HDMI 2.1 Specification Brings 4K@120Hz / 8K@60Hz

[schmidtbag]

Afaik the LCDs have closed the gap significantly, now it's common to find IPS monitors rated at 1-2 ms (which is still not microseconds, but isn't 40 ms either like older IPS panels), and many non-shit LCD monitors can go to 75 Hz too (without taking gaming ones).

True, but the monitors your speak of tend to be considerably more expensive than some old clunky CRT. They have many other advantages too, like a better resolution, lower power consumption, larger display size, sharper image, etc. Like I said, CRTs are still good options for pro-gamers on a budget, but I'd much rather have the display you mentioned. I personally don't give a crap about shaving off a couple milliseconds. Hell, my display probably is probably at least 8ms.

Gotta say though, it'd be pretty funny to watch someone enter a tournament with one, along with an old IBM PS/2 mechanical keyboard and a 3-button PS/2 mouse without a scroll wheel (PS/2 actually has timing advantages over USB, since it is interrupt based, whereas USB is not).

[droste]

I always thought it was a short form of the horizontal resolution, assuming a 16:9 screen.

FullHD isn't a k (also because it would conflict with 2k)

2k is generic catch-all for anything from 2048 to 2999 pixels of horizontal resolution

4k is 3840x2160

10k is 10240x4320

and so on and so forth.

Well it started with 4K meaning 4096xanything and 2K meaning 2048xanything and was used for projectors in cinemas IIRC.
This made the most sense since "K" has the same meaning as "K" in "KB".

But these are not resolutions you see on any consumer grade TV or monitor that's why they (someone in marketing probably) just redefined UHD (which is 2*FullHD) to also mean 4K. And from that you get that "half of it" (so FullHD) is 2K. And "double of it" is 8K. Which is actually a nice redefinition. But again this doesn't work out with 10K :-)

[kruger]

To my understanding, the only displays that can fully obsolete CRTs are OLEDs.

There is also microLED which apparently is even better than OLED and without it's shortcomings like burn ins. There are some rumors that it might finally come to the market (Samsung to unveil Micro-Led TV Technology at CES 2018).

[leipero]

why you want a good CRT?

Aren't there enough good IPS screens around?

EDIT: I'm curious, not bashing you.

As schmidtbag said, CRT's response time is = 0, they do not ghost, crappy ones support high refresh rate, color acuraccy and contrast are better, view angles are not a problem at all. Good IPS that comes close to some low-end CRT cost arm and leg and I simply can't do that at the moment..., plus, imput lag is still a problem, much more for IPS than TN.

TL;DR: It's cheap and good.

calc That seems to be very good display, unfortunately not available localy, and with shiping... it's risk.., I can find tons of most low-end ones that support 1024x768@85Hz, but now, the bare minimum for web browsing is 1280px wide, go on youtube with anything less and you have lost side bar etc. (unless you zoom out in browser, not sure).

[calc]

calc That seems to be very good display, unfortunately not available localy, and with shiping... it's risk.., I can find tons of most low-end ones that support 1024x768@85Hz, but now, the bare minimum for web browsing is 1280px wide, go on youtube with anything less and you have lost side bar etc. (unless you zoom out in browser, not sure).

Yes it will be hard to source that level CRT locally. Even when new those were top end screens and were hard to find, so a very small percentage overall. EIZO, IBM, NEC, Sony all made very high end (> 20") CRTs until the early 2000s. They were also heavy and pretty unwieldy, > 70lb/30kg and roughly cube shaped so took up nearly a whole desk.

[KellyClowers]

Well, me too. But the amount of old LCD monitors still relying on DVI is a amazing testimony for the dependability of those old hardware. I never have a LCD monitor to die on me and only one of my close friends who had a defective LCD. CRT monitors on the other hand...

We have LCD monitors falling over left and right here. Mostly old 4:3 HPs with only VGA, but also some widescreen Viewsonics with VGA and DVI. Occasionally we have a recent HP E221 die, but not common at all.

[torsionbar28]

Yes it will be hard to source that level CRT locally. Even when new those were top end screens and were hard to find, so a very small percentage overall. EIZO, IBM, NEC, Sony all made very high end (> 20") CRTs until the early 2000s. They were also heavy and pretty unwieldy, > 70lb/30kg and roughly cube shaped so took up nearly a whole desk.

The Sony Trinitron monitors could all do 85 Hz, they were my go-to way back when. I think also SGI made a number of high end 20"+ CRTs in the late 90's.

The later high end CRT's are a lot more reliable than the early crap-o LCD monitors. Early LCD's had a fluorescent tube backlight that would burn out after a few thousand hours. The LCD tube backlight would also break if you dropped the monitor. It wasn't until a few years ago that they switched to LED backlight and the reliability came up. Early LCD's also suffered from bad batches of poor quality Chinese capacitors that died an early death. Repairable with a soldering iron, but most folks simply pitched the screen and bought a new one.

[StefanBruens]

Gotta say though, it'd be pretty funny to watch someone enter a tournament with one, along with an old IBM PS/2 mechanical keyboard and a 3-button PS/2 mouse without a scroll wheel (PS/2 actually has timing advantages over USB, since it is interrupt based, whereas USB is not).

Actually, wrong ...
PS/2 mouse movements are streamed at a constant rate, per default 100 samples/s, at most 200. As a movement packet is 3 bytes, sent as 33 bits at at most 16.7 kBit/s, the latency for each movement is 2 ms (transfer) + 5/2 ms (average reporting interval) = 4.5 ms.

USB interrupt packets are polled at a fixed interval of at least 1 ms. Even at 1.5 MBps, the transfer time is almost neglegible. Latency thus is 1/2 ms + ~0.1 ms = 0.6 ms.

[Zan Lynx]

As schmidtbag said, CRT's response time is = 0, they do not ghost, crappy ones support high refresh rate, color acuraccy and contrast are better, view angles are not a problem at all.

No, you aren't talking about crappy CRTs. Since they're all old and obsolete only the good ones have survived long enough to still be around. Crappy CRTs only did 60Hz and definitely had ghosting because of high phosphor persistence. They'd also claim to support higher resolutions that they didn't really have the dot pitch for and would look fuzzy.

Also just to be pedantic, response time is never 0. A CRT has to wait for the beam to scan so response time ranged from 0 to 16 ms (or lower at higher refresh rates) assuming no VSync. With VSync it averages out to 16 ms always.

Also, using a CRT for long periods of time would give me a headache and eye strain from all of the flickering. LCDs (good ones without backlight flicker) don't do that to me.

[pal666]

...And here I am - with 3x Monitors

hdmi is for tvs, not for monitiors