Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 85273	2007-12-05 05:44:00	CRT vLCD momitor	effie c (6856)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
618068	2007-12-05 05:44:00	Hi, Recently had dealings with a Television shop closing down- I asked whether LCD was sufficiently better to justify buying one- I have a very satisfactory CRT I was told in no uncertain manner that LCD and Plasma fairly ate through the power to the tune of three or four times as much. Can anyone confirm this remarkable fact? To me LCD MUST be the better, surely effie c	effie c (6856)
618069	2007-12-05 05:50:00	LCD's would use less power than CRT's (The ones here would anyway). I would say plasma would use more (Well you dont see many plasma computer monitors (without TV). Plasma's are usually TV's not computer monitors. BUT, can be connected to computers I spose the bigger the LCD or plasma screen is, of course, it'll use more power. And the main thing is, LCD's dont take up as much space as CRT's.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
618070	2007-12-05 06:10:00	It depends on what size screen you want. It's hard to compare a CRT power usage to an LCD or plasma as they really only went up 29". There were some 34" & 36" CRTs around but not very common. If you are going to buy a plasma it won't be any smaller than 42". My 47" LCD manual says it uses 295W. A 60" plasma is around 400W I think. A 29" CRT was around 100W from memory. So while they do use more power you are getting more screen realestate.	CYaBro (73)
618071	2007-12-05 06:48:00	Hi, Thank you people - as I said I like my CRT but when I win Lotto I will buy a 19 " or 22" monitor.- I have the room all said and done It would appear that TV monitors are normally bigger so the statement that LCD are hard on power really is irrelevant to a computer- which suggests - size for size there is not much real power comsumption either way I always leave my monitor on but shut down the computer every night- I assume that the pixels on a LCD could be damaged if they are left on I know how emphatic my Tele/video repair contact was :thumbs: effie c	effie c (6856)
618072	2007-12-05 20:09:00	are you talking about TV's or monitors? I generally prefer CRT monitors; they have accurate colour reproduction, have no ghosting issues and can display any resolution well. The only thing going for LCDs is that they are smaller and lighter (but really, do you carry them around often?), use less power, and have pin point accuracy when displaying at their native resolution. However they can have ghosting issues, poor viewing angles and have really bad image quality when displaying resolutions below the native resolution. Dead pixels can also be a problem, as most manufacturers consider as many as a cluster of 6 faulty pixels to be within usual limits. Having said that, CRT monitors are getting harder and harder to buy. I'm looking at getting a Dell 24" screen (the 'good one' with better image quality and viewing angles) once they come down in price. For about the past month, they have been having specials on their 27" model.	utopian201 (6245)
618073	2007-12-05 21:59:00	at the same size LCD uses much less power than CRT. Also with current screens the viewing angle problem is effectively non-existant, on my 40" for example the picture is perfectly viewable at a much wider angle than is needed - at least 75-80 degrees. Also while it may use more power than a CRT while in operation, it has the energy star compliant logo which means it uses less than 1W while in standby - something a CRT would be hard pressed to match. Does your TV spend more time on, or off ( in standby ) A lot of the predjudices people have about LCD's are outdated, the most valid one being that they don't display well outside their native resolutions. As for plasma, most of the large companies are abandoing this technology in favour of LCD. It's debatable which is better, but pointless as LCD has already won.	dugimodo (138)
1