• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

19" Mitsubishi or 20" Dell 2001FP

Z

Zenbeatnik

Member
I'm about to pull the trigger on a new LCD monitor. I've narrowed the search down to either:

Mitsubishi's newest RDT195S

19" SXGA
0.294 mm pixel pitch
400 cd/m2
700:1
8ms
24bit color
1280 x 1024

or

Dell's 2001FP

20.1" UXGA
0.255 mm pixel pitch
250 cd/m2
400:1
16ms
24bit color
1600 x 1200

The monitor will be used for web design and graphics work and some serious gaming, too (I just bought D3, HL2, and CIV3). My everyday desktop resolution is set at 1280x1024 32bit color. I've seen the Mitsubishi RDT194S which looks totally awesome so I suspect that the newer RDT195 will be just as great. The Dell is about the same price and from what I've read is a real favorite around this forum. What are your thoughts concerning the specs in terms of doing design work and gaming?

I'm also looking for a video card that will complement one of these monitors. At present I'm leaning towards either the ASUS EN6600 GT (TOP) PCI-e or the ASUS EN6800 TD PCI-e. The 6800 "GT" version hasn't been announced here (i.e. in Japan) yet but the TD will be available in a couple of weeks maybe sooner. I can wait a little while longer (maybe 'til Christmas) but it's difficult looking at my new computer (system rig specs below) that I just built minus its video card and new monitor.

Thanks!
 
Well its really up to you, the first difference that I notice is the Dell is an inch bigger and 1600x1200 native...which means more resolution and more desktop space.


But if your one of those guys who has been using a 17" monitor at 1024x768 and is perfectly happy with it that it may be a non-issue.


 
Actually I'm not "one of those guys." 😉 At present I have an aging Sony 21" GDM F-520 CRT. The 19" LCD in question comes very close to the Sony's size, just an inch shy; whereas, the Dell matches the size of the Sony. If it were only a question of size then the Dell might be a no brainer. I'm fairly sure I won't miss that one inch of viewing area. I've never owned or used an LCD monitor so I'm not too familiar with them except what I've read in the various reviews and comments around this forum. They look great in the shops.

Specifically, I'm curious about people's experiences with the differences in pixel pitch, brightness, and contrast. I know 8ms is better than 16ms but is a difference of 0.039 mm pixel pitch at all noticeable? How about brightness and contrast? How often do people play games at 16x12? Is 12x10 just as good with a decent video card?

Thanks
 
Gaming at 12x10 is just fine. The main concern is this: Are you used to working with 1600x1200 desktop area? If you are, you will find 12x10 "chunky, restrictive, huge icons".

Tomshardware seems to like the 8ms panels compared to the 16ms and 20ms benchmark panels they have. If you play games and dont want to fork the change for the "best video card" every year, then going 1280x1024 will certainly help (you will still have to upgrade gpu say every 2-2.5 years instead).

Just make sure you are getting the non-interpolated colors - true 16.7M colors if you doing any graphics oriented stuff. I am thinking the Mitsubishi will grant the true 16.7 million colors, but im not fully sure.
 
I just bought the Dell, its on its way. Right now that LCD retails at $799, but you can get a 25% off coupon for it and it drops to about $630 (with tax) and I couldn't pass up that price. I know many, many people that are avid gamers that love that LCD and swear by it. I can't wait to get it. Play the "dellf delivers" game and you could get that coupon.

http://dell.eprize.net/dell/de....tbapp?affiliate_id=17
 
The Dell 2001 is great at running non native resolutions in games Ther is no distortion. So the latest and greatest video card is NOT needed. I actually never play at 1600x1200 and I have a 6800 GT which plays at 1600x1200 just fine. I run with lower resolutions with AA and AF turned up and run at a highier refresh rate (75) as I always run vsync.
 
2001fp no question. I am surprised by how good it still looks at lower resolutions also. It's also 20" viewable vs. 18" viewable on the CRT. (crts are generally 1" less on the viewable spec)
 
The mitsubishi has a way better response time, and I don't really like 16x12 that much anyway. Mainly I'd say go for the cheaper one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top