2005 fpw or 2001 fp?

[ponyo]

12ms. 16ms. It's all marketing.

 

[fstime]

I guess Anandtech is wrong?

Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW
LCD Panel 20.1" WSXGA+ LCD (Active Matrix)
pixel pitch: 0.258mm
Anti-glare coating
Super IPS Panel
Advertised Scanning Frequency Horizontal: 31-83kHz
Vertical: 56-75Hz
Advertised Response Time 12ms (Typical)
Advertised Viewing Angle 176 / 176 (Horizontal / Vertical)
Advertised Contrast Ratio 600:1 (Typical)
Compatibility 1680 x 1050 (Native)
Advertised Brightness 300 cd/m2
Warranty 3 years parts and labor

 

[Ronin]

Try checking Dell's site...you know..the people that sell the monitors?

 

[fstime]

Dell's specs.

Viewable Size: 20.1"
Display Type: Flat Panel Display / Active Matrix TFT - Desktop
Depth: 9"
Features: Automatic Setup Adjustment, Kensington Lock Slot, 100 mm VESA Mounting, Height Adjustable Stand Included
Height: Compressed: 15.3", Extended: 22.4"
Weight: 17.64 lbs
Width: 18.6"
Image Max H-View Angle: ±88°
Image Max V-View Angle: ±88°
Color Support: 16.7 Million
Compliant Standards: 100 mm VESA®, TCO '99; UL 60950, NOM , CE Mark?EN60950, IEC 60950 CCC , TUVGS , NEMKO, GOST, PSB, TUV?S, SASO; FCC Part 15 Class B, CE Mark?EN55022:1998, EN55024:1998, EN61000-3-2:2000, EN61000-3-3:1995 A1(2001), VCCI Class B ITE, MIC, BSMI, ICES?003, C?Tick; ENERGY STAR®, TUV Ergo
Connectivity Technology: Cable
Device Type: Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand
Dimensions (WxDxH) / Weight: 18.6" x 9" x 15.3" to 22.4" / 17.64 lbs
Enclosure Color: Midnight Gray
Image Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Image Brightness: 300 cd/m²
Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1
Max Resolution: 1680x1050 Pixels
Max Sync Rate (V x H): 75 Hz x 83 kHz
Port(s) Total ( Free ) / Connector Type: VGA / DVI-D / S-video / Composite / 4 x USB 2.0
Power Consumption Operational: 75 W (maximum), 55 W (typical)
Diagonal Size / Viewable Size: 20 / 20.1"
Compatibility: PC

Where is it?



It has been pointed out MANY times on this forum the monitor is 12ms, maybe they're all wrong?

Along with Anandtech.

 

[kmmatney]

After using a 1280 x 1024 monitor for a long time, a 4:3 monitor seems like widescreen to me.

It is rare for Dell to include response times for monitors. I don't think they list it for the 2005FW. But all reviews of it I've read list it as 12 ms, and the 2001FP as 16 ms.

 

[Ronin]

http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/prod...s__cat_id--416,prod_id--237231011.html
http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ps_12408210/114401.html

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: Ronin
http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/prod...s__cat_id--416,prod_id--237231011.html
http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ps_12408210/114401.html

My source comes from anantech, which comes from dell, you know, the people who make the monitors?

Dell lists their 2005FPW with a typical response time of 12ms

Maybe it is a 16ms display but dell lists otherwise.

 

[Ronin]

Your still a twit, and I still have the monitor. (several, in fact). The core panel in there is a 16ms response time panel (that I recall for sure, but I don't recall which one).

I'm not faulting Anandtech's listings, but I'm fairly certain they're wrong in this case.

 

[fstime]

Your still a twit,

Getting annoyed now are we, that makes me laugh I can anger someone so easily over an internet forum.

nd I still have the monitor. (several, in fact).

Yes, we know. You work for Sony testing hardware, we all know how you tried to impress us with your stack of video cards.

The core panel in there is a 16ms response time panel (that I recall for sure, but I don't recall which one).

If anandtech is wrong, dell is wrong.

Dell lists it as a 12ms panal, you said your self, check the specs from the people who make the monitor.

