Flat panel native resolution and games (1905fp vs 2001fp)

[pretzelb]

I'm tempted by these deals on the 2001fp and the 1905fp but I haven't owned an LCD before and was wondering if the native resolution is 1600x1200 does that mean you should play games at that resolution or else it will look really bad?

My 9600xt can't play many games at 1600x1200. In fact, I mostly like 1024x768. I also don't plan to get one of the latest video cards anytime soon. I'd hate to get a really nice 19" or 20" flat panel and have the games look bad (but have Windows desktop look great!!).

As a side question, can anyone compare the 1905fp to the 2001fp? I hear great things about the 2001fp but the 400 contrast vs the 800 of the 1905fp makes me a bit concerned. I like the 16ms response time of the 2001fp but it is at the end of the product cycle and the 1905fp is the new 19" model. Newer is usually better right?

 

[wraith3k]

The screen should be used at its native resolution whenever possible, otherwise things will look blurry if you drop down to lower resolutions. Particularly if you only play at 1024x768 when the native one is 1600x1200.

I guess the alternative would be playing in windowed mode if the game supports it (where the picture is just a square on the screen with black borders around it, but it might be too small this way).

 

[pretzelb]

Hmm, makes me think I should consider the 19" over the 20". I have a better chance at hitting 1280x1024 with a future video card than I do 1600x1200. I typically don't buy a new card until the price drops to below $200. This means that the latest games (like a Doom3 or Farcry) won't run at a resolution of 1600x1200 without a severe hit to fps.

 

[JBT]

I thought with the newer LCD's were better at scalling in games. Yes I know on the desktop scaling looks like crap but for games I thought they still looked decent. I don't have an LCD so I have no first hand experience trying this but I am looking for one in the future.

 

[crsgardner]

Scaling is still an issue. I have a 2001fp and the difference between native res and lower is definitely noticable.

That said, the 6800GT performs admirably in 1600x1200. Doom runs well, and my favorite older game (Warcraft III) runs like a dream.

 

[pretzelb]

This makes me think I should look into the 19" 1905fp. It will probably be a while before I get something like the 6800 and by then I'm sure something more demanding than Doom3 will be out. I have a better chance of hitting 1280x1024 then hitting 1600x1200 with the way I handle my video card budget.

 

[kki000]

dont forget you can run 1280x1024 non scaled on the 2001fp.

I did a crude measurement, and the "windowed" 1280 res is the same size as my 17in lcd monitor.

Its not ideal, but im ok to run doom3 that way.

I debated whether i should get the vp912b or the 2001fp. I went with the bigger monitor.

You can see alot more on a 1600x res than on a 1280. The few games i cant run at 1600 natively, i'll window. Hopefully i can run hl2 at 1600, than im all set.

K

 

[pretzelb]

You got me curious about this now - curious enough to show my huge lack of knowledge on the subject.

So with a flat panel you can set a resolution to lower then native and tell it not to scale to fill the screen? I presume this is through the on screen menu controls for the flat panel? And if do the quality is the same but portions of the screen are left unused?

I think I could live with that. In fact, I can't see a drawback if that's the way it works. If I ever won the lottery and got a hot new video card I could use 1600x1200, otherwise I could use whatever and get good quality.

 

[kki000]

this is an easy setting in the nvida cntrl panel.
You can tell it to scale using the monitors scaler, scale internally in the card or send out the signal so it doesnt scale.
The last setting draws the lower rez image in the middle of the panel.

Like i said, the rough measurements, (using my hand!) makes the 1280 image roughly the same size as the 17 inch lcd monitor that i have.(17incher has a native 1280 res)

Not ideal, but i suspect with the 6800gt, there shouldnt be many games i cant run at 1600x.

the 2001fp is considerably larger than the 1901fp i replaced it with.

I like it a whole hell of alot better too, not just for games, but even as a general purpose monitor, i think its much much better.

K

 

[pretzelb]

Originally posted by: kki000
this is an easy setting in the nvida cntrl panel.
You can tell it to scale using the monitors scaler, scale internally in the card or send out the signal so it doesnt scale.
The last setting draws the lower rez image in the middle of the panel.

Like i said, the rough measurements, (using my hand!) makes the 1280 image roughly the same size as the 17 inch lcd monitor that i have.(17incher has a native 1280 res)

Not ideal, but i suspect with the 6800gt, there shouldnt be many games i cant run at 1600x.

the 2001fp is considerably larger than the 1901fp i replaced it with.

