songoffall wrote on 2025-07-18, 07:06:

I got a Samsung SyncMaster first, it's a shadow mask display, a normal 2000s workhorse monitor. It's very good. Required some repairs and readjustments and finding the repair manual turned out to be impossible, but it is a very good monitor.

I have one of those as well. Bought it back in 2005, and it has a really nice picture. The problem is, it keeps breaking down. Previously, it developed an issue where the red color was entirely missing (showed up as black) and I had it serviced several years ago. But recently, it started randomly narrowing the picture horizontally, resulting in a sort of flicker, which makes it practically unusable. Unfortunately, the local TV repair shop that I had used in the past no longer accepts monitors. And my repair skills aren't good enough that I would trust myself with opening a CRT, so it's sitting in storage for now.

That said, while I do see the appeal of CRTs, especially for DOS gaming and Win9x titles which only use a fixed resolution (e.g. StarCraft) I've gotten used to LCDs over time. Nowadays, I play most Win9x and WinXP games at 1600x1200 on my 24" ASUS ProArt PA248QV, and they look great. Obviously, the blacks aren't as deep as they would be on a CRT, and the motion clarity isn't as good, but otherwise the image is pretty nice.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-07-18, 07:21:

songoffall wrote on 2025-07-18, 07:06:

I got a Samsung SyncMaster first, it's a shadow mask display, a normal 2000s workhorse monitor. It's very good. Required some repairs and readjustments and finding the repair manual turned out to be impossible, but it is a very good monitor.

I have one of those as well. Bought it back in 2005, and it has a really nice picture. The problem is, it keeps breaking down. Previously, it developed an issue where the red color was entirely missing (showed up as black) and I had it serviced several years ago. But recently, it started randomly narrowing the picture horizontally, resulting in a sort of flicker, which makes it practically unusable. Unfortunately, the local TV repair shop that I had used in the past no longer accepts monitors. And my repair skills aren't good enough that I would trust myself with opening a CRT, so it's sitting in storage for now.

That said, while I do see the appeal of CRTs, especially for DOS gaming and Win9x titles which only use a fixed resolution (e.g. StarCraft) I've gotten used to LCDs over time. Nowadays, I play most Win9x and WinXP games at 1600x1200 on my 24" ASUS ProArt PA248QV, and they look great. Obviously, the blacks aren't as deep as they would be on a CRT, and the motion clarity isn't as good, but otherwise the image is pretty nice.

I shocked a few people yesterday when I told them the resolution they were playing at was actually 800:600 😀) sadly, with my builds, 1600x1200 is not a resolution I can realistically play at, say, on a Pentium 3 with a Voodoo 3 3000 😀) if I were patching games to work on modern systems, that would be viable. IPS fixed a lot of issues old LCDs had, same as TFT and active matrix did.

It's sad that the TV repair shop has stopped servicing CRTs, I have to do my own repairs these days and I'd say the hardest part with CRTs is disassembly-reassembly - the PCB layouts are pretty straightforward and there aren't many small or SMD components inside. Also safety - the high voltage components need to be properly discharged, least they give you a nasty shock. But that's true for all high voltage devices that have a power supply and large filtering caps inside.

I have a few CRT monitors, mono (green and amber) and color, but some at storage site rather then in use. All but one I got for free so I don't mind any issues they have like yellowish case, I did clean them (both outside and inside) and tweaked the CRT settings (G2, cathode biases) since some are tired by now. In the end all are still giving acceptable (or even better) picture in typical indoor daylight conditions.

I have color 15" monitors, I wouldn't mind a 14" either. It's not something I would want to work with daily, eyesight not getting any better with age, but old games using 320x200 resolution are just not looking right on much bigger screens. And there's the nostalgia factor obviously. For anything 1024x768 or higher I'd use 17" CRT I have, a very nice and compact Hyundai Q770, and starting with Win2k and later it's LCD territory.

The good: CRT, obviously. It just looks different than pixel-perfect fully digital monitors, scanline filters and such are nice but never 100% true to original. And the colors, the CRTs just had different and some older ones can have a really big difference in red for example, it was more white-washed so the games that used 16 color dithering can look very different.
The bad: Also CRT. Small, somewhat fuzzy if the dot pitch is poor - depends on resolution obviously, 800x600 might already be pushing the limit. And the refresh rates which tire the eyes. Though again, these are not supposed to be used daily for hours.
The ugly: Weak CRTs, failing flyback transformers, size, weight, and potential repairs required to get the monitor working at all. These days you have to do it all yourself, nobody else will - at least not in the price range most people would find acceptable, not to mention any required transport costs. To be quite frank nobody these days even knows how to transport a CRT properly without breaking the tube, or the case. Nobody gives a damn either. You can't even pay people to do it right unless you do it yourself, except (maybe) if it came with the original packaging and box.

