Same here in Canada. It's not like we have the full catalog of CRTs to choose from. A CRT appears in the local market around 6 times a year nowadays.. and they're usually priced ~100$ and above, and they sell immediatelly too (even if broken).

I know many people will disagree, but I feel resolutions beyond 1024x768 are the job of flat LCD/LED display. Clear high-resolutions require a very good and big CRT (17" minimum). I think it's much more viable to find a flat screen with VGA input and run it at its native resolution. Those are posted for free in local market, and come in 4:3 ratios too. Of course such screens are for Windows 9x and XP gaming only, and would maybe suck under DOS as they rarely support 70Hz modes.

The point isn't so much to wait for a holy grail to pop up, it's to get a general idea of what to look for and what to avoid. I made the mistake of doing no research and ended up with my first CRT being a piece of crap that wasn't fun to use at all. What you can always do is find an okayish CRT for cheap first, and while using that, keep looking out for something that's really good.

asdf53 wrote on 2025-05-04, 11:37:

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-04, 09:37:

sorry for highjacking the thread op but I have question on that topic and so I can avoid making a new thread. […]
Show full quote

sorry for highjacking the thread op but I have question on that topic and so I can avoid making a new thread.

I also want a crt pc monitor for the perfect retro gaming experience for my voodoo 3 system. I have space enough to accommodate a 19 inch or even larger crt. Do you think it is smart decision to aim for the bigger ones in the first place if I get the chance?

So far I have not seen a larger than 19 inch crt near mear but I am not giving up.

I will check out a 19 inch VideoSeven monitor next week. Do you guys have heard about the brand?

VideoSeven = Macrotron, a brand that sold Taiwanese / Chinese made monitors from various manufacturers, often higher-priced models for professional use. Many of them used good tubes from Sony, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Hitachi. But I have also read that the electronics of some of these monitors were not of the highest standard and would often fail sooner than the more expensive brands, in various ways. So - it could be a good monitor, but I wouldn't buy it without testing.

I'd use a 17" for a Vooodoo 3, it's still from the era where you had to make compromises and play on lower settings. Low-res graphics on a large screen doesn't look all that great. I would choose a 19" or larger for a better card where you can play on maximum settings, this is where having a big monitor makes sense.

Thanks a lot for the info abou he VideoSeven. It also makes sense to look for a . 17 ot make better use o the low res graphics.

the opinions of the other guys that it is not a good idea to be picky because crt monitors are rare beasts here in Austria is also a good point.

You have a great point as well asdf53. Researching about different monitors first to avoid getting total dud is also very important. I am ware that getting a proper crt can take some time. I have no issues with being patient.

asdf53 wrote on 2025-05-04, 13:58:

The point isn't so much to wait for a holy grail to pop up, it's to get a general idea of what to look for and what to avoid. I made the mistake of doing no research and ended up with my first CRT being a piece of crap that wasn't fun to use at all. What you can always do is find an okayish CRT for cheap first, and while using that, keep looking out for something that's really good.

The situation is that locally in smallish, developed countries like Austria, there is going to be a very limited supply of CRTs and anything from the Internet is too expensive.

I think ramping yourself with model names and then trying to score a good bid is too rare of an opportunity.

What I believe would be good choice for OP is to see what items can he locally get, and then ask about the monitors involved and fairness of the deal.

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-04, 09:37:

sorry for highjacking the thread op but I have question on that topic and so I can avoid making a new thread.

I also want a crt pc monitor for the perfect retro gaming experience for my voodoo 3 system. I have space enough to accommodate a 19 inch or even larger crt. Do you think it is smart decision to aim for the bigger ones in the first place if I get the chance?

Twice I've had 20/21 inch screens, both times I passed them on pretty quickly. I find they are just too big from an era most people had around 15/17"

Also agree getting something local over anything else. Just about any CRT will be over 20 years old now. So a lightly used cheap brand may well have better image then a Sony, etc with many hours use.

There were a few flat screen CRT TVs that had VGA and component inputs.

However, with current tech you don't necessarily even need a CRT.

Take a look at the RetroTINK. Pricey, but looks very sweet if you have the money to invest in one.
https://www.retrotink.com/

chinny22 wrote on 2025-05-05, 00:17:

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-04, 09:37:

sorry for highjacking the thread op but I have question on that topic and so I can avoid making a new thread.

I also want a crt pc monitor for the perfect retro gaming experience for my voodoo 3 system. I have space enough to accommodate a 19 inch or even larger crt. Do you think it is smart decision to aim for the bigger ones in the first place if I get the chance?

Twice I've had 20/21 inch screens, both times I passed them on pretty quickly. I find they are just too big from an era most people had around 15/17"

Also agree getting something local over anything else. Just about any CRT will be over 20 years old now. So a lightly used cheap brand may well have better image then a Sony, etc with many hours use.

