Dell 2005FPW & 2405FPW vs. 1905FP & 2001FP

[GearCat]

I'm seeking comments on the performance and practicality of the Dell 2005FPW & 2405FPW, and wide screen displays in general. These Dell flat panel displays have a 16:10 aspect ratio with a native resolution of 1680x1050 (WSXGA) and 1920x1200 (WUXGA), respectively.

AnandTech gives high praise to the Dell 2001FP which has a 4:3 aspect ratio with a native resolution of 1600x1200 (UXGA). That speaks volumes on the quality of Dell flat panels!

However, when it comes to wide screen displays, are there really enough applications and games, now and coming up soon, that will take advantage the wide screens ? ? ?

As an alternative, for the same money as a 2005FPW, you could buy two 1704FPVs (or two 1905FPs for $200 more), and for the same money as the 2405FPW, you could buy two 2001FPs. Are two 4:3 displays better than one 16:10 ? ? ?

Also, please respond with any comments (pro or con) regarding games or other software that supports wide screen resolutions! In particular, I'm looking at support for WUXGA and WSXGA.

I'm sure many of us are now faced with deciding between the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio displays versus a wider aspect ratio display. I hope the thread which develops from here will provide some help in deciding on the applicability of wide sceen displays. I've also left posts in other categories on this forum.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Personal preference.

 

[JBT]

I've run dual 2001's for a brief time. It was alright but I really don't have much use for dual screens. I LOVE the solo 2405 for gaming esspecially. Would I ever get another 2405 for dual use? sure if I could scrounge up some more money.

I perfer the wide screen cause its so much sweeter for gaming. Some use the widescreen for movies and say its sweet. I havn't done much movie watchign so I can't say about that.

 

[SynthDude2001]

I chose the 2005FPW because the widescreen aspect ratio fits perfectly with my gaming, DVD watching, and HDTV watching. For text type stuff I could go either way (4:3 or 16:10). It really is a personal preference.

Also, I'd much rather have one 2005FPW over two 17" LCD's. The duals may be nice for web browsing and other "productivity" type stuff, but I can't imagine gaming on a screen that small now.

 

[GearCat]

Note that I edited my original post to correct some errors. On the replies so far, yes I'd like to hear what different peoples preferences are for games and other applications which have wide screen support.

I guess my primary concern is with gaming and video editing & production. WRT games, my favorite categoary is combat flight simulators, my favorite being UBI's IL2, but I plan to try other games particularly anything that looks to be incredible in wide screen. WRT to video editing, once I shift into HD recording, I will have to edit & produce in 16:9.

I think I agree on the subject of dual screen, although there are some cool applications for that in flight sim, you really need three displays.

 

[GearCat]

Did a few calculations recalling my days of triganometry so many years ago. Consider this for the similarly priced regular (4:3) and widescreen (16:10) Dell flat panel monitors, both having a viewable diagonal measurement of 20.1 inches.

The 4:3 Dell 2001FP has almost 7% (6.8 to be exact) more viewable screen area than the 16:10 Dell 2005FPW, but if you're running a 4:3 windowed application (e.g., most games) on the 2005FPW, it's like using little better than a 17 inch (diagonal) 4:3 display (17.75 to be exact), or 22% less usable screen area than the 2001FP. Now, if you wanted to run a 16:10 windowed application (e.g., a few games) on the 2001FP, your're diagonal is 19 inches and you have 11% less usable screen area than the 2005FPW.

So at this point, my conclusion is pointng to the 2001FP being more bang for the buck as it 's better for the larger majority of 4:3 applications, particularly games, and if you do need to work in a 16:10 window (letterbox), you're not giving up as much as you would working in 4:3 window on a wide screen display.

 

[Rage187]

Now that I've had a 2405, I don't think I could use any other monitor.

 

[Stretchman]

I'm curious about the workaday ergonomics of these larger monitors. How close can you sit to these monitors (20" and above) without causing eye-strain?

I'm curious b/c I used a 23" Apple Cinema Display (w/1920x1200 rez) for about 2 years. For work related reasons I had to switch to a 17" LCD (with 1024x768 rez) for around two months. I'm now back on the 23" display and finding that it strains my eyes a bit - the text is smaller and finer.