All in all it's fun, and I agree that hunting down a very specific trinitron CRT is not the way to go about it. If I had to pick one due to size/space/cost I'd look for 17" or late 15" SVGA with still bright tube and sharp picture. Earlier 14" and 15" will be much more limited in refresh rates but on the other hand are usually also easier to repair and source parts. 19" is too big and bulky, doesn't offer anything that 17" would not and still holds no candle to modern LCD or OLED.

songoffall wrote on 2025-07-18, 07:06:

Having a good CRT gaming experience is not expensive, unless you make it expensive. You can chase that particular legendary Trinitron you heard about on a Youtube video, and I did that too in the beginning, but trust me, all you're doing is gatekeeping yourself.

Local availability plays a big factor in this. If you're fortunate enough to have options then that is something one can take advantage of.

CRTs are rare where I live, which limits options and drives up prices even for less desirable monitors.

And as CRTs are no longer produced, there will only be less of them, so if it can be repaired, it is always worth repairing. You'd be surprised how much better those old beasts get after a recap and a recalibration.

Glass polishing as well. I've had monitors where the anti-glare starts to flake off. While polishing to remove it does make the monitor more reflective, it can result in a nice looking image in a dark room.

Deunan wrote on 2025-07-18, 11:40:

I have a few CRT monitors, mono (green and amber) and color, but some at storage site rather then in use. All but one I got for free so I don't mind any issues they have like yellowish case, I did clean them (both outside and inside) and tweaked the CRT settings (G2, cathode biases) since some are tired by now. In the end all are still giving acceptable (or even better) picture in typical indoor daylight conditions.

I miss those old mono monitors, if you focused them properly, the image was quite sharp, and there's something about long persistence phosphorus on green ones that makes DOS that much more pleasant to deal with. Especially with a Hercules-capable display adapter.

Deunan wrote on 2025-07-18, 11:40:

I have color 15" monitors, I wouldn't mind a 14" either. It's not something I would want to work with daily, eyesight not getting any better with age, but old games using 320x200 resolution are just not looking right on much bigger screens. And there's the nostalgia factor obviously. For anything 1024x768 or higher I'd use 17" CRT I have, a very nice and compact Hyundai Q770, and starting with Win2k and later it's LCD territory.

15'' I think is the optimal size for DOS games, and 17'' - for Windows 98-era stuff. Larger monitors could be nice, but the size of the monitor chassis grows a lot compared to gains in screen size. I remember seeing a 21'' CRT once, it was more or less the size of an average TV of the time.

Deunan wrote on 2025-07-18, 11:40:

The good: CRT, obviously. It just looks different than pixel-perfect fully digital monitors, scanline filters and such are nice […]
Show full quote

The good: CRT, obviously. It just looks different than pixel-perfect fully digital monitors, scanline filters and such are nice but never 100% true to original. And the colors, the CRTs just had different and some older ones can have a really big difference in red for example, it was more white-washed so the games that used 16 color dithering can look very different.
The bad: Also CRT. Small, somewhat fuzzy if the dot pitch is poor - depends on resolution obviously, 800x600 might already be pushing the limit. And the refresh rates which tire the eyes. Though again, these are not supposed to be used daily for hours.
The ugly: Weak CRTs, failing flyback transformers, size, weight, and potential repairs required to get the monitor working at all. These days you have to do it all yourself, nobody else will - at least not in the price range most people would find acceptable, not to mention any required transport costs. To be quite frank nobody these days even knows how to transport a CRT properly without breaking the tube, or the case. Nobody gives a damn either. You can't even pay people to do it right unless you do it yourself, except (maybe) if it came with the original packaging and box.

All in all it's fun, and I agree that hunting down a very specific trinitron CRT is not the way to go about it. If I had to pick one due to size/space/cost I'd look for 17" or late 15" SVGA with still bright tube and sharp picture. Earlier 14" and 15" will be much more limited in refresh rates but on the other hand are usually also easier to repair and source parts. 19" is too big and bulky, doesn't offer anything that 17" would not and still holds no candle to modern LCD or OLED.