Thanks a lot for sharing your impressions. This makes sense. I halso have to admit that getting a big 20 or 21 crt would be cool but is more wishful thinking than the reality. I am only going to purchase locally and the comen screen sizes available are 15, 17 or 19 inch. And even crts in this sizes are rather rare animals which means I have to be patient.

cyclone3d wrote on 2025-05-05, 01:26:

There were a few flat screen CRT TVs that had VGA and component inputs. […]
Show full quote

There were a few flat screen CRT TVs that had VGA and component inputs.

However, with current tech you don't necessarily even need a CRT.

Take a look at the RetroTINK. Pricey, but looks very sweet if you have the money to invest in one.
https://www.retrotink.com/

Thanks for your reply as well. Actually I already have retro tink 5x. A nice device I use for my retro gaming consoles frequently. It is great device. Using it for my retro pc gaming strives is a nice idea that never crossed my mind.

As an owner of roughly 15 CRT monitors, here's my two cent's worth. 😉

First, consider if you actually even need a CRT. As much as I love using mine and used to avidly recommend CRTs back in the days when you could still get them for free (10+ years ago), I can now see that they are indeed not for everyone. And here are the reasons why:

1) Probably the most important thing that no one seems to mention is that CRTs are a very poor choice for rooms/areas with lots of light (be it natural or artificial light.) This comes from the fact that the glass in CRTs "traps" light from external sources and then re-reflects it back. The result is usually washed-out looking picture/colors and a screen that is very hard to see. Think of the early glossy LCD screens and then make it about 2-3x worse.
So with that said, only consider getting a CRT if you have a dark room to use it in *OR* only if you are okay with using it in the late afternoons / evenings / early mornings before the break of dawn. I do the latter myself (only use my CRTs in the afternoon evening with no lights in the room) and it's a much more satisfying experience. During the day, they are just a pain to use, so I switch to my LCD(s).

2) If #1 is not an issue, then here's another consideration for you: most CRTs are now 20+ years old. At this age, quite a few are getting due for a recap. I opened up a 15" HP built in the early 2001's by a no-so-widely-known Chinese monitor manufacturer, Chunghwa. It was filled with cheap caps, most of which were starting to fail or go out-of-spec. The monitor was still working, but the picture left a lot to be desired. Recapping it fixed some of that (but unfortunately, there was also heavy burn-in on the screen from the monitor being used as a... well... constant app monitor of some sort, likely in an IT environment.) This is not the only example. A lot of my Samsung CRTs are now also starting to "get tired" from all of those years of use and probably will be due for a recap in a few more years, if not sooner.
So in short, it's getting harder and harder nowadays to find a CRT that doesn't or won't need any kind of maintenance soon. Getting a NOS (new old stock) monitor also might not necessarily avert any of that, since electrolytic caps just sitting without use still ages them (in some cases worse than if they are used.) On the other hand, you have to be careful with used monitors too, since they could have heavy burn-in or possibly too many power-on hours and parts (caps) getting tired inside. And lastly, even if the monitor is perfectly functional, beware that its plastics might also be on the virge of collapse. Two years ago when I was moving and packing my CRTs, I put a huge hole through the side of the case on one of my 19" CRTs. For many years, I had noticed that this monitor was starting to develop cracks around the screen bezzle, thinking it was just something cosmetic. Turns out, the ABS plastic on the case had become very brittle. Even though I picked up and boxed the CRT properly, just exerting the smallest of tension on the side wall of the case made the plastic break. So that's another thing to beware about some CRTs - their cases may be getting very brittle.
All of these are reasons I always recommend to get monitors locally so that you can see in what condition they are in.
TLDR: if you can have a CRT monitor demonstrated in front of you before you buy it, that's the best way to proceed. Otherwise, getting a monitor that was just briefly tested to power on or without seeing how the picture looks on it in use (e.g. in Windows or games) could mask any issues the monitor might have. And if you get something like that, there's a good chance it will need work done to it soon. For people with electronics repair experience, these are usually relatively easy to refurbish (except for a worn tube.) But for non-technical people, they'll be stuck with either a non-working or poorly working monitor. So that's another reason why I say CRTs are not for everyone.

retep_110 wrote on 2025-05-02, 08:13:

Which screen size would you recommend for gaming?

For DOS gaming, 15" to 17" max.
For late 90's and early 2000's games, 17" will do.
For late 2000's and early 2010's (if you go that far), 17" could still do OK, but a 19" will likely be better.
For (relatively) modern gaming (i.e. eSports like Rocket League, CS2, GTAV, Fortnite, etc.), probably a 19 or 21" to handle higher resolutions and refresh rates better... though I can't say I recommend CRTs for modern gaming too much, since many games' POV is usually more optimized for widescreen.

