Yeah, it is strange; we've effectively traded in responsiveness and that soft smoothness of the image for sharpness it seems.

Digital Foundry did an interesting piece on it: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-modern-games-look-beautiful-on-crt-monitors

Speaking of older games, before I even knew what framerate was I used to switch quite happily between Starfox at 15fps and Mario at 60fps on my SNES. I think the first game that ever made me really notice framerate was Banjo Tooie, and that shit was extremely inconsistent and it was more the fluctuation I noticed when it would go into almost slow motion.

I did that. Was in fact the first game I played that offered that option. Did very little if anything for me. Went back to quality. 

People wanted bigger TVs, but can't carry bigger CRTs. I think my 34" one is 160 pounds, actually 175 pounds
https://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-ct-34wx53-tau-34-crt-tv-1080i/

It's a great tv and could do split screen between different inputs. I could play Gears of War on 360 with component cables while my wife could watch tv on the same screen, evenly split. No clue why that isn't possible anymore.

Btw analog tv looked better than HD tv lol. HD cable was better when they introduced it in 2004. Since then they have reduced the bandwidth while still sticking to mpeg-2. So now it's 6 to 7 mbps mpeg2 720p / 1080i. It's a bit more bandwidth than Netflix 1080p, yet one day when out cable was out, we watched tv on our old analog set. There were still a couple over the air channels and wow, better colors, no compression artifacts, stable PQ in fast moving scenes / strobe lights / confetti etc. Sure it was lower res, but also a much nicer picture to look at.

Anyway the general public was all about bigger and flatter, while watched badly compressed 4:3 SD programs stretched wide to 16:9. (The digital quality of SD channels is awful). Analog tv had its problems, but if you did your cabling right with the right splitters and amplifiers, beautiful picture. It did take a bit of improvisation to watch DVR recorded programs in the bedroom. Or rather just switch the cable before going to the bedroom and use a infrared relay transmitter. It worked better than streaming!

CRT's aren't "Pixel Perfect". - So any pixelated mess is easy to look good.
In-fact, developers would often leverage the scan-lines and dithering of a CRT and make a checkerboard pattern sprite in order to fake a Transparency effect.
On a modern LCD that is pixel-perfect it's not a transparent asset, but rather a checkerboard sprite... And it looks extremely jarring.
For example LCD vs CRT:


Obviously you can "simulate" these effects on an LCD panel by introducing horizontal blur.

So yes, these older games are designed for older displays and will definitely look and play better on older displays.

You can set the affinity in task manager, you just assign your game to set CPU cores. I.E. CPU Core 0, 2, 4, 6.

You *should* be able to disable Hyper-Threading in the bios, but only if your manufacturer allows it... If you can't, just keep the game off the Hyper-threaded cores in Task Manager so you aren't running the game on only two CPU cores but 4 threads.

Turbo is meant to  get your CPU hot, but after a period of time it should "settle" at a set clockrate for any given task.

CRT's did have a multitude of advantages... Really good contrasts, low input latency, no motion blur... But they were heavy, power hungry, expensive to make large and aren't pixel perfect.
OLED's tend to erode many of the advantages CRT's had, such as motion blur and contrasts.

Either way, low-resolution games like SNES titles will always look better on a CRT, they were simply designed for it.

Just jumped between the 30 fps Horizon demo and the 60fps Dying Light 2 showing.
-Appreciate the smoothness of Dying Light 2
-Horizon blew my mind and it even had a few dips under 30

So yeah, really depends on the game but 30fps is perfectly acceptable and sometimes is necessary for those wow moments on affordable hardware.

It doesn't settle with FS2020, but that's not well optimized.

Here's the difference between boost and no boost on my laptop with FS2020

FS2020 hammers one core, making it boost up to 4 ghz all the time, causing thermal throttling, the large dips in GPU usage which get more frequent as everything gets hotter and hotter. Without boost fps is a bit lower, but more stable and temps stay in the low 70s. With boost my left USB port starts getting iffy after a while, I assume from the excessive heat. No issues without boost.

This was before I upgraded to 32GB ram. I cleaned the vents out as well while upgrading but it was pretty clean. It didn't make any difference for temps anyway. I have it sitting on a metal table, with a couple small woodblocks at the back end to leave a bigger air space underneath to draw in air, and of course clear space at the back to blast it away. FS2020 doesn't model the plane engine overheating, but I still need to keep my laptop temp in check :)



I tried Ori again. affinity to even processors only (0,2,4 etc) and confirmed it's only using those. Boost enabled, v-sync disabled, no heat issues (stays below 70c) yet still stutters. It's the game logic or something as it's not temporary dips in fps, the actual running speed is affected, scroll speed is not constant. Which is very annoying for a sidescroller. I guess I can play it on XBox one day, Blind forest bad port.

What I think a lot of people tend to overlook or not realize is that going from 30fps to 60fps isn't necessarily just a matter of turning down the resolution; the CPU is also a factor.

If a game is limited by the amount of physics, NPCs, and world simulation it's pushing, you could run it in 240p and it would still be 30fps.

60fps means half as much processing for the CPU as well as the GPU, so 60fps games have to be simpler.

I'm sorry, but wtf Curl...

It's true; at 60fps the CPU has 16.67ms of frametime to work with versus 33.3ms in a 30fps game.

That leaves half as much processing time for CPU tasks like physics, world simulation, AI, etc. That's why a game like say, Breath of the Wild wouldn't be 60fps on Wii U even if you dropped it's graphics to N64 level, because it would still be CPU bound by the physics.

240 frames per second. Maybe 600 when i get my 5050 Ti.