• 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.

DELL - UltraSharp 2005FPW - any reviews?

I

imported_whymeintrouble

Junior Member
HI all,

just looking to see who has the new DELL UltraSharp 2005FPW. I know it is their first widescreen, but am seriously considering it as my main monitor, and christmas present to myself 🙂 any comment, reviews would be greatly appreciated

thanks
 
Not a full review, but here are my thoughts. I replaced a 21" CRT with this display and am in love. This display is much better for the games that I play. I tried out Doom3, Far Cry, Half Life 2, and Counter Strike Source and the widescreen aspect ratio allows me to see a lot wider field of view. I also get a lot more useable space in PhotoShop becasue of the widescreen aspect ratio. With my 4:3 display, the workspace windows and the tools window took up too much horizontal real estate, leaving a space that was too narrow for me to fully see my photos. Now, my photos fit perfectly in the remaining space. This is the perfect display for me.
 
here is my take on it, the resolution is only 1680 x 1050, that gives you LESS screen space then the 2001fp which is 1600x1200, thoes extra 80 pixels arnt gonna do THAT much for you and IMO its a waste of money, get a 2001FP

now if this did 1920x1200 it would be worth it
 
obviously a user with different needs...
look, if you think that 1050 pixels vertical is too little then go for the 2001fp, but if you usually use 1280x1024, then this display will be fine.
 
I went from a 21" CRT running at 1600x1200 to the 2005FPW. Why was I willing to give up the extra resolution? Because I wanted a widescreen display. Everything that I use the computer for is optimized for widescreen displays. This includes games, photo editing, etc. I even prefer surfing on a widescreen display because I can have FireFox's live bookmarks on the left and it doesn't interfere with the actual browser space. With a widescreen display, I get more useable work space even though there are fewer pixels. I could have went with a 23" WS LCD that can do 1920x1200, but I don't know of any video cards that can drive games at that resolution -- maybe a dual 6800Ultra in SLI configuration, but I'm not about to blow $1000+ on the video cards alone.
 
I keep reading that the 2005FPW is more "reliable" than the 2001FP. Does the 2001FP have some sort of problematic history I don't know about?
 
driver: does that extra 80 pixels really make that much of a difference in photoshop? i use it every day for photoediting 1600vs 1680 isnt that much of a diff. and seeing as my photos come out at 3008x2000 theres still no way of viewing at 100%
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I keep reading that the 2005FPW is more "reliable" than the 2001FP. Does the 2001FP have some sort of problematic history I don't know about?
Click to expand...

Well considering all the oldest 2005's should really only be a few weeks old I don't think we can know to much about thier reliability. My 2001 has been GREAT since I've had mine for the last month aswell as my Dads.
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
driver: does that extra 80 pixels really make that much of a difference in photoshop? i use it every day for photoediting 1600vs 1680 isnt that much of a diff. and seeing as my photos come out at 3008x2000 theres still no way of viewing at 100%
Click to expand...

It's not the extra 80 pixels that help, it's the aspect ratio. With photoshop open and the tools window and workspace windows up, the remaing desktop space was more veritcal than horizontal. This means that my 3:2 ratio landscape photos would not fit optimally in that area (too much wasted space above and below the displayed image). With the 2005FPW, my photos fit this space perfectly. There is almost no wasted space around the photo. If you have an Apple store nearby, head on over and take a look at their 20" WS displays. I'm sure they have Photoshop installed on one of those machines.
 
I dont wiht the 2001fp eihter. I really like mine 😀

(funny my mouse cant keep up with the monitor in games. I tryed to violently throw the mouse around to see ghosting first hand and the monitor never ghosted but the mouse skipped around like heck😛 and I was also using analog which is probably affecting it some 🙁)
 
Originally posted by: Anubis
driver: does that extra 80 pixels really make that much of a difference in photoshop? i use it every day for photoediting 1600vs 1680 isnt that much of a diff. and seeing as my photos come out at 3008x2000 theres still no way of viewing at 100%
Click to expand...

Here's a couple of shots to show you what I'm talking about:

http://www.pbase.com/donald_wong/image/37128972.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/donald_wong/image/37128973.jpg

Notice how well the 3:2 photo fits into the space left behind by the workspace windows? If you measure it out, the photo on the 2005FPW is bigger (in square inches) than it would be on my 21" CRT (at 1600x1200) if both were set to display the image without being blocked by any of the workspace windows. With the 21" CRT, I would have a lot more grey, unuseable space on the top and bottom of the image.
 