My personal opinion is that a late (late 90's to early 2000's) 17" is probably the best compromise between all of the sizes. It should be able to handle decent refresh rates (75+ Hz) at 1024x768 and sometimes even at the "higher" resolutions (i.e. 1152x864 and 1280x960.) Same goes for 19" CRTs. But if you play more games from the 90's, especially at 800x600 and below, then a 19" would be a bit of waste. In fact, if all you want to do is DOS and late 90's gaming, a late 15" would likely meet all your needs.

retep_110 wrote on 2025-05-02, 08:13:

And which crt models would you guys consider worth checking out?

Anything that you can see working. 😀

Well, Dell, HP, SGI, and IBM from the late 90's and early 2000's is usually a pretty safe bet. These companies re-branded CRTs from known good tube manufacturers like Sony, Samsung, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, LG, Phillips, and NEC. Of course, any monitors from these manufacturers directly (i.e. Sony, Samsung, and etc.) is also a pretty safe bet. Sony and Hitachi in particular have superb built quality, normally due to using Japanese electrolytic capacitors, so they tend to last longer at least in that area.

That said, I do have some models of CRTs that you should AVOID:
Sony GDM-FW900 - yes, the legendary 24" widescreen CRT that everyone seems to praise (mostly people who haven't owned one or for too long) and think these are great. Reality check: they are not. They have many issues. Probably the worst one is that the picture tube in these is actually very prone to going defective and loosing vacuum over time. Happens frequently enough that I've seen just about as many out there with failed tubes as with working ones (and I have one failed myself.) If that's not the case, their screen AR coating is susceptible to developing "cataracts" - spots where the AR coating is starting to flake off or lift up, causing a slightly hue-y image. Then there's the "over-brightness" problems on these, stemming from an MCU-controlled G2 rail that keeps cranking itself up and up. The fix for that one is to connect the monitor to a special serial-to-TTL jig interface and fix the issue with WinDAS software (the Sony software that can tweak options within the monitor's firmware.) And to top it all off, there is a self-biasing circuit on the RGB cut-off amp that makes the monitor colors really washed out at startup. Removing/disabling this circuit and then tweaking/fixing the G2 overbrightness issue is the correct way to go about these, which even most CRT service experts don't know about. So not exactly a friendly monitor to use as-is.

That said, all of the above issue extend to many of the late Sony-built 21" CRT monitors (except the issue with the tube loosing vacuum.) Thus, contrary to what was said here about Sony Trinitron monitors being "the best", I would say to generally avoid post-2000's 21" Sony Trinitron or any other brand that uses these (e.g. Dell P1110 and IBM P260, to name a few)... basically anything based on the CPD-G500 chassis. I don't remember if the post 2000's 17" and 19" Trinitrons had these issues though. In any case, my observation has been that Trinitron CRTs with the completely flat screens (post 2000's) are not that great compared to their older vertically-flat siblings from the late 90's. I like the picture quality on my D1626HS a lot more than on my E540 (both are 21" CRTs, but former is from '98 or '99 and latter is from 02 or 03, IIRC.) The E540 is not from the CPD-G500 chassis, IIRC, but it also has the over-brightness / washed out colors at startup issue. The D1626HS does not and looks good. That said, both have mediocre contrast... and no way to fix it (I've tried all kinds of adjustments and settings, but got to the conclusion that the RGB amp circuit design is just the limit here on both.)

On that note, here is another observation of mine that might be worthwhile to consider:
Bigger CRT screens tend to have worse contrast.
What I mean by this is that the range of brightness between full black and full white levels is much smaller on the larger CRTs (particularly the 21" screens) than on the smaller CRT tubes. Let me give an example here: on my D1626HT, if I turn down the brightness so that full black starts to become truly black (i.e. cannot see anything on the screen even in a completely dark room), then full white becomes rather dull and not very bright. And if I crank the brightness up to make full white nice and bright, then the full black level looks kind washed out. In other words, I can never have both - something that is also an issue on my E540, GDM-FW900, and many other 21" CRTs I have used (even non-Sony brands too... though it's probably the worst on late Sony CRTs for whatever reason.) This is not so much the case if I go down in size to 19" CRTs, both for Sony and other brands as well. Most of my 19" CRTs can have near perfect black levels while maintaining really good and bright white levels - i.e. a picture with really good contrast. And if I go further down to 17", I can have pitch-black black levels and retina-burning white levels at the same time, further boosting the contrast.
With that said, if you want to experience more cinematic gaming, I'd say don't go further than a 19". Better yet, 17" screens are even more likely to give better contrast, so that's another reason to consider these (in addition to being more abundant, easier to find, and usually cheaper too.)

