• 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.

Are you afraid your rig can't handle a 16 x 12 LCD for gaming?

F

FrustratedUser

Lifer
I was a bit hesitant before I picked up teh 2001FP. I was afraid that my system wouldn't cope wit the native 16 x 12 in games. Luckily it does 😀

But just for fun I tried to run at 1280 x 1024 just to see how it looked. Many has reported it looks like sh1t.
It looks great IMO! 😀

What is your opinion?
 
I'm a speed freak, and will typically lower resolutions and settings in games to get the highest possible FPS. That's what has kept me from switching from a 19" CRT to a LCD because all I hear is "LCDs are crap if you don't run them in the native resolution!"
 
Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
I'm a speed freak, and will typically lower resolutions and settings in games to get the highest possible FPS. That's what has kept me from switching from a 19" CRT to a LCD because all I hear is "LCDs are crap if you don't run them in the native resolution!"
Click to expand...

I heard that too so I tried and to me it looks great. I can turn up AA and AF to max and also set all settings in the game to MAX.
Now I am confused, should I play at 16 x 12 or 1280 x 1024, they booth look great and both run smooth. 😕

😀
 
Just for kicks, do you mind running it at 1152x864 and see how it looks? Do LCD's typical offer this resolution?

That's the same 4:3 ratio as 1600x1200 and my preferred resolution for a ~19" monitor? I'd love to know how you think it looks at this resolution.
 
Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Just for kicks, do you mind running it at 1152x864 and see how it looks? Do LCD's typical offer this resolution?

That's the same 4:3 ratio as 1600x1200 and my preferred resolution for a ~19" monitor? I'd love to know how you think it looks at this resolution.
Click to expand...

I'll do that. BRB!
 
It looks fine. I can barely see any difference if any. Maybe the game is not new enough to expose the difference.
Maybe I don't know what to look for but I'd say you'll be happy with it. I am.

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
It looks fine. I can barely see any difference if any. Maybe the game is not new enough to expose the difference.
Maybe I don't know what to look for but I'd say you'll be happy with it. I am.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Thank Ye, Thank Ye!
 
Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
It looks fine. I can barely see any difference if any. Maybe the game is not new enough to expose the difference.
Maybe I don't know what to look for but I'd say you'll be happy with it. I am.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Thank Ye, Thank Ye!
Click to expand...

😀
 
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
I was a bit hesitant before I picked up teh 2001FP. I was afraid that my system wouldn't cope wit the native 16 x 12 in games. Luckily it does 😀

But just for fun I tried to run at 1280 x 1024 just to see how it looked. Many has reported it looks like sh1t.
It looks great IMO! 😀

What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for a while now, I cant tell when its out of native resolution. I havent tried any lowdown dirty DOS resolutions of 320x200 or similar, but at that point I dont care.

Down to 640x480 it definitely looks like a res on a CRT. Yep, even stretched (I have the 2005fpw).

Maybe I dont photoshop enough like some of the geeks like to do.. but it looks great to me.
If anything, an easy trade for widescreen HL2.

If you select "Display adapter scaling" in your Nvidia drivers its even better than the panel's upscaling. It does everything to 1680x1050 (or 1600x1200) with that option.. no performance loss and looks even crisper.
 
mine works better than any CRT ive seen, just turn on vsync.. 12ms response time is unnoticable.

alot of ppl are still "afraid" of LCDs.. but these new dell panels like the 2005fpw and "even" the older 2001fp have response times that make them indistinguishable from CRTs.

i cant speak for the 2001fp but the 2005 is truley one of the "next gen" panels and the type of product we've been needing.
 
i think "picky" isnt the word.. you'd have to be extremely anal.

you'd have to be an odd-duck to be disastisfied with a panel like the 2005fpw. If anyone here had a problem with the response rate, or ghosting problems with it in-game.. I'd like to know.

if someone hasnt seen it in action... well that speaks for itself.
 
I love my 2001FP. I use 1280X1024 for FarCry and 16X12 for Doom3. Both look absolutely great and FPS are excellent with my 6800GT.
HL2 is really excellent at 1280X1024.
 
I've found the same thing as the OP. I was scared away from the 2001FP just because I didn't have a good video card and everyone said that you should run games in 1600x1200 on this monitor. Well, I've been running UT2004 and Painkiller and much lower resolutions and it looks great to me. Maybe for someone who spends $500 on a video card and games all day long, maybe they can notice a difference, but I tell you, I had myself worried for nothing.
 
I'll add my voice to the chorus. I was also worried about image quality running at resolutions less than 16*12 after purchasing my 2001FP. Half Life 2 looks absolutely gorgeous at 1280*1024 and I really don't notice any degredation in image quality. It does get a little cloudy at 1024*768, but still not bad. Things have really improved from 'the old days' when stepping the resolution down was a real step down in image quality.
 
Yeah, most new LCDs seem to do ok. My 2005fpw runs at 1280x768 (whatever the step down from 1680x1050 is) and looks just fine. And, my HP NC6000 laptop runs 1024x768 fine too (Native is 1400x1050). As long as you are staying with the same aspect ratio, it should look ok.

My work LCD is some uber cheap hp1702, and it does not scale down so well, though.

Originally posted by: lons
I'll add my voice to the chorus. I was also worried about image quality running at resolutions less than 16*12 after purchasing my 2001FP. Half Life 2 looks absolutely gorgeous at 1280*1024 and I really don't notice any degredation in image quality. It does get a little cloudy at 1024*768, but still not bad. Things have really improved from 'the old days' when stepping the resolution down was a real step down in image quality.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
I'm a speed freak, and will typically lower resolutions and settings in games to get the highest possible FPS. That's what has kept me from switching from a 19" CRT to a LCD because all I hear is "LCDs are crap if you don't run them in the native resolution!"
Click to expand...

I heard that too so I tried and to me it looks great. I can turn up AA and AF to max and also set all settings in the game to MAX.
Now I am confused, should I play at 16 x 12 or 1280 x 1024, they booth look great and both run smooth. 😕

😀
Click to expand...

The 2001fps is pretty well known for being one of the best scaling monitors. This was the reason I picked one up as I knew with my original XP@2.2ghz / 9700Pro rig I wouldn't have been able to play at 16x12 with most games. Lower res still looks great on this lcd (although I don't have to after upgrading 🙂).
 
I've got a 2001 FP and it looks great at non native resolutions. I don't run 1280x1024 because its a 5:4 resolution and the actual screen is 4:3 so it causes a little bit of noticable squishing. 1280x960 looks fine though. 1152x864 with highi AA and AF is actually what I run when I play CS:source because 1600x1200 I will occasionally get a suddent drop in FPS and its annoying. Over all the 2001FP scales very well to other resolutions for gaming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top