I gave you what you wanted.

 

[Ronin]

Where does Dell list it as a 12ms monitor? You showed nothing. I showed at least 2 locations that say otherwise.

You mouth off in every thread you can, when you're wrong 98% of the time. Give it a rest.

 

[fstime]

Where does Dell list it as a 12ms monitor?

I quoted Anandtech, they said "Dell lists their 2005FPW with a typical response time of 12ms".

You showed nothing.

I actually did.

I showed at least 2 locations that say otherwise.

You wanted the specs from dell, thats what I gave you.

You mouth off in every thread you can, when you're wrong 98% of the time. Give it a rest.

Dont worry about what I do.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
Dont worry about what I do.

Take your own advice.

 

[Accord99]

LG-Philips specs the LM201W01, the 2005FPW's panel at 16ms.

http://www.lgphilips-lcd.com/homeContain/jsp/eng/prd/prd200_j_e.jsp

 

[TheBigTea]

Bah lets not turn it into a flame fight.

I am getting the impression that for what I do I would prefer the 2005, and that is what I think I will do.

After a few days using the 2001 though I have to say I am REALLY impressed.

In the games I play there is no ghosting and it looks better than any other monitor I have used.

Thanks for the opinions guys and gals.

Ty

 

[bamacre]

I am coming from a CRT, a 17in Trinitron, and I haven't noticed any ghosting on the 2001FP. The games I have played on it (HL2, Far Cry, GTA:SA, etc.) all look great. Far Cry for some reason, stands out on looking the best in comparison with the 17in Trinitron.

 

[blckgrffn]

There is a reason that the 2001 is more expensive - it seems to be a better quality monitor, no one complains of bleeding like the 2005 FPW. Also, you get more screen! More pixels! Yay! And 1600*1200 is supported by eveything. I would much prefer the 2001, I would have been doing a happy dance if they had sent that to me instead, at the price of the 2005!

Nat

 

[Spacecomber]

When talking about response times, these always need to be put in the context of how they are being measured (what is being measured), what the limitations of that manner of measuring response times are, and what sort of panel these are being given for.

The Dell 2001FP and 2005FPW both use Philips IPS panels. These are characterized by a relatively flat looking graph depicting their response time over a wide range of pixel shade transitions. Thus, the 16ms (or 12ms) response time for one of these panels, which describes an extreme transition from black to white, is not what is really important. What counts is that is that the more subtle shade transitions do not increase that much compared to this white to black transition time, unlike with other kinds of panels (excepting the overdrive panels, which represent an effort to remedy this problem in other kinds of panels).

The point is that in practice these apparently higher response time IPS panels will often out perform or at least equal a low response time TN panel when it comes to ghosting in games. And, of course, they don't have the problems of less than a full range of true colors or narrow viewing angles.

Space

 

Originally posted by: Kensai

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I prefer the 2005 :thumbsup: but many love the 2001 as well.

Im a widescreen fanboi.

I love my 2005FPW's.

 

[Rob_63]

I just traded off my perfect 2001FP and aquired a 2005, although this monitor appears brighter and does game a bit better I wish I had my 2001 back. The 2005 has 11 stuck pixels that are noticeable on a black screen along with the backlighting issue accross the top.

If the 2005 were perect I would be happy, but it seems the more I read about this monitor it seems there are a higher percentage of people that are dissatisfied with it.

good luck with your decision.

 

[Ronin]

Dell has a 5 dead pixel warranty for a reason. Use it.

I've gotten no less than 200 LCDs from Dell, and not a single one has had a dead pixel (thus far).

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Dell has a 5 dead pixel warranty for a reason. Use it.

I've gotten no less than 200 LCDs from Dell, and not a single one has had a dead pixel (thus far).

You must be the luckiest person on earth. You should play the lottery. Both of my Dell LCDs have dead pixels but I don't give a darn.

 

[Ronin]

Perhaps. My biggest worry was when the 6 2405's arrived. I was more worried about those having dead pixels than any of the previous ones (which is odd, since you'd be less likely to notice them on the 2405 than any of the other Dells). *shrugs*

I'll take my record and run with it, and pray that I didn't jinx myself.