The only weaker side of 17" CRTs is that they don't usually look good/sharp past 1152x864. For some, even 1024x768 can be a stretch (e.g. NEC "Chromaclear" tubes, which is a hybrid between shadow mask and apperture grille, with pros and cons from both.) Though I do have one that looks acceptably sharp at 1280x960 - a 17" Dell M782 (Samsung rebrand). I prefer to use it at 1152x864 @ 75 Hz, though. Looks OK at that resolution even with some modern-ish games (GTA:V). Actually more than OK. And Half-Life 2 and most Source -based games are perfect.

On my 19" CRTs, I usually do 1280x960 (@ 75 or 85 Hz) at the most. Some of them are capable of 1600x1200, but don't really look that sharp. If I play with custom resolutions, 1440x1050 is about as high as some of my best shadow mask tubes will look good. All in all, though, I'm not a fan of pushing the highest resolution on a CRT. Better off using a lower resolution and a higher refresh rate than the other way around... though I don't usually go past 85 Hz either.

dionb wrote on 2025-05-03, 10:51:

Tbh, unless you live in some paradise with huge diversity of monitors available in good state for an acceptable price, it's not that useful to choose the 'best' first and the try to find it. Much better to look at what is available and choose the best match

Agreed.
Just see what you can get locally, get it, try it, and if you don't like it, sell it off and try something else.
If you're OK with doing or have done electronics repairs, don't be afraid to look into any broken / non-working monitors either.
The last "decent" CRT I picked up was a 19" Illaiyama for $5 locally due to being non-functional. Ended up needing a new HOT and a recap.... mostly just repetitive work and not something that required a lot of proprietary tools or extensive electronics knowledge. Board was a breeze to work on even with a cheapo soldering iron.

Momoka Thanks a lot for your detailed report about crt gaming.I have already though about many things you have mentioned. being patent to find something locally is the most important thing. It also makes senes to f ocus on 17 or 19 inch crts with 17 inch crts being the sweet spot. I have also checked out some past selling offers and most of the crts were between 17 to 19 inch. It seems hard to get some bigger crts locally. But that is not a big problem I will stick to the 17 and 19 inch models like you have recommended.

Is BenQ also a good brand you would recommend?

momaka wrote on 2025-05-05, 13:03:

As an owner of roughly 15 CRT monitors, here's my two cent's worth. ;) […]
Show full quote

As an owner of roughly 15 CRT monitors, here's my two cent's worth. 😉

First, consider if you actually even need a CRT. As much as I love using mine and used to avidly recommend CRTs back in the days when you could still get them for free (10+ years ago), I can now see that they are indeed not for everyone. And here are the reasons why:

1) Probably the most important thing that no one seems to mention is that CRTs are a very poor choice for rooms/areas with lots of light (be it natural or artificial light.) This comes from the fact that the glass in CRTs "traps" light from external sources and then re-reflects it back. The result is usually washed-out looking picture/colors and a screen that is very hard to see. Think of the early glossy LCD screens and then make it about 2-3x worse.
So with that said, only consider getting a CRT if you have a dark room to use it in *OR* only if you are okay with using it in the late afternoons / evenings / early mornings before the break of dawn. I do the latter myself (only use my CRTs in the afternoon evening with no lights in the room) and it's a much more satisfying experience. During the day, they are just a pain to use, so I switch to my LCD(s).

2) If #1 is not an issue, then here's another consideration for you: most CRTs are now 20+ years old. At this age, quite a few are getting due for a recap. I opened up a 15" HP built in the early 2001's by a no-so-widely-known Chinese monitor manufacturer, Chunghwa. It was filled with cheap caps, most of which were starting to fail or go out-of-spec. The monitor was still working, but the picture left a lot to be desired. Recapping it fixed some of that (but unfortunately, there was also heavy burn-in on the screen from the monitor being used as a... well... constant app monitor of some sort, likely in an IT environment.) This is not the only example. A lot of my Samsung CRTs are now also starting to "get tired" from all of those years of use and probably will be due for a recap in a few more years, if not sooner.
So in short, it's getting harder and harder nowadays to find a CRT that doesn't or won't need any kind of maintenance soon. Getting a NOS (new old stock) monitor also might not necessarily avert any of that, since electrolytic caps just sitting without use still ages them (in some cases worse than if they are used.) On the other hand, you have to be careful with used monitors too, since they could have heavy burn-in or possibly too many power-on hours and parts (caps) getting tired inside. And lastly, even if the monitor is perfectly functional, beware that its plastics might also be on the virge of collapse. Two years ago when I was moving and packing my CRTs, I put a huge hole through the side of the case on one of my 19" CRTs. For many years, I had noticed that this monitor was starting to develop cracks around the screen bezzle, thinking it was just something cosmetic. Turns out, the ABS plastic on the case had become very brittle. Even though I picked up and boxed the CRT properly, just exerting the smallest of tension on the side wall of the case made the plastic break. So that's another thing to beware about some CRTs - their cases may be getting very brittle.
All of these are reasons I always recommend to get monitors locally so that you can see in what condition they are in.
TLDR: if you can have a CRT monitor demonstrated in front of you before you buy it, that's the best way to proceed. Otherwise, getting a monitor that was just briefly tested to power on or without seeing how the picture looks on it in use (e.g. in Windows or games) could mask any issues the monitor might have. And if you get something like that, there's a good chance it will need work done to it soon. For people with electronics repair experience, these are usually relatively easy to refurbish (except for a worn tube.) But for non-technical people, they'll be stuck with either a non-working or poorly working monitor. So that's another reason why I say CRTs are not for everyone.

retep_110 wrote on 2025-05-02, 08:13:

Which screen size would you recommend for gaming?

