I have a 4 year old Vewsonic g220fb CRT monitor that is excellent for gaming.

I'm wondering if this http://www.newegg.com/product/prod [...] 6824236033

is worth upgrading to for games. I am a hardcore gamer, and I have stayed away from LCD's but this beast looks like it might my CRT killer. 2ms, 3000:1, hd 1080p...

Is it worth it? My CRT is a 22", 21 mm dot pitch shadow mask, excellent quality for games with resolution up to 2048x1536.

This LCD looks amazing but its $537 and I'll only get it if its leaps and bounds above my CRT!

Any advice?

No, any LCD is a downgrade from a high end CRT!

Hey thanks realzeus, I just can't stand ghosting or slow response times, you're probably right.  I'm mad the LCD technology is still not delivering after all these years. I want a nice widescreen display, why can't they just make LCD's with CRT quality for us gamers?

Cause of technology limitations. LCDs were always going to be inferior to CRTs. The only things they are better at is screen size (CRTs were really limited at 32'' in TV sets and 24'' in monitors), size/weight and radiation emission.

So why don't they still make high end CRT's? When my CRT dies am I going to have to switch to LCD?

 
That's the OLD way (many years ago). The newer lcds are much better. Their response time is the key. Toms had a good article about it years ago. It's the reason CRT monitors are NOT made anymore (duh).

I have tried numerous new LCDs and none has impressed me as much as a 10 year old G Series Sony Trinitron (admittedly one of the best CRTs ever). Their clarity is lacking (due to the larger dot pitch). Colours are also not as vibrant (the lack of an actual glass plays its part in that) and let's not even go to refresh rates, maximum resolutions, scaling and response times; LCDs cannot even compare within the context of a bad joke. Also, LCDs have issues with moving images and get blurry at fast paced scenes. That's the reason that many graphics professionals don't change their trusted Trinitrons and Diamondtrons till they die. It's not incidental that a major reviewing website (can't remember which one though) has as its reference a high end CRT and judges LCDs based on that.

 
Duh? Yet another person regurgitating what they've been told. Please no more of that **** in here.  
 
1) Once again response time measurements are completely useless (duh). The fastest LCDs on the planet (2-5ms) can barely even reach the fabled 16ms requirement.
 
 
 
2) Once again, if the response times above were zero, the panel would still blur much worse than a CRT (duh). Its the nature of LCD. Google "sample & hold". The LCDs above are compared to CRT here http://www.behardware.com/articles [...] above.html  
 
3) You're limited to 60hz updates (no matter if the specs say 75 or 85hz - it's untrue)
 
4) You'll have 32-80ms input lag on any LCD larger than CRT size. Just go to Youtube and type in "input lag" and see how many hits you get (duh).  
 

 
5) There's no debate that CRT black levels / black detail are way superiour to LCD across the board (duh).  
 
I can go on, trust me but will stop here because the above things are what mostly apply to gaming - which is the topic here.
 
   

My awesome IBM P275 CRT still works, but I am wondering that myself about being forced to buy a LCD and even though the screen is bigger it doesn't make up for the ghosting in games.  Even a 2ms 24" 3000:1  LCD doesn't top my 21" CRT 0.24mm

Honestly, you can say that all you want, but I have never seen any input lag or ghosting on my 2ms Dell SP2208WFP (and I have put it next to a CRT for comparison, both hooked up to the same comp). As for 60Hz? Congratulations, you just stated the most useless spec ever - 60Hz is far faster than the eye is capable of noticing anyways. The reason it mattered on CRTs was because they go black between successive frames. This causes a very rapid strobe effect which bothers some people at 60Hz. LCDs do not do this - they are on 100% of the time. If you take a picture of a CRT with a sufficiently high speed exposure, you can see this:
 

 
Now, if you have a good CRT, and you are happy with it, there is no reason to upgrade, but if you are looking to buy a new monitor anyways, an LCD should not be automatically excluded from your decision.
 
Note: There are certainly some LCDs that still have input lag or ghosting problems to the point of being noticeable. My father has a Dell 2408WFP, which is absolutely gorgeous for colors (his hobby is photography), and it doesn't ghost at all (unlike the older 2407), but it does have a slight but noticeable input lag when compared to my SP2208.

This is a difficult topic. People are usually convinced in either direction.
 
At one time I made the move to LCD. I was happy to read text and do design work with perfectly clear text and the widescreen format. It wasn't until I built my new machine, with gaming as the focus, that I realized how limited it was. I have since moved back to my 21" CRT for gaming. I too long for a 30" LCD with CRT-like performance.
 
The fact is the percentage of people that are aware of the difference is small. If you are a skilled FPS player and have seen the improvement in scores going from 125fps to 333 (ahem) you know you are part of a small group. The conclusion I came to was, we are ruined. There is no LCD out there that you won't be disappointed in. No matter how many reviews you read, the person writing the review doesn't have the high standards you and I do. Not that the review is bad or misleading, I'm sure it's fine for the majority of users, just not us.
 
Also, S-PVA and TN panels are so different. There is a real trade off. I've tried both and the TN panel was horrible to look at, but "fast" as the reviews described it. (fast for an LCD I guess) People will disagree and swear that the panel they purchased is perfect and beautiful. All I can say to that is, I'm glad it makes you happy, but it is far below my standards for the reasons listed. The only way to convince someone otherwise is to sit down and show them the difference, and what to look for. Although, it would be a cruel thing to do given they too might become ruined.
 
All I can say is, baby that CRT and hope it lives long enough to see a major advancement. What I worry about is, if not as many people notice the difference, then maybe it will never be addressed. Why a "pro-gaming" company isn't making 24" widescreen CRTs is beyond me. I know I would buy one.

I guarantee you that going from 125fps to 333 didn't improve your scores in the slightest, and if you think that it did, it's a combination of expectation bias and possibly some other, unaccounted for factor.

As for appearances? Yes, TN sacrifices some compared to S-PVA or S-IPS. I know that and I live with it. A good S-PVA panel or especially an S-IPS gives nothing to CRTs though as far as image quality. The only real problem with any of them right now is input lag, which I don't see as significant at all on any monitor I've tried, but it is within the range of perceptibility, so it could be a legitimate factor for someone. I think (from what I've heard) that S-IPS is better than S-PVA in this respect, but I don't have enough access to a good S-IPS to try it, so I don't have anything to go on there.

Like I said, if your TN panel is good enough for your needs, congrats. Even you admit you "live with" the drawbacks. My comment was directed to those out there who are wondering what's wrong with them that they can't live with the performance of a LCD vs. CRT. (small group I know, but still)
 
As for not believing the increase in score or my ability to see the difference in fps, I'm not concerned with proving. All I know is that my ability to observe is what makes me enjoy and excel at gaming. I trust those observations and enjoy the benefits.
 

I'll fully admit the drawbacks to TN. S-IPS and S-PVA are much improved though, and better image quality than any CRT that I have ever seen.
 
As for the framerate in games, unless your monitor has a refresh rate greater than 125Hz, there is zero difference between 125 and 333 fps, and even if your monitor does have a refresh rate greater than 125 hz, there is still zero noticeable difference.

I really dont buy into all this crt talk...  
 
CRT is dead.  99% of what pro crt people say is not noticeable and if It is it's only noticeable to a very small amount of people.
 
but hey... if you want a 40 pound crt taking up half your deskspace... go nuts.
 
 
the only selling point on CRT's is that people very often give them away for free on sites like craigslist.  heck... i have 5-6 20-22'' lcd's i could do anything with but i'm not going to take one home and lug it up 3 stories just to have it take up space and underperform compared to my lcds