Totally agree.

I always liked the viewsonics. They made really good monitors.

I think I recall they made a 23”?

I’m on the look out for a 21” trinitron currently or any 22-23” for that matter.

CRT's are nice and fully admit they really help to complete the authentic feel but they take up too much desk space for my setups.
Due to practically I use and have a small stockpile of 5:4 TFT's, While no perfect they are enough for anything below 800x600.
Anything above that I'll use my modern screens with black bars on the side.

For me main reason for wanting a CRT was the non standard screen modes some games used, mainly S3D version's of Screamer. But a fix was found for that.
Funny thing is even though I no longer "need" a CRT they keep crossing my path so have 2 view master CRT's again, even after giving my previous ones away 2 years ago!
I can't not save them as once they are gone, they are gone but people despite what they say generally don't want to make the drive to collect.

I do fully agree though, absolutely no point chasing a specific screen. Any CRT at tis point is going to be 10+ years old, and you just don't know if that Trinitron had a hard life been used 24/7, vs a cheaper brand that was only used few time a week.

chinny22 wrote on Yesterday, 00:11:

I do fully agree though, absolutely no point chasing a specific screen. Any CRT at tis point is going to be 10+ years old, and you just don't know if that Trinitron had a hard life been used 24/7, vs a cheaper brand that was only used few time a week.

It can be worth going after CRTs that are either NOS or have demonstrably low-mileage on them. At least then you know you're getting something that is likely to last a number of years versus something near the end of its useful life.

I have a small selection of 17 and 24 inch crts in my upstairs. They still work, and use them on occasion, but LCDs take up much less space, and come in 16:9 aspect.

Nothing will beat the vibrancy of a nice CRT though. DOS games were made for that kind of display, and just look better on them. A shame they weigh so much and dominate the workspace.

Sphere478 wrote on 2025-07-18, 13:45:

I always liked the viewsonics. They made really good monitors.

I think I recall they made a 23”?

I’m on the look out for a 21” trinitron currently or any 22-23” for that matter.

I think I've seen a 22'' Viewsonic from their Professional series - quite the beast, with a Trinitron tube I think.

But their shadow mask CRTs are also very nice.

For everyday use I prefer an OSSC(+ips panel) and for gourmet sessions one of the Crts(19"+ and favorite being chunky IIyamas).
I do not like to "burn them out" for things where I'm just fooling around for hours.

Attached pic makes me always yearn for a big space where I could place numerous CRTs and just enjoy the "view"... in more ways than one.

To me, CRTs are all about the picture motion - it's just so much smoother compared to LCD.
Yes, modern LCDs with high refresh rates and "low lag" have come quite far.
But still, I find a 1024x768 moving image on a CRT to be equally or more sharp than a 1080p image on a gaming LCD. The problem with LCD is that the moment the image on the screen starts to move, pixels will blur. High refresh rates can only go so far. In the end, the pixels on an LCD screen are just "lazy" compared to CRT, and that's because each pixel is driven by individual small transistors in the LCD matrix that will always have some turn On and Off delays... which is why when LCDs advertise response rates, the manufacturer NEVER tells you that this response rate is from full On to full Off (e.g. full black to full white pixel.) If they had to do that, you'd see the response quickly go into the many 10's of ms.

Sorry, but LCD is just not as clear on a moving picture. With very high resolutions of course, some of that will get compensated for. But then that just requires an ever-increasing graphics power to do.

Other than that, though, LCDs are great. For daily office work, I'll take them any day over a CRT. CRTs are harder to see in well-lit rooms compared to LCD, always have non-perfect geometry (might be a bigger deal to those working with CAD software of some sort), and are very hard to calibrate to have neutral color temperature in their entire color range. LCDs are simply superior in those areas. The only thing CRTs are better at, color-wise, is that they don't have a pre-set number of gamma levels, unlike LCDs. "Infinite number of colors" are possible on a CRT, as some would say. This makes CRTs a little bit nicer/easier to adjust when you want true black levels (where the monitor looks like it's completely off when displaying black). I actually have a few CRTs calibrated this way, and they make for an amazing cinematic experience with some games - e.g. Half-Life 2, Nightmare House 2 (holy shit this game looks so much scarier on a CRT than on an LCD), and a few others. That said, I also have a few CRTs that were factory set to be a little brighter... namely a 19" Syncmaster 955DF. I use/d this one for some modern games up until a few years ago (Fortnite, CS:GO before CS2 came out, and etc.) Unfortunately, the PC I was playing these newer games on was not that good and could not provide a constant 60 FPS (or even that much.) So I couldn't get the best experience out of it. But I really want to experience Fornite one day with its fast building pace on a CRT set to 85 Hz and the game frame-limited to the same FPS. IMO, that would look much smoother than 240 Hz on an LCD, despite improvements in technology. No matter how much better LCD gets, it will still have limitations in that regard.

