2005FPW vs 2001FP by the numbers

[rcrez]

Here I'm going to compare a 20.1" normal 4:3 LCD (such as the 2001FP), a 20.1" wide aspect 16:10 LCD (such as the 2005FPW) and a 21.3" normal 4:3 LCD (pick your favorite one) thrown in for comparison. Max screen mode is viewing the screen in its native aspect ratio.

All measurements are in inches. The 2.35:1 aspect ratio is the most common one used in the latest movies. The results would be functionally the same for 1.85:1 aspect ratios or 16:9.
20 W refers to a 20.1" Widescreen LCD

...........Max Screen .....2.35:1 mode .....4:3 mode
LCD..... Height.. Width... Height.. Width.. Height.. Width
20.1" ...12.06... 16.08... 6.84... 16.08... 12.06... 16.08
20 W" ..10.65... 17.05... 7.26... 17.05... 10.65... 14.20
21.3" ...12.78... 17.04... 7.25... 17.04... 12.78... 17.04


Now I?m going to calculate the total area as a percentage of the area of a 20? normal 4:3 LCD. This means the 20.1? LCD is normalized to 100% and the other screens follow.

LCD ...Max...... 2.35:1...... 4:3
20.1?... 100%... 100%... 100%
20 W?... 94%... 113%... 78%
21.3?... 112%.. 112%... 112%

This last chart shows the usable diagonal space for each of the three modes.

LCD......Max ... 2.35:1.. 4:3
20.1?... 20.1?... 17.5?... 20.1?
20 W?... 20.1?... 18.5?... 17.8?
21.3?... 21.3?... 18.5?... 21.3?

From looking at these numbers, when using a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, the widescreen nicely matches up with an equivalent 21.3? normal LCD. However, when in max screen mode or even 4:3 modes (any game that does not support widescreen mode), the widescreen drops to 94% and 78% of an equivalent normal screen in area! The 20.1? widescreen LCD is slightly worse than an 18? in 4:3 modes! Therefore, you gain 1? over a normal screen when watching movies and lose 2.3? (more than double the gain!) when in 4:3 mode. Finally, when running in its natural mode, you?re down 6% no matter what.

It seems like this widescreen business is slightly over hyped. Basically, gain a litlte here, lose a lot there, but always down no matter what?

 

[amol]

welcome to november 2004 :roll:

and my 2005FPw PWNS

edit: and if you're playing games that don't support WS, then you should stick to a 486 with 15" CRT

 

[KingNothing]

My friend has a 2001FP. I just got back from his place comparing the two side by side running off an ATI 9800 Pro. We tried each on the DVI and the VGA to be as fair as possible.

There is absolutely NO COMPARISON between the two as far as picture quality goes. The 2005FPW is much brighter and significantly sharper.

My conclusion: If you can get the 2001FP cheaper than the 2005FPW (like $100 or so) then get the 2001FP. If you don't have anything to compare it to then you won't notice the difference. But since they're priced the same right now, there's no reason to get a 2001FP that I can think of. Sure you get a little more screen real-estate, but...I mean it's still a lot of screen space no matter what.

 

[Stoneburner]

I dont understand why so many people attack Wide screens. It's like their insecure about their old fashioned box screens.

My 2005fpw is godlike.

Also, if you think about it, like real life, most games horizontal view is more useful than vertical view. Except maybe with an RTS, but RON looks brilliant at 1680x1050.

 

[rcrez]

Is there anyone who has used a both monitors and have preferred the full screen one?

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: rcrez
Is there anyone who has used a both monitors and have preferred the full screen one?

there was someone on Neowin who had both monitors side by side and preferred the 2005FPw