Sadly, my
MOBO only has HDMI and DVI-D as well, so it looks like I'm screwed. In this case, what would be my best bet?
I would not use an adapter because the ones I have found (in a quick google search) don't output in refresh rates higher than 60hz and you definitely want to be able to achieve 120hz with your CRT so you can use Faster Melee to its fullest extent. For example, the CRT I had available when I moved to Vienna for a month, had a horizontal scan rate of 130khz with which I was able to achieve 120hz at a bit above 1200x900 iirc.
Maybe you can find a good adapter but there is always the question of input lag.
If I were you, I would get myself a second graphics card with an analog video output and install it in the second pci-e x16 slot of your motherboard. You can have different graphic card models running at the same time. The only problems you can encounter are driver issues, so it is best to stick with Nvidia.
I would get the cheapest graphics card that has decent DX11 performance with power requirements that you can meet. I would buy used for this purpose.
If your power supply has a spare pci-e 6 pin connectors or if you can produce a 6 pin connector with some combination of adapters(like these
1 ,
2), I would get something starting from a gtx 460 or gtx 550. I've found some used for 30€ or less here in Austria and they will be able to play dolphin and FM with good enhancements. As reference, my old gtx 470 was able to run FM with 3x internal resolution and max enhancements.
If you find a graphics card that you consider, check for a review that shows the noise levels as these old cards do get very loud, especially if they are in a
blower design. Gigabyte, Asus and especially MSI are usually the best in that regard (and in general). Also make sure to check which Pci-e pins they need. Most gtx X50 and X60 cards only need a single 6-pin.
Then why don't professional counter-strike players play on CRTs?? Because the lag cause by playing over the internet dwarfs any lag caused by a good LCD monitor.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear but I did try to bring that argument up myself earlier. It should be noted that for pro CS players, 144hz Monitors are more benefitial because the source is actually at 144 hz. So the total latency/lag is actually reduced to 1-2ms on average. When I play regular dolphin offline with my 144hz monitor, I certainly notice some lag. I think that's because the source is at 60fps so I don't get all of the benefit of a 144hz monitor.
The thing I was getting at earlier, with FM reducing lag by 40ms is the following:
I don't know how much netplay you have played so I will do some explaining first. When you play online, you have to adjust the "pad buffer" to the amount of ping(latency of the connection) you have. It is more complicated that this, but in this context, it is enough to know that the pad buffer simply adds a certain amount of latency to your inputs to match the connection's latency. With the current build of Faster Melee (4.4) the pad buffer can only be changed in increments of 8ms. Now, it is rather common to be able to find someone you have about 40ms of ping with, so you can put the buffer to 5, adding 40ms of lag. FM reduces the game's inherent input lag by about 40 ms(if viewed at 120hz) on average so at this amount of latency, playing on an LCD will still just not quite feel right whereas playing on a CRT does feel pretty much like playing offline.
Being able to get a ping of 32ms or less with someone is rather rare however. That's why I think using a CRT makes a difference at the moment, simply because of this 40ms threshold.
But you are right, if there is noticable input lag, a few ms don't really matter. But in this context, I think it does. Besides that, a good CRT monitor can be had for 10-30$ used whereas a decent gaming monitors costs 150$ or more. CRTs also have better color representation than the TN-panels that are used in almost all gaming LCDs.
This entire conversation is ridiculous and you are confusing Input lag and display lag in your other post.
I might well have mixed some words up, please correct me if you know better, I am no expert on the subject. Maybe we are simply using different terminology. For example, I'm not sure what you mean with display lag.
In my little post I use 3 different definitions:
First there is (pixel) response time. The time it takes for the pixels to change color. There are different ways of measuring this response time. The best figure is an average of several testing methods. But you only ever get a cherry-picked number in the product description.
Then there is input lag. This describes the amount of time it takes for the a video input to be output to the display, usually measured in the time it takes for the pixels to reach a certain amount of brightness. 80% brightness is used as a threshold most of the time iirc. You never receive this information from a manufacturer/seller at the moment.
Both the response time and the screen's input lag contribute to the total perceived latency/lag, which I called total latency.