Anyways, as far as CRT monitors, I have kept all of mine that I've collected over the years, even after moving across the pond to EU. It was expensive to ship them... but it was either that or try to sell/give them away and know that I will never be able to have that collection again.

On that note, I do have the hyped-up GDM-FW900 and all I can say is... it's NOT anywhere near my favorite CRT monitor. It suffers from all of the issues that other "modern"/late Sony suffered from (over-brightness issue, anti-glare starting to flake off on one corner, poor colors and not terribly-vibrant picture, and bad solder joints.) All in all, I'm actually not that much of a fan of any of the late Sony CRTs. The Samsungs and LGs were simply better, picture-wise. Though one thing that's better for Sony than Samsung is that at least there are tutorials of how to calibrate Sony monitors with WinDAS. For Samsung, on the other hand, there just isn't that much info with regards to their "SoftJIG" software. And Samsung monitors tend to use less-than-great caps too (typically Korean brands like Samyoung and SamWha), so they will be due for a recap eventually, if not already. Sony at least used Japanese electrolytic caps, so except for the occasional failure on these (due to heat), they are a lot better built.

Oh, and I agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't just look for a particular CRT if shopping for one. Just get whatever is locally available, as suggested, and see where that takes you. FWIW, some of my favorite monitors are various Dell branded ones from the late 90's and early 2000's. Inside, they are made by different brands. For example, my '97 D1025HTX (17" CRT) is an earlier Trinitron build and doesn't have the abovementioned Sony issues. I also have a 19" Dell from 2000 or 2001 that I think is made by Philips. Picture-wise, this one is amazing and my most-favorite monitor. But build-wise, Philips had quite a few issues with flybacks on some of their CRTs. And while that's not a problem on mine (yet?), the plastic on the case has become extremely brittle - like a dry cracker - and I have cracks in the corners that keep getting bigger every year. It's only a matter of time before the tube falls off its mounts and breaks something and/or itself. I've seen that happen to a few CRTs (not my own, luckily... not yet, at least.) Another favorite Dell of mine is my M782 - a 17" from the early 2000's with a Samsung chassis and picture tube. The colors are top-notch and picture is nice and crisp. Nice bright tube too. It was a crazy random dumpster find that I carried home by hands for over a mile... but it was totally worth it.

Anyways, I never stopped using CRTs. They are just too good for certain things, like a moving picture. Of course, they are not for everyone. That they take a lot of space is the least of their problem. I think the biggest downer that people tend not to account for is that CRTs are not fit for use in a bright space/room. So if you like to game during the daytime or with lights on, you might get quite disappointed when you see how the picture looks on a CRT in a non-dark room. For starters, the glass absorbs any of the light in the room and reflects it back - even if the screen has good anti-glare coating. So blacks will never look that deep on a CRT if you aren't willing to play in the dark or very dimly lit room.
Also, I don't want to say that CRTs use too much energy, because compared to modern GPUs these days, they are almost like a fart in the wind. Nevertheless, if you've got one in a tiny or very small room and if it gets hot in that room during the summer, expect it to get even hotter with a CRT. In essence, they don't really use more than 70-90W during normal gaming use (rarely jump over 100W power consumption). But in a tiny room, you *will* noticed it compared to using a thin modern LED-backlit LCD that sips less than 1/5 of that power. Of course, if you're using your CRT on a setup with some power-hungry SLI pig-rig, then again, the CRT won't be the big stinker in terms of the heat production.

Oh, and one more benefit / cool factor of CRTs that I forgot to mention: the smell from their back when they get hot and the degaussing noise. I mean, that itself gives me an instant nostalgia trip. 🤣

Back in the day we had 2 AutoCAD workstations with huge 21“ NEC CRTs, that were crazy expensive. I remember even the CEO came to take a look when they were delivered.
I also liked the sound when you pushed the Degauss button - pretty loud!