For DOS gaming, 15" to 17" max.
For late 90's and early 2000's games, 17" will do.
For late 2000's and early 2010's (if you go that far), 17" could still do OK, but a 19" will likely be better.
For (relatively) modern gaming (i.e. eSports like Rocket League, CS2, GTAV, Fortnite, etc.), probably a 19 or 21" to handle higher resolutions and refresh rates better... though I can't say I recommend CRTs for modern gaming too much, since many games' POV is usually more optimized for widescreen.

My personal opinion is that a late (late 90's to early 2000's) 17" is probably the best compromise between all of the sizes. It should be able to handle decent refresh rates (75+ Hz) at 1024x768 and sometimes even at the "higher" resolutions (i.e. 1152x864 and 1280x960.) Same goes for 19" CRTs. But if you play more games from the 90's, especially at 800x600 and below, then a 19" would be a bit of waste. In fact, if all you want to do is DOS and late 90's gaming, a late 15" would likely meet all your needs.

retep_110 wrote on 2025-05-02, 08:13:

And which crt models would you guys consider worth checking out?

Anything that you can see working. 😀

Well, Dell, HP, SGI, and IBM from the late 90's and early 2000's is usually a pretty safe bet. These companies re-branded CRTs from known good tube manufacturers like Sony, Samsung, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, LG, Phillips, and NEC. Of course, any monitors from these manufacturers directly (i.e. Sony, Samsung, and etc.) is also a pretty safe bet. Sony and Hitachi in particular have superb built quality, normally due to using Japanese electrolytic capacitors, so they tend to last longer at least in that area.

That said, I do have some models of CRTs that you should AVOID:
Sony GDM-FW900 - yes, the legendary 24" widescreen CRT that everyone seems to praise (mostly people who haven't owned one or for too long) and think these are great. Reality check: they are not. They have many issues. Probably the worst one is that the picture tube in these is actually very prone to going defective and loosing vacuum over time. Happens frequently enough that I've seen just about as many out there with failed tubes as with working ones (and I have one failed myself.) If that's not the case, their screen AR coating is susceptible to developing "cataracts" - spots where the AR coating is starting to flake off or lift up, causing a slightly hue-y image. Then there's the "over-brightness" problems on these, stemming from an MCU-controlled G2 rail that keeps cranking itself up and up. The fix for that one is to connect the monitor to a special serial-to-TTL jig interface and fix the issue with WinDAS software (the Sony software that can tweak options within the monitor's firmware.) And to top it all off, there is a self-biasing circuit on the RGB cut-off amp that makes the monitor colors really washed out at startup. Removing/disabling this circuit and then tweaking/fixing the G2 overbrightness issue is the correct way to go about these, which even most CRT service experts don't know about. So not exactly a friendly monitor to use as-is.

That said, all of the above issue extend to many of the late Sony-built 21" CRT monitors (except the issue with the tube loosing vacuum.) Thus, contrary to what was said here about Sony Trinitron monitors being "the best", I would say to generally avoid post-2000's 21" Sony Trinitron or any other brand that uses these (e.g. Dell P1110 and IBM P260, to name a few)... basically anything based on the CPD-G500 chassis. I don't remember if the post 2000's 17" and 19" Trinitrons had these issues though. In any case, my observation has been that Trinitron CRTs with the completely flat screens (post 2000's) are not that great compared to their older vertically-flat siblings from the late 90's. I like the picture quality on my D1626HS a lot more than on my E540 (both are 21" CRTs, but former is from '98 or '99 and latter is from 02 or 03, IIRC.) The E540 is not from the CPD-G500 chassis, IIRC, but it also has the over-brightness / washed out colors at startup issue. The D1626HS does not and looks good. That said, both have mediocre contrast... and no way to fix it (I've tried all kinds of adjustments and settings, but got to the conclusion that the RGB amp circuit design is just the limit here on both.)