 

[Rage187]

I sit roughly 12 inches from a 2001fp at work, and 18 inches from a 2405 at home.

 

[erwos]

It really depends on the games you play.

I recently bought a widescreen laptop. I found that only a small percentage of my games would actually properly support widescreen (Kohan 2, GTA:SA, Guild Wars, Sims 2, in particular). Now, this fact alone is not a big deal, except that my drivers apparently don't allow me to specify a non-scaled resolution of 1024x768. Ergo, I'm actually _stuck_ with those few games. What works looks sweet as hell (Guild Wars in particular), but seeing as the integrated graphics are only passable (Xpress 200M 128mb), it'd be much, much better if I could play older games (which would, presumably, perform better). Maybe the Omega Catalyst drivers solve these issues, but I haven't started playing with those yet - more on that later?

For desktop usage, I don't find a lot of difference between 4:3 and 16:10/16:9 - you do get fewer pixels with a widescreen, but horizontal real estate is more important than vertical real estate, at least for my usage.

-Erwos

 

[Quantum Mechanic]

I love my 2001fp. My wife loves it, my brother is jealous of it. Even my cats love it. It is the most fantastic monitor I have ever owned. That being said I have not owned the other two you mentioned but I used both. The 2405 is great but only if dropping $800 for a monitor isn't a problem and you have the graphic card to power it. The 2005 is nice but unless you are always doing things in widescreen it feels smaller than the 2001, even more than the math suggests. 1600 x 1200 is a fantastically flexible resolution, and interpolation on it looks more natural than on the 2005. I use campaign cartogrpaher and the clarity is awesome on all the dells.

My feeling is that 1600 x 1200 is the resolution of today and HD resolution (1900 x 1080 or higher) is the resoltion of the future. 1680 x 1050 has obsolete written all over it.

 

[Stretchman]

Originally posted by: Rage187
I sit roughly 12 inches from a 2001fp at work, and 18 inches from a 2405 at home.

Ah, thank you for the info. Perhaps I"m sitting to far away from my display. I took a few measurements of some of the computers in the household and found that I was basically sitting about 3 ft + 1 inch (sometimes more if I leaned back in my chair) from my 23" display.

The other displays in the house, a 19", 17" and 15" monitor were all around 2ft and under. I was at 1ft, 22 inches for my 15" Apple Powerbook.

 

[ITPaladin]

Don't forgot in Windows you can increase the DPI and font size as needed when using higher resolutions

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rage187
I sit roughly 12 inches from a 2001fp at work, and 18 inches from a 2405 at home.

jeez you sit close.

i usually sit out of arm's length from my 2005 and i can see it just fine. if you can't you should get your eyes checked.

on a really big monitor like a 23" i wouldn't want to sit close to it. having to move your head instead of just your eyes to see all the corners of the monitor just isn't right.


anyway, the 2005 is way better for movies and other widescreen content than a normal aspect ratio monitor. and a squarish monitor like the 19" is horrible for widescreen content. as more and more games start to properly implement widescreen (that is, give a wider field of view rather than narrowing it vertically) the advantage should start to shift pretty heavily toward the widescreen monitors.

now if only they'd make a 20" widescreen monitor that supports 1080p nativelly. say, 1920x1200 anyone?

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: bdomin
Don't forgot in Windows you can increase the DPI and font size as needed when using higher resolutions

95% of the time that screws up alot of programs. buttons end up out of windows so you cant see them, ect...

i got that number from my random percentage generator. :thumbsup:

 

[Stretchman]

Thank you for that tip, I found that it actually does help increase my viewing comfort. A few buttons are out of whack, but I don't mind.

Actually, come to think of it, although I've been gaming on a widescreen lcd for a few years now, i've yet to really see them become a strong force in the gaming arena. I was absolutely delighted when I discovered native support for 1920x1200 widescreen in WoW and Half-Life 2. Still, all I really see at tradeshows and gaming conventions like E3 and Quakecon are the usual boxy 4:3 monitors. Most gamers I know still use them, and don't really feel like they're missing anything.