Some late model SONY monitors had auto calibration buttons (you just needed to let them warm up a bit before using it). My CPD-420GS did anyway.

If you are playing old games 640x480 @75 on a 19" CRT rocks.

I had a few hours out of a Mitsubishi Diamondview 17” from 1997 before it declared it needed a recap by turning the image completely black.

Even this basic non flat CRT had a strangely nice quality on low and medium res games that I had not seen in a long time.

IMO 640x400 and 640x480 is where you see the most benefit from typical LCD monitors

Unknown_K wrote on Today, 07:26:

Some late model SONY monitors had auto calibration buttons (you just needed to let them warm up a bit before using it). My CPD-420GS did anyway.

That's the function responsible for turning up (messing up) the G2 on some of these late Sony's. DON'T use it!
I always calibrate my monitors by eye, with color patterns and also some photography/pictures I have viewed so many times over the years... so I know how they look. I also use a set of pictures/screenshots from the movie Avatar (the 1st one anyways), because there is a lot of blue and green in that movie, which makes it very easy to see if a monitor has too much blue or green or red bias.

That said, I also have a colorimeter in storage somewhere (a Spyder 2, IIRC.) But I've never used it. Probably should, just to see how bad / far off some of my CRTs have gone over the years. The few that I use regularly should be fairly accurate (save for my 17" Trinitron D1025HTX, which has a rather tired tube and always produces warmer colors.... that is, after it takes 20 seconds to slowly come up to display a picture!) Well, and my 21" Sony E540 I'm sure is pretty inaccurate. I can't calibrate that monitor to anything I like, and it's -not- because it has any faults in the circuit - just not a great design. As I said, late model Sony's from the 2000's are kinda terrible for design, especially the larger tubes. If you turn up their brightness too much so that your whites look brighter, your blacks become washed out. If you turn down the brightness to make the blacks deeper, the whites become murky and/or sometimes even colorized with non-neutral color temperature. Also bringing down the brightness compresses the black levels very close to each other, so you then always have to use software gamma correction... and even that doesn't help as much. Generally, most CRT monitors will suffer from this issue too, but they are easy to correct with just a small bump in the gamma values. With the late Sony's, it only goes so far. I spent a day once looking for info, guides, and tips on how to calibrate my E540 and other late Sony's. The best I remember finding was some guy on YT also fiddling with an E540, a colorimeter, and even WinDAS... for days. And then he came to the same conclusion as me - that it's impossible to get these properly calibrated and there just always has to be a compromise somewhere with something. Well, the E540 really is a cheap 21" CRT (only one VGA input and VGA cable is attached, no advanced controls for gun color bias. and etc.) so no surprise.

So anyways, my point is, late Sony CRTs from the 2000's aren't that good, and this is not just based on the E540. I've also a 15" flat screen Trinitron from something like 2000 or 2001 and have used/seen in person various 17" flat screen Trinitrons from the 2000's... and I'm not impressed.
With Sony, I strongly prefer the older "semi-flat" tube designs (the ones that have a vertically flat glass, but very slight horizontal curvature) - these are built with better quality and circuit design IMO. And just comparing the circuits on a few of these to newer ones, the newer ones have many proprietary Sony ICs, whereas the older ones tend to have more circuit built out of individual discrete transistor. For anyone that still services these things, the newer Sony's can easily become a nightmare to repair (if not impossible) if some proprietary Sony IC takes a hit.

That said, the above is one reason why I sometimes like the "lesser" brands a little better. Take for example a 19" Illyama Vision Master 452 I picked up a few years ago for cheap ($5) because it had a fault. It just needed a recap and a new HOT (Horizontal Output Transistor)... along with a ton of bad solder joints reflowed (the quality of the board soldering was not very good, to say the least.) But everything on it was fixable. And moreover, most of the ICs were more or less standard parts that I could find today. Even the HOT was available on Digikey - not an exact match, but I was able to find a high-enough power BJT with the same specs as the original. And it was cheaper than Chinese probably-fake "new" HOT BJTs on eBay!
Yeah, it's a -job-/project to get these fully recapped (can take a full day with assembly/disassembly, cleaning of dust, removing parts, fixing joints, replacing the HOT, and etc.) But the end result - a monitor that works again. And in my case, I was really happy to see a NEC picture tube inside. IMO, those are the best shadow mask tubes, along with Hitachi. Though if I have to be honest, some of the very late 2000's Dell CRTs that use Chunghwa as the manufacturer (with Chunghwa picture tubes) are also pretty good.