On that note, here is another observation of mine that might be worthwhile to consider:
Bigger CRT screens tend to have worse contrast.
What I mean by this is that the range of brightness between full black and full white levels is much smaller on the larger CRTs (particularly the 21" screens) than on the smaller CRT tubes. Let me give an example here: on my D1626HT, if I turn down the brightness so that full black starts to become truly black (i.e. cannot see anything on the screen even in a completely dark room), then full white becomes rather dull and not very bright. And if I crank the brightness up to make full white nice and bright, then the full black level looks kind washed out. In other words, I can never have both - something that is also an issue on my E540, GDM-FW900, and many other 21" CRTs I have used (even non-Sony brands too... though it's probably the worst on late Sony CRTs for whatever reason.) This is not so much the case if I go down in size to 19" CRTs, both for Sony and other brands as well. Most of my 19" CRTs can have near perfect black levels while maintaining really good and bright white levels - i.e. a picture with really good contrast. And if I go further down to 17", I can have pitch-black black levels and retina-burning white levels at the same time, further boosting the contrast.
With that said, if you want to experience more cinematic gaming, I'd say don't go further than a 19". Better yet, 17" screens are even more likely to give better contrast, so that's another reason to consider these (in addition to being more abundant, easier to find, and usually cheaper too.)

The only weaker side of 17" CRTs is that they don't usually look good/sharp past 1152x864. For some, even 1024x768 can be a stretch (e.g. NEC "Chromaclear" tubes, which is a hybrid between shadow mask and apperture grille, with pros and cons from both.) Though I do have one that looks acceptably sharp at 1280x960 - a 17" Dell M782 (Samsung rebrand). I prefer to use it at 1152x864 @ 75 Hz, though. Looks OK at that resolution even with some modern-ish games (GTA:V). Actually more than OK. And Half-Life 2 and most Source -based games are perfect.

On my 19" CRTs, I usually do 1280x960 (@ 75 or 85 Hz) at the most. Some of them are capable of 1600x1200, but don't really look that sharp. If I play with custom resolutions, 1440x1050 is about as high as some of my best shadow mask tubes will look good. All in all, though, I'm not a fan of pushing the highest resolution on a CRT. Better off using a lower resolution and a higher refresh rate than the other way around... though I don't usually go past 85 Hz either.

dionb wrote on 2025-05-03, 10:51:

Tbh, unless you live in some paradise with huge diversity of monitors available in good state for an acceptable price, it's not that useful to choose the 'best' first and the try to find it. Much better to look at what is available and choose the best match

Agreed.
Just see what you can get locally, get it, try it, and if you don't like it, sell it off and try something else.
If you're OK with doing or have done electronics repairs, don't be afraid to look into any broken / non-working monitors either.
The last "decent" CRT I picked up was a 19" Illaiyama for $5 locally due to being non-functional. Ended up needing a new HOT and a recap.... mostly just repetitive work and not something that required a lot of proprietary tools or extensive electronics knowledge. Board was a breeze to work on even with a cheapo soldering iron.

From me also a big thanks for the detailed essay about crt monitor. Many points were not clear to me, for example, the brightness. But that's not a big problem as I'm playing in a dark room. I also didn't know that I should be careful with larger monitors. That's why I'd rather stick to the 17 to 19 inch range. There are many nice in this segment.

I have to patient until I can find one in my area. Doing a business trip to bigger city in 2 weeks though. And according to some trade platforms they have some philips and samsung synchmaster crt monitor. I might check them out after I am done with the working part of the trip.

My pleasure, fellas! 😀

Yeah, I'm quite an avid CRT user and always love sharing anything I know about them.

retep_110 wrote on 2025-05-05, 15:41:

I have also checked out some past selling offers and most of the crts were between 17 to 19 inch. It seems hard to get some bigger crts locally. But that is not a big problem I will stick to the 17 and 19 inch models like you have recommended.

Well, if you can find any 19" screens for a decent price, definitely grab them, even if you don't plan to do that much more "modern" (relatively speaking) gaming on them. These are getting harder and harder to find as time goes by. Meanwhile, 17" CRTs still seem to be easy to find where I live and in general in many other places too (at least compared to larger CRTs.) Otherwise 17" is probably indeed the sweet spot. The other notable difference between the two is that 19" CRTs usually tend to be "semi-pro" -oriented, meaning they usually have more options in terms of controlling picture settings. 17" CRTs tend to be more basic in that regard and may not offer too many advanced options, particularly for adjusting the color temperature and "curves". But depending on the GPU you end up using (and the driver version), a lot of that can be corrected in software, so not an overly-huge deal.

retep_110 wrote on 2025-05-05, 15:41:

Is BenQ also a good brand you would recommend?

Yes, BenQ should be pretty good.
I say *should*, because that's one of the few brands I have not had the opportunity to deal with. I don't know if they make their own hardware or re-brand someone else's monitors (I suspect they might be LG underneath... or perhaps NEC?) FWIW, BenQ made many LCDs for Dell in the mid-late 2000's, and these had really solid color performance. So they are a pretty serious brand in general.

