Viewing Thread:
"15" TFT equivalent to 17" CRT?"

I've recently been looking at some TFT monitors, i currently have a 17" CRT monitor and am wanting to upgrade to a 17" TFT monitor. When lookin on SR it says that a 15" TFT is equal to a 17" CRT monitor, is this true?

I've recently been looking at some TFT monitors, i currently have a 17" CRT monitor and am wanting to upgrade to a 17" TFT monitor. When lookin on SR it says that a 15" TFT is equal to a 17" CRT monitor, is this true?

Er maybe, but I doubt it.

You need to spend a lot on a TFT that matches the specs of a £100 CRT though.

Considering a 17" CRT will usually have a visible area of 16" or more, and a 15" TFT will have a visible area of 15", then no.

And like Turbonutter says, the price you pay for the same spec on TFT will be extortionate compared to a good CRT.

I don't agree with the last posts. In front of me I have a 19" CRT and a 17" TFT - The difference is 1/2" - (they're both DELL's) and I much prefer using the TFT.

Go to PC world (or similar) and see for your self - I would say the TFT is much better...
GWD.

But the point is that you could pay £100 and get a high-spec CRT 17", and to get a TFT to match its spec would probably cost more than twice as much. That's what Turbonutter was saying. I was pointing out that a 15" TFT won't match a 17" CRT for viewable area, which is also true.

What are you disagreeing with?! They're both cold, hard facts!

Yeah a decent quality TFT is always going to be better than a CRT but I'd need quite a lot of money to afford a TFT which does the same resolution as my CRTs without masses of lag.

In fact I'm not even sure if that's true.. when you talk TFT money, CRTs become extremely, extremely good.

Rob, to you any monitor that doesn't do 1600x1200 at 85hz is crap. A TFT is perfect in many situations, I'd love to have one both for the amount of desk space I could clear by getting rid of this 19" beast and for the ease of carrying it around ot LAN parties. Ghosting etc is made a much bigger issue than it really is nowadays, it's becoming less and less of a valid argument against them - yes, you do pay more, but for the money you get desk space, ease of transportation, excellent IQ (brilliant with DVI) and it looks a damn sight more sexy than a big grey box.

Looking at a few monitor specs, viewable size of a 17" seems to be between 15.7 and 16, making a 15" tft a fairly viable alternative.

TFTs are excellent, even this cheap one is much nicer to use than any CRT I've come across. Really. For £260 you can now get a nice 17" with a 16ms response time. Maximum res are smaller for TFTs than CRTs, but then I think 1280 is about perfect on a 17", anything higher and your squinting to read stuff..

TFT's have a much lower frame refresh rate than CRT's. if you want space then get a slimline CRT.

fiƒi[oV] wrote:
> Rob, to you any monitor that doesn't do 1600x1200 at 85hz is crap.

Now that's not true. This monitor does 75Hz.

But yes I do want a decent resolution from my monitor, especially when paying a lot of money for it. Desktop realestate is incredibly valuable, especially when you get used to it. I will never buy another monitor that does less than 1600.

Even with that argument aside, you still pay a lot more with TFTs. I still hold the opinion that a TFT is worth getting if you can pay a bit of money for it.