Originally posted by: JBT
Originally posted by: tinydancer
Are any of you all experiencing any ghosting with either the 2001 or the 2005?
Click to expand...

I don't with the 2001
Click to expand...

ghosting has been taking care of for along time. ghosting was when lcd 1st came out and had high response times. what you are refering to is called motion blur.

edit : i want to see the review too on the 2005FPW.
 
Ok, first, the 2005fpw is an awesome screen I got mine a few days ago.

Secondly, if you do the math a 1280 display has some where around 120 thousand pixels on screen, where the 2005 has about 180 thousand and the 2001 has 190 thousand, obviously it is much closer in display quality to 1600x1200 than 1280x1024.

So with everything displaying about the same size as the 2001 the only difference is the vertical height and the widescreen. The shorter height is NOT a big deal, it's like 1.5" and honestly your eyes don't even try to look that far up most of the time. However, the widescreen is a huge deal. Widescreen makes general computing just much more enjoyable as it fits better with your natural viewing style.

There is no ghosting, in fact the only thing wrong is that a few seem to get backlight bleeding. Personally mine had it for a while but it has gotten MUCH better over the course of a week and is now not even noticeable. Not quite sure how that happened, but it did.
 
I'm thinking about picking up this monitor as well but I have a concern that I hope someone can address. The 2005FPW has a native resolution that does not correspond to one of the resolutions my video card can support. There are a lot that come very close (and apparently my vid card has a create your own resolution feature) but will lack of an exact match distort the picture?
 
Originally posted by: dibrah
I'm thinking about picking up this monitor as well but I have a concern that I hope someone can address. The 2005FPW has a native resolution that does not correspond to one of the resolutions my video card can support. There are a lot that come very close (and apparently my vid card has a create your own resolution feature) but will lack of an exact match distort the picture?
Click to expand...

No, this is easily fixed by the drivers with the monitor. If my fx5200 can do it, I'm sure your card can.

One other thing I would like to mention, ***doing some more math with the actual sizes of the screens you see that the pixels per square inch are almost identical with about 9100 for each.***

***EDITED: I did the math and the 2005 displays about 9969 pixels per sq inch, whereas the 2001 displays about 9846 per sq inch. While only a slight difference it would provide for a slightly sharper image on the 2005, so another win for it.

These people who talk about the 2001fp being better as it has more viewable space are talking about a VERY minimal amount of extra space. The 2001fp is 195 in^2 and the 2005fpw is 182 in^2 this is a difference of only 13 in^2. For comparison a 17" monitor is 141 in^2 a difference of 54 to the 2001 and 41 to the 2005.

Anyway this difference of 13 in^2 is about equal to two credit cards, not even close to a big deal once you consider that widescreen is in fact how your vision works. Further in order to equal the 2001 in screen size it would only require a 3/4" or about 2.3 cm strip across the top of the monitor, which of course would have been nice for dell to do, but once again not a big deal.

So add all that on top of the slightly better specs of the 2005 in the case of pixel response times, contrast ratios, brightness, and the fact that EVERYTHING is moving to widescreen slowly yet surely, and you can see that this monitor is a real winner over the 2001.

I hope that clears up any questions whatsoever.
Text
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I keep reading that the 2005FPW is more "reliable" than the 2001FP. Does the 2001FP have some sort of problematic history I don't know about?
Click to expand...



My first 2001Fp had powering on issues so i had to return it, then dell sent me nothing but bad refurbs for a long time.

One of the refurbs didnt even turn one. One refurb had physical damage on the screen.

I finally got dell to send me a new one. It has 3 dead pixels. btw all the 2001fp i got had dead/stuck pixels.

I would love to get my hands on the new widescreen one tho, but xmas has my cash flow down big time
~RaNDoM
 
Bump has ANYONE found a review ANYWHERE??

Other than small writeups by owners?

It's been out for how long now and i see nothing about it, anywhere,,




Merry Christmas.

🙂
 
Glad you like it, and it's good to hear they are ironing out the problems..

I WANT A REVIEW.





ANANDTECH can do one.

🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top