In fact, I sometimes contemplate using a nice 19" or 20" standard aspect monitor for my gaming. Sometimes its a bit of a hassle trying to 'hack' a game just so it will support widescreen formats, and although i've found the Widescreen Gaming Forum very helpful and informative, some of the people there go nuts trying to modifiy their FOV.

 

[GearCat]

Perhaps I should post / check on this subject on the Widescreen Gaming Forum. Where is that?

As for the comments on the 2405FPW, I would expect advantages over the 2001FP, but you don't get that from the 2005FPW. So unless you have the extra money for the 2405 (around $400-$500 depending on dscounts), the 2001FP is the way to go (note Quantum Mechanic's comments above). Also, I would be concerned about performanc issues with larger flat panel (LCD) monitors and how well the video card handles these monitors. While I agree the widescreen is the way of the future, it will probably be several more years before that's a serious concern and many more years before 4:3 computer monitors are unseated. By that time I suspect, as with most technology, large widescreen performance and quality will be far more advanced for a good price and lower but reasonable quality for far cheaper. Also, more and better widescreen software will be available.

On cost, I prefer not to spend much over $500 on a monitor (say 25%-30% of overall system cost excluding high end printers, scanners, or other peripherals), unless I really had a serious need or was sure of extended longevity (more than 3 years) both in terms of performance and compatibility when compared to evolving technology. In 1992 I bought a 17 inch Nanao Flexscan T560i (used Sony's Trinitron CRT) for $1500 and it lasted me 12 years. I don't expect that to happen again until LCD or other flat panel display technology becomes very, very, very mature.

 

[Stretchman]

Here you are:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/

There's tons of useful info there, and the people are very knowledgable about all things widescreen.

Funny enough, after about 3 years with a widescreen monitor i'm actually somewhat curious about getting back to a 4:3 ratio display or perhaps two in a dual setup. Games were initially a big thing for me, but they are increasingly becoming secondary to hardware building. I actually had to go w/out my 23" display for 2 months due to work reasons, and was using a 17" lcd instead. I thought I would hate it, but I actually found the resolution and dpi easier to deal with. It also seemed kind've 'comfy' to have a smaller, traditional work area with my PC.

 

[GearCat]

Originally posted by: Stretchman
Here you are:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/

There's tons of useful info there, and the people are very knowledgable about all things widescreen. . . q]

_________________________________________________________________________


Thanks for that. I'll check the forum out.

Note, I edited my previous post with a thought on the cost of monitors today

 

[Stretchman]

On cost, I prefer not to spend much over $500 on a monitor (say 25%-30% of overall system cost excluding high end printers, scanners, or other peripherals), unless I really had a serious need or was sure of extended longevity (more than 3 years) both in terms of performance and compatibility when compared to evolving technology. In 1992 I bought a 17 inch Nanao Flexscan T560i (used Sony's Trinitron CRT) for $1500 and it lasted me 14 years.

Now that's value:thumbsup:

Cost was a big issue when I decided to purchase my Cinema Display. Back then, there were only a very small handful of manufacturers who made LCD's that big, and of that group Apple's was the most affordable @ around $2,000+ (after my student discount).

For all its growing popularity, i'm still not too sure that widescreen monitors will become the wave of the future. I have tried to convince a number of non gaming clients to adopt the 20" Dell and Apple widescreen LCD's, but to no avail. They much prefer the straight square look.

 

[yellowg555]

I game a lot on my 2005fpw and it's awesome. You are able to see more of the game at one time, kind of like extra peripheral vision. I am also powering it with a 9800xt and BF2 runs just fine (but I forgot what resolution I'm running it at - I think it's 1680x1050).

 

[GearCat]

Originally posted by: Stretchman

On cost, I prefer not to spend much over $500 on a monitor (say 25%-30% of overall system cost excluding high end printers, scanners, or other peripherals), unless I really had a serious need or was sure of extended longevity (more than 3 years) both in terms of performance and compatibility when compared to evolving technology. In 1992 I bought a 17 inch Nanao Flexscan T560i (used Sony's Trinitron CRT) for $1500 and it lasted me 14 years.

Now that's value:thumbsup:

Cost was a big issue when I decided to purchase my Cinema Display. Back then, there were only a very small handful of manufacturers who made LCD's that big, and of that group Apple's was the most affordable @ around $2,000+ (after my student discount).

