A CRT is typically more flexible than an LCD in terms of resolutions. If it can do the max, you can probably force it to do almost anything in between. For DOS games on real hardware, there is usually a tangible benefit to a CRT.

But to be sure - what is the model in question?

There is nothing like a high quality pc CRT running at high resolution

Unless it's a fixed frequency beast (which is unlikely if it is new enough to go up to 160Hz), it will be able to handle everything from plain VGA up.

But...

A really really late, really really high-end CRT will be at least as sharp as a decent TFT. That is great for looking at Windows desktops at high res, but for low-res DOS, it will have the same downside as a TFT: very angular, blocky picture.

For DOS resolutions you actively want a CRT that is not so sharp (or big). I find a 15" shadow mask CRT makes DOS look better than a 17" diamondtron aperture grille CRT.

>1600x1200@160Hz 19" CRT

no such beast existed, ever
Re: Should I buy it?
1600x1200@100-110Hz is where CRTs topped out before being pushed out by LCD

1600x1200 @ 160Hz? You sure you got that right? This would require over 300MHz pixel clock to drive it.. and over 200kHz HFreq. I've never seen such a crt.

Anyway, if you have room to spare a CRT will be a great addition. Resolution versatility coupled with nice image of CRTs is hard to beat.
Size wise I'd go for 17" though. I used to have a 19" beast and it was gigantic, also lower resolutions always seemed to be a bit blurry on it compared to my previous 17" CRTs.

There are 19" CRTs that go up to 1600*1200 and up to 160Hz vertical frequency but not at the same time.
Advertising sometimes specs them 1200*1600, 160Hz so that may have led to some confusion.

Okay I won't buy the 19" CRT than

The CRT in question was "Fujistu Siemens MCM 19P1N"
the LCD I have is a "EIZO FlexScan L367"
I also have one more monitor "HP 1740" (I wonder if this one can do low resolutions well)

If this is just for DOS games, get a 14 or 15 inch CRT from the mid 90s, the type that has a maximum tolerable resolution of 800x600

CRTs "can't be beat" especially for the yesterday niche. I never had them running in high res but some of my friends did(W98 and 2K) and the more modern ones(19"+) had an amazing picture.

I used to play games on a 20" monitor in the mid-90s (yes, 94/95 already).
My father had it connected to his 386DX40.

The monitor was an antique "fixed-frequency" model without OSD, likely from the medical sectors (displaying x-ray pictures etc.). It had BNC connection, also. R/G/B/H/V were all on separate connectors.

That means it could display 800x600, but needed an adjustment on the back of the chassis for that (via knobs) to do so.
Or an especially configured VGA card with non-standard timings.

Anyway. The picture was fine and I fondly remember playing both games in VGA (640x480) and QVGA (320x2*0) resolution.

So I think that it might be true that a 17" or 19" monitor isn't ideal,
but a 20" might be okay again. As odd as it may sound.

From what I can tell, 20" or 20,1" monitors usually support 800x600 or 1600x1200 (twice in the horizontal and vertical) res just fine.
Or in othet words: The 20" is the last of it's kind. After that, we're leaving 4:3 land pretty much.

Back when I purchased my Sony 420GS 19" CRT new in the late 90's I tried the 1600x1200 @75 HZ and found I liked 1280x1024 @85 HZ better for FPS gaming. DOS gaming was fine on it. The max resolution on most CRTs were not exactly the best. I miss that 420GS but newer LCD monitors are better for small text.

These days I still use old CRTs for DOS and low resolution computing (Amiga , C64/Atari 800, Atari ST mono and color, Apple IIgs, etc). I even loved playing Dreamcast using the VGA out adapter. CRT monitors have their place.

It is of course a matter of opinion, but mine is that the complaint that sharper CRTs are "too sharp" for DOS games is a complete load of shit. They look awesome with crisp pixel edges and visible scanlines. Blur belongs in the toilet

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-04-06, 19:59:

Blur belongs in the toilet

Not a big fan of late 80s/90s pop then?

There's a grave difference with large CRTs between "worth having" and "worth getting" 😉

There's one tiny niche where you might want really great frequencies with games and a CRT - if you were to mess around with 3D shutter glasses.
Apart from that, it was only ever important for Windows.

For the usual 90s game, any half decent 17" will do just fine.

debs3759 wrote on 2022-04-06, 20:03:

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-04-06, 19:59:

Blur belongs in the toilet

Not a big fan of late 80s/90s pop then?

you should cut down on your pork life mate, get some exercise

If you wanted a big capable 1600x1200 monitor... you'd better:

- have a Matrox video card that can drive a good dac to it (if the 90s)
- have interest in CAD, because 1600x1200 gaming was novel in the 90s (only Total Annihilation was ever bothered with on that res then)
- be strong, and have a desk that'll hold it
- take good care of it because they're a dying breed. and when they go, they go

1600x1200 capable LCD monitors (native res) are great, at least. And they often come in 20", as well.
They can display 800x600 resolution without distortion (original Super VGA was 800x600).
Makes them great for PCs vintage OSes like Windows 9x or Mac OS 7/8/9.

Because, going past 800x600 makes the games very small.
Games for Windows 3.1 usually use a 640x480 viewport.
But on the other hand, with just 640x480, the GUI is very crowded.

A Voodoo 2 SLI setup can display 800x600, at best, as well.
So it basically tops out at 800x600.

single V2 maxes at 800x600, SLI gives you 1024x768

sli's interlaced though and you're better off with vb/v3 at least if you desire for hi-res glide on big monitors. Banshee can do 1600x1200