I like it a whole hell of alot better too, not just for games, but even as a general purpose monitor, i think its much much better.

K

I hope you're right. I got the 2001fp although I think the 1905fp might have been a better deal. If this isn't great I'm holding you responsible .

 

[crimson117]

Keep in mind that because th 2001FP's native is 1600x1200, it will display 800x600 BEAUTIFULLY, since it just uses exactly 4 physical pixels for each one screen pixel. (since 1600x1200 / 2 = 800x600). So if you want to do desktop work in 1600x1200, but then play games at 800x600 on a slower graphics card, go for the 2001FP.

 

[pretzelb]

I have the 2001fp and I'm amazed how huge it is. One of the reasons for going with a FP was portability but this thing is so big I'm still worried about transporting it.

The picture quality is nice but I can easily see why anyone who works with photos has to have a CRT. Some pictures that I know are good quality show up as so-so on the FP. I can see doing some editing on an image with a FP and having it come out badly on a CRT.

Games appear good and I don't think my eyes are good enough to see the scaling problem. I haven't tested a long time but first glance doesn't show anything horrible. My goal would be to get at least 1024x768 in all my games. I threw the 800x600 out there because I think with my 9600xt it's the best I can hope for with games like Doom3.

I think the 19" from Dell might have been a better buy for me. I'm will need to check on the return policy and see what I can do.

 

[Auric]

Like kki000 said, centered is always an option (at least with NVIDIA). 1280/1600x20=16, the equivalent of a 17" CRT. How is the scaling from 1280? My biggest gripe with ATI is lack of those scaling options since many panels don't have their own -the only option is to disable driver scaling which works fine for some resolutions, particularly 1280x960 centered on 1280x1024, but if a game needs 1024x768 then it's Vertical Stretch-0-Vision, in addition to the panel scaling which otherwise wouldn't be bad.

 

[Vallybally]

I struggle with what my ideal LCD would be too. Even tho I have a top of the line video card now, I don't like the idea of having to keep up with the top of the line $400 video cards as new games come out each year to run them in 1600x800...

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Vallybally
I struggle with what my ideal LCD would be too. Even tho I have a top of the line video card now, I don't like the idea of having to keep up with the top of the line $400 video cards as new games come out each year to run them in 1600x800...

This is true. I have a GT right now and worry about future games. I think I will be safe for awhile though. I'll just make sure AA is off and maybe if I have to turn some of the other settings down a little bit too. Over all I'm not worried, I upgrade quite a bit anyways and I'll be out of school then so hopfully I'll have the money comming in.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: pretzelb
One of the reasons for going with a FP was portability but this thing is so big I'm still worried about transporting it..

That's a terrible reason to go with an LCD screen - they are extremely fragile so you absolutely do not want to be carting them around. Laptops have a specially designed hard shell to protect the screen in transit - with an LCD monitor you are going to have to be very careful about packaging it before moving it.

 

[pelikan]

My 20" Dell LCD forced me to buy a new video card. Since 1600 x 1200 is available and looks so good in games, it is impossible for me not to use it.

 

[pretzelb]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: pretzelb
One of the reasons for going with a FP was portability but this thing is so big I'm still worried about transporting it..

That's a terrible reason to go with an LCD screen - they are extremely fragile so you absolutely do not want to be carting them around. Laptops have a specially designed hard shell to protect the screen in transit - with an LCD monitor you are going to have to be very careful about packaging it before moving it.

I was borrowing the gf's 17" NEC FP for gaming and it worked out well for one reason. The original box it came in was not much bigger than the flat panel and it had a handle. It was about the size of a small suitcase or large briefcase. I stored the box (styrofoam and all) in my closet and when it came time to transport all I had to do was put it back in the box and put the box in the car. The 20" Dell has came in a huge box so this isn't practical. I would need a better transport carrier like one of those things that are made for cases and LCDs (forgot company name).

 

[stonep]

I have a 1905FP , AND I must admit its the best BLACK levels i've seen on a LCD since a crt. The 800:1 contrast is something really amazing, and I'd much rather have this type of contrat then the bigger 2001fp. The next 2001FP better step it up with higher contrast, because the BLACK LEVELS and Shawdow details, color richness on the 1905fp are draw dropping for a lcd