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-05, 18:40:

I have to patient until I can find one in my area. Doing a business trip to bigger city in 2 weeks though. And according to some trade platforms they have some philips and samsung synchmaster crt monitor. I might check them out after I am done with the working part of the trip.

Samsung Syncmasters are usually pretty good stuff (any size). Just make sure to check in person, preferably with a signal if possible. Some, like my 955DF, had improper G2 adjustement from the factory, being a little too bright even at zero brightness (basically, I can never get it to display pitch-black.) But otherwise it's a great monitor with really good contrast. Unfortunately, I cannot adjust the G2, since it requires Samsungs special SoftJig tool and interface (IIRC, there were some schematics of that on the internet.) Being stuck brighter, I relegated this one as the one and only monitor I can actually use during the day in a light room and still be able to see it properly, so it's not all bad. On the other hand, my Dell M782 (also a Samsung Syncmaster underneath) had proper brightness levels and looks downright amazing, despite using a completely flat tube. I actually have quite the experience with these Dell M782 monitors. I used to volunteer in the IT dept. of a local non-profit and they had about 40 PCs on the floor. From these, about 15-20 were these M782's. I was able to set every one of them to have great colors and contrast. Sadly, this was back in the 2010's and all of these were thrown away to be replaced with 19" widescreen CRTs. The worst part is that I was tasked with doing this and I did it too. Looking back, I wish I took some of these home (boss would have allowed it and even asked me several times.)
Among the rest of these 40 monitors, a big number were also Dell E771p / E772p (17" Phillips underneath) and E773c (17" Chunghwa). I have one sample from the last one (E773c) - nice picture, despite the cheaper tier Chinese picture tube. PSU has cheap brand of caps, though, so I expect it will need a recap probably not too far into the future. Having low number of power-on hours probably has helped it. The Philips rebrands also had pretty good picture, though would look a little soft on the focus if I cranked up their contrast too high. On the other hand, I could really really crank up the contrast and brightness to "stupid levels" on these, making for an incredibly cool cinematic experience.

Speaking of Philips CRTs, be careful with some of them. I don't remember which series from the 107 model line were affected, but IIRC, a few were prone to developing shorts in their flyback transformers (I'll need to dig a bit on badcaps.net, as there was one user there many years ago who posted about the issue and then a number of people chimed in to confirm they had seen this model of Philips with issues.) But apart from that, I'd say Philips are OK overall. The one pro of the Philips over the Samsung monitors is that Philips CRTs tend to have a simpler design with the G2 rail usually being adjustable via a pot. On Samsungs, as mentioned above, it can only be done through software... and worse off, it's not well-documented like it is with Sony CRTs.

So TLDR: Samsung CRTs are great if you get a working one that doesn't need any kind of (serious) adjustment to the picture... and most will be that way. But just beware and bring a laptop with VGA port with you, if possible, to test it out.

Be careful with generalizations about brands. Almost all brands had low-end and high-end lines. Take Philips for example - their P-series were really good, their T and B-series so-so and their E-series were downright cheap rubbish - and that was when new. I'm also not sure which line had the bad flybacks, but that could well be a second axis of quality and might affect the (in terms of specs) good ones. So I'd recommend always looking into the specific model, regardless of the brand reputation.

chinny22 wrote on 2025-05-05, 00:17:

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-04, 09:37:

sorry for highjacking the thread op but I have question on that topic and so I can avoid making a new thread.

I also want a crt pc monitor for the perfect retro gaming experience for my voodoo 3 system. I have space enough to accommodate a 19 inch or even larger crt. Do you think it is smart decision to aim for the bigger ones in the first place if I get the chance?

Twice I've had 20/21 inch screens, both times I passed them on pretty quickly. I find they are just too big from an era most people had around 15/17"

Also agree getting something local over anything else. Just about any CRT will be over 20 years old now. So a lightly used cheap brand may well have better image then a Sony, etc with many hours use.

I've got a larger G500 monitor and I'm okay with it , its nice having more viewing space , though a big issue with the screen was carrying it up the steps , the behemoth nearly broke my back(weighs like 30 something odd kg).

Also i needed a screen that was suitable for later stuff too , and while using a 21 inch flat screen for DOS is a bit strange ill admit , i can also use it on a win 98 system as well via kvm with the resolution cranked up.

So i had to compromise somewhere.

But yeah as to the OPs question go with something cheap and available to start with then maybe get something better later once you've decided that you enjoy actually having a crt.

Thanks a lot for providing additional information. It was my plan too to test monitors beforce purchasing. @momoka.

quote=dionb post_id=1349546 time=1746491748 user_id=37143]
Be careful with generalizations about brands. Almost all brands had low-end and high-end lines. Take Philips for example - their P-series were really good, their T and B-series so-so and their E-series were downright cheap rubbish - and that was when new. I'm also not sure which line had the bad flybacks, but that could well be a second axis of quality and might affect the (in terms of specs) good ones. So I'd recommend always looking into the specific model, regardless of the brand reputation.
[/quote]

A sound advice. Unfortunately some sellers are not very speficic about the model. They just call it philips crt monitor 17 inch for example. I agree that evey brand has good and bad series. Philips is no exepction to this rule. Philips was the go brand for TVS in the 90s and one phillips was rather bad while the other lasted over 10 years before it was replaced with lcd tv. it was still working then.

