag).

you don't really notice the hz in a game like osu! other than from how often cursor is drawn when you move it fast. 85 or 90 shoudl be fine for most people in desktop/movie etc use (you'll change res depending on what you want to do), 75 or below you might get a headache.

it's much more noticeable in a first person shooter where the whole screen moves fast. in osu! it's just your cursor and approach circles. things that appear or disappear or move slowly look just the same.

EDIT: actually now that I am looking at this database none of this makes any sense whatsoever.

I know for a fact there are LCD monitors wth less than 9ms of lag if you don't include the time between frames.

For example, my monitor! http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/ben ... 0z.htm#lag

My guess is whoever made that list is completely unqualified. Note that nowhere on the entire site is any sort of explicit testing methodology.

Oh, while I'm here and I have your attention - I passed you on the leaderboard yesterday. Suck it.

Nobody cares, really. Was it supposed to piss me off or what?

Not gonna comment on your shit besides throwing out 3 out of hundred links in internet which proves my opinion and makes your inferior, already said my opinion which is more or less just copy paste from Quora / StackOverflow and sorry bruh, I prefer to trust people who know wtf is going in topic, not some random guy who throw "hey doood, I passed you on ranking" like a last autistic kid.

Denying fact that CRT is better than LCD is like playing autistic. Suck it.

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Har ... nitors.asp
http://bootstrike.com/Articles/LCDvsCRT/
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

For me it is EoT with you. Bye, happy farming.

So far I see more people claiming that CRT > LCD here and only you being against this statment.
So far I see more people in internet claiming that CRT > LCD and only you trying to put some nonsense arguments which are not even true.

Philosofikal wrote:

Taiga wrote:

I have no argument but still want to pretend like I didn't just get completely destroyed

So far I see more people claiming that CRT > LCD here and only you being against this statment.
So far I see more people in internet claiming that CRT > LCD and only you trying to put some nonsense arguments which are not even true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

If it is so nonsense then clearly someone who is as smart as you act like you are should have no problem furthering the discussion with some actual data instead of outright stating your opinion as fact, flailing your arms around and calling everyone autistic. I suspect the real issue is that my post was actually rock solid and you're trying to divert everything into a pointless and unwinnable yelling match because a stalemate is better than being told.

This is my last response to you until you make an actual attempt at addressing my second post instead of being a degenerate. You can start with some links that aren't a decade old like in your second to last post.

The testing at displaylag.com is done using a device that outputs white signal and measures the delay. They measure the average of top middle and bottom delays and say wrongly that crts are 9-10 ms faster.. Some random crt shows about 7.7 ms lag using the same method (0.08 ms top). The review of philosofikal's panel on displaylag.com did show top area lag of 2.4 ms. The average lag measured that way is not appliciable when frames update in the middle of one scan (more fps than hz, tearing) or when using higher hz than 60 i'm assuming the device uses. The top measurement should be fairly accurate whatever the hz.

I can't paste links on a phone on these forums for some reason.

I'm not sure if 2-3 ms is noticeable but i'll test it later.

Edit: tried doing some calculations and if assuming an input delay of 2 ms (idk if there's lcds as good or better, please enlighten me) you'd need 400 hz to get better average input lag across screen than a 155hz monitor with 0,1 ms lag (crt) with 2000 fps input.

I'm assuming a monitor scans from top to bottom and takes zero time to start next scan and that it always outputs the latest frame that has been drawn. Tears are where a new frame is drawn by gpu. I'm trying to calculate the average delay of whatever is currently visible on screen (drawn by one scan).

typo, forgot i from 1/f on bottom, should be i + 1/f
it's pretty simplified and might be wrong if i've understood how monitors work wrong