For all its growing popularity, i'm still not too sure that widescreen monitors will become the wave of the future. I have tried to convince a number of non gaming clients to adopt the 20" Dell and Apple widescreen LCD's, but to no avail. They much prefer the straight square look.

Ops. That was 12 years, not 14!

 

[DidlySquat]

Look at my sig and you'll know who you're talking to (I ownZ 2405fpw + 7800GTX).

As a gamer I can say that higher resolution is better because it increases the image quality and your enjoyoment of the game. It's not neccesarily the wide screen aspect ratio, just the number of pixels. The more the better. Aside from that is the fact that 2405 has MUCH better specs then 2001, e.g. response time, contrast, etc. Previously I used a viewsonic 17" lcd, which I still have for my secondary machine, and all I can say is that it looks like absolute crap next to the 2405fpw, even when both run the same resolution (non-stretched). Colors are deeper, the screen is brighter, and contrast is WAY better, not to mention half the response time for the 2405fpw compared to the viewsonic.

Also, some games don't run in widescreen (e.g. BF2) but a lot do (UT2004), so if you're comparing 2001fp to 2005fpw, I would lean towards the 2001fp since it has more pixels overall.

I also recommend a high end video card if you want to max out all the graphics details at 1600x1200 and above on most games. It adds to the gaming experience (although not a must) to see all the neat little details and effects, but most important is always the smoothness of the action, in other words maintaining high FPS (over 50 at all times). At a minimum we're talking about a X800XL if you're willing to sacrifice some details, but a 7800GT would be the best value card. For resolutions above 16x12, the 7800GTX is the way to go.

 

[GearCat]

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
Look at my sig and you'll know who you're talking to (I ownZ 2405fpw + 7800GTX).

As a gamer I can say that higher resolution is better because it increases the image quality and your enjoyoment of the game. It's not neccesarily the wide screen aspect ratio, just the number of pixels. The more the better. Aside from that is the fact that 2405 has MUCH better specs then 2001, e.g. response time, contrast, etc. Previously I used a viewsonic 17" lcd, which I still have for my secondary machine, and all I can say is that it looks like absolute crap next to the 2405fpw, even when both run the same resolution (non-stretched). Colors are deeper, the screen is brighter, and contrast is WAY better, not to mention half the response time for the 2405fpw compared to the viewsonic.

Also, some games don't run in widescreen (e.g. BF2) but a lot do (UT2004), so if you're comparing 2001fp to 2005fpw, I would lean towards the 2001fp since it has more pixels overall.

I also recommend a high end video card if you want to max out all the graphics details at 1600x1200 and above on most games. It adds to the gaming experience (although not a must) to see all the neat little details and effects, but most important is always the smoothness of the action, in other words maintaining high FPS (over 50 at all times). At a minimum we're talking about a X800XL if you're willing to sacrifice some details, but a 7800GT would be the best value card. For resolutions above 16x12, the 7800GTX is the way to go.

You're right on the mark WRT the 2405FPW. These specs are amazing. I wonder if I can believe them, especially comparing to the 2001FP, which is pretty highly rated as it is. This just may be worth paying for. I wonder if the color saturation is as good as the 2001FP.

Don't see anything from Dell on the response time. Have you seen any good reviews on this monitor?

Checking my XFX GeForce 7800GT to see if it will support resolution.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: yellowg555
I game a lot on my 2005fpw and it's awesome. You are able to see more of the game at one time, kind of like extra peripheral vision. I am also powering it with a 9800xt and BF2 runs just fine (but I forgot what resolution I'm running it at - I think it's 1680x1050).

CS Source is one of the few games where you get to see more because they render in 16:10 native or osmething and then cut it down for 4:3. Most other games use 4:3 rendering and then cut for 16:10.

I say get a 19" Panel because a 20" widescreen is only as high as a 17" LCD. Now if you have money, grab a 2001FP or 2405FPW by all means, but stay away from the 2005FPW. It's so cheap for a reason =P. My preference is 19" LCD right now unless you have some serious graphics power. 1600x1200 isn't exactly a great resolution for games when I turn everything up on my 7800GT. If I had GTs SLIed, I would've opted for a 2001FP.