Unknown_K wrote on Today, 07:26:

If you are playing old games 640x480 @75 on a 19" CRT rocks.

Nah, 640x480 looks best on a 15", IMO. Even on a 17", it starts to look a little "grainy".
I reserve 640x480 and 800x600 for 15" screens.
1024x768 and 1154x864 I'll take on a 17"
1280x960 and 1440x1050 for 19" and 21"
1600x1200 --> only on 21"... and even then, I can't say I'm crazy about this resolution all too much. Most of the time, I rarely go above 1280x960 on newer (mid-late-2000's) games. Even with the late 2000's games, I find the HUD just doesn't scale too well at such high resolutions. And with older games, it's even worse... which is why I don't understand how some people can play older (late 90's and early 2000's) games on a large 1080p screen (or worse, a TV!) and be satisfied. I tried that on a 40" Samsung TV and wanted to puke. Looked ugly. Definitely did NOT look right.

NeoG_ wrote on Today, 08:06:

IMO 640x400 and 640x480 is where you see the most benefit from typical LCD monitors

???
You mean you like the grainy and terribly scaled image on those? Not to mention neither of those resolutions are 5:4... though I will admit the latter doesn't bother me as much.

momaka wrote on Today, 11:45:

NeoG_ wrote on Today, 08:06:

IMO 640x400 and 640x480 is where you see the most benefit from typical LCD monitors

???
You mean you like the grainy and terribly scaled image on those? Not to mention neither of those resolutions are 5:4... though I will admit the latter doesn't bother me as much.

Badly worded, 640x400 and 640x480 [on a CRT] is where you see the most benefit from typical LCD monitors

From the sparse number of survivors today, it's hard to appreciate the vast variety of CRT monitors in the 1990s. This also applies per manufacturer. Sure, there could have been some commonality of tubes and internal modules, and a flaw in one of those would affect multiple models, but things may not have been identical across ranges.

Typically, a larger monitor manufacturer had 3 ranges, budget, mainstream and pro. The sizes started small and got bigger. Thus we may find that a 17" from early 90s was undoubtedly from a pro range. In the mid 90s could have been mainstream or pro, and by the end of 90s into 00s was more likely budget or mainstream.

Some manufacturers may have had half a dozen ranges across markets. I remember though that IBM had Pxx for pro range, Gxx for mainstream and most of their budget I think weren't really a "range" but individual models of "we can get 50,000 of this tube and produce a bunch to match this valuepoint/aptiva case" ... if they didn't sub that out. The P series commonly have Trinitron tubes by the way, not exclusively though, P70 would be an example.

Okay so point was, try not to make statements that are too sweeping, just because of how the market changed, and the fact that the examples encountered today have maybe survived for extremely random reasons and are a mere scatter of points from extremes of the wide band that would be the graph of monitor goodness vs age, size, price or current obtainability. So you might see some clickbait article like "Mitsubishi's CRT quality went down so bad! 17 inch head to head" where dude has a 1990 17" a 1995, and a 2000, and what I said above applies, likely to be pro, mainstream and budget. What you want to do is compare flagship from 1990, 1995, 2000... annnd they get biggerer and sharperer and have more fine tuning gizmos.

Even in early noughts we were getting Trinitron and similar FST (flatter squarer tubes) in monitors at the budget end, last gasp of the CRT, LCD is here, and apart from small numbers at the specialist end, for whom LCD didn't have the color gamut yet, these were budget. Desperate attempt to claw in some last few bucks of ROI for all the CRT plant, with every other aspect pared to the bone to shift them.... so that people were happy to pay $200 when LCDs were dangling a carrot at a hundred or two more. Then it was like two bubbles merging on top of your coffee, the price structure, as soon as they touched, there was no CRT market any more. There was some aspect of "better because it's newer" chips cranked out in the million for expensive monitors 5 years back, but corners would have been cut.

So it's worth a bit of digging out magazines (scans) from the era of a given model monitor, to figure out how good it should have been. Was it the "free" monitor with the system, was it middling price, or eyewatering price compared to competition.

For myself it's a bit more about the feel sometimes, than technical perfection, early VGA games belong on <15" blurry old fishbowls 😜