Maybe I can try to find out the model number when checking out the picture of the monitor.

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-06, 06:13:

Maybe I can try to find out the model number when checking out the picture of the monitor.

Google image search is a really good tool for that. In 80% of cases, you can find out which model a monitor is by searching for the photo.

Also, check out this video by Tech Tangents to get an idea how a worn out CRT vs. new CRT looks: https://youtu.be/q3NQQ7bPf6U?t=1842
The one on the right (Hyundai) is a relatively cheap model I think, but look how bright and vibrant it still is compared to the other two. If you can test the monitor in person, turn up the contrast to the maximum setting, this will allow you to judge the condition of the tube.

asdf53 wrote on 2025-05-06, 08:26:

Google image search is a really good tool for that. In 80% of cases, you can find out which model a monitor is by searching for […]
Show full quote

predator_085 wrote on 2025-05-06, 06:13:

Maybe I can try to find out the model number when checking out the picture of the monitor.

Google image search is a really good tool for that. In 80% of cases, you can find out which model a monitor is by searching for the photo.

Also, check out this video by Tech Tangents to get an idea of how a worn-out CRT vs. new CRT looks: https://youtu.be/q3NQQ7bPf6U?t=1842
The one on the right (Hyundai) is a relatively cheap model I think, but look how bright and vibrant it still is compared to the other two. If you can test the monitor in person, turn up the contrast to the maximum setting, this will allow you to judge the condition of the tube.

Yes google image search should help me to inditfy the various monitors. That is great advice. I will also check out the video you have posted to learn more about the different aspects of crts.

It is good to see that the thread provided some more information. I could not find any of the recommended brands as of now but I was able to find monitor at last. I will check out a LG 702BE monitor next monday near me.

cyclone3d wrote on 2025-05-05, 01:26:

There were a few flat screen CRT TVs that had VGA and component inputs. […]
Show full quote

There were a few flat screen CRT TVs that had VGA and component inputs.

However, with current tech you don't necessarily even need a CRT.

Take a look at the RetroTINK. Pricey, but looks very sweet if you have the money to invest in one.
https://www.retrotink.com/

Compared to North America, VGA capability for TVs was probably much more common in Europe (at least in German speaking areas). Unlike in NA, there were barely any HD CRT models released, instead all the top brands offered if not switched to 100hz TVs in the 2000s for anything over 20". Some of these brands (e.g. Grundig) offered VGA on their TVs, though not for all models. There were add-on cards available.
Metz TVs are a special case, because they accept VGA via SCART input with slighly altered pins. Nowadays should be easy to get the cable or make yourself.
These type of TVs should be more available than bigger monitors (maybe even more than the relatively common 19").
Of course they are also not as nearly as capable - best you can hope for is 800x600 (unless you use interlace, which is probably not looking very good).
70Hz compatibility is at least a possibility. The Orion model here demonstrates it.
There's a bit of a lack of documentation/user experience reports for gaming with these types of sets.

The sad reality is that most monitors sold even in the 90's were cheap mass-produced garbage. A common end result of this was that larger monitors tended to have a blurry image at their advertised ideal resolution, regardless of the video card that they were paired with.

Don't be surprised if you find plenty of 17" screens that only look very clear at 800x600 (or lower) resolution and can maybe stretch to a 75~85 Hz refresh. This isn't bad for DOS, but if you intend to do mixed desktop-use and DOS-/Windows-gaming it suddenly starts to matter. A 19" or larger monitor is a hunk of junk if you can only go up to 1024x768 with a good image. A really good 17" will do 1600x1200 and still give you plenty of refresh.

With this in mind, look at the damn thing and try to figure out if it's in good condition. My favorite tells for monitor abuse are strongly yellowed plastics (means the owner let it sit in direct sunlight) and the fact that you have no reserve in contrast or brightness. If you kept your monitor in a properly lit environment, you didn't have to dial everything to 100 or close, and the image would have still been acceptable. A monitor that's been run at near-full brightness and contrast will now appear not to have enough of either, and will typically have a pale gray-whitish tint when things are supposed to be black. Ew.

Let your eyes guide you, don't spend too much time reading reviews for 30+-year old stuff.

Many others have mentioned sticking to good brands which is solid, I'd can't recommend going too big on a monitor. 25ish years ago I had a 20" inch syncmaster which was great except it was enormous and had significant weight. At a certain point these things become unwieldy if you need to move them frequently.