So my 21" Viewsonic is dimming and on it's way to burning out I suppose. Can't work with this for too much longer since I do a fair bit of work in graphic design and need a non-dim monitor. Being on the verge of upgrading my rig about a year from now, I figure I may get a jumpstart on it now and get in on the LCD era.
I know for graphic work and gaming CRT's seem to be the most optimal choice, but I'm not a big budget professional artist so I don't need the highest grade equipment, and my PC gaming habits are fairly light. That said, my questions will still cater more towards the gaming side. Knowing this, for the past couple days I've been putting in research and and found the reviews for the Dell 1905FP and 2001FP products to be suitable to my needs. Somewhat.
I've used a CRT all my life, and have only had limited experience with an LCD monitor. A friend of mine has a Dell 1900FP that I bummed off her to run a quick test on how I'd like it. IIRC the advertised response time was 25ms, and when I ran MVP2005 on it the game looked horrid. The amount of ghosting seriously hurt my eyes. I should note I was using an analog connector and running in native resolution 1280x1024. GTA San Andreas (jeez what a buggy game, but I digress) however didn't bother me at all, and I was not running that in native resolution.
With all of that out of the way, here are my questions:
1) Will the quicker response times of the 1905 and 2001, along with using DVI over analog eliminate or greatly reduce the ghosting issues I saw with MVP2005 (I play this game much more than GTASA so it means a lot to me)?
2) My PC currently isn't completely capable of running games smoothly at 1600x1200, the 2001FP's native res. Plus at that res, screen text is too small for my tastes. Is running games/apps/desktop out of native res really put that huge of a hit on the display quality? On the testing I did with the 1900 I really couldn't tell, however I wasn't looking for it. I was also using analog. Would DVI enhance this flaw?
3) Other than a higher native res (and obviously an extra inch of screen), in what ways are the 2001FP better than the 1905FP? If that higher res doesn't benefit me, is the 2001FP still worth the extra cost?
4) Would it be wise to invest in the 2001FP, use larger screen fonts for visibility, and game at 800x600 until I can afford a new PC, or go with the 1905FP which stops at 1280x1024 (1280x1024/960 is my visibility comfort zone) and live with the fact that it'll never get the 1600x1200 res when I upgrade?
5) Is there another montitor (19"+, 8-bit panel, decent response time, has DVI, under $450) that I should be eyeing?
I appreciate any help!
I know for graphic work and gaming CRT's seem to be the most optimal choice, but I'm not a big budget professional artist so I don't need the highest grade equipment, and my PC gaming habits are fairly light. That said, my questions will still cater more towards the gaming side. Knowing this, for the past couple days I've been putting in research and and found the reviews for the Dell 1905FP and 2001FP products to be suitable to my needs. Somewhat.
I've used a CRT all my life, and have only had limited experience with an LCD monitor. A friend of mine has a Dell 1900FP that I bummed off her to run a quick test on how I'd like it. IIRC the advertised response time was 25ms, and when I ran MVP2005 on it the game looked horrid. The amount of ghosting seriously hurt my eyes. I should note I was using an analog connector and running in native resolution 1280x1024. GTA San Andreas (jeez what a buggy game, but I digress) however didn't bother me at all, and I was not running that in native resolution.
With all of that out of the way, here are my questions:
1) Will the quicker response times of the 1905 and 2001, along with using DVI over analog eliminate or greatly reduce the ghosting issues I saw with MVP2005 (I play this game much more than GTASA so it means a lot to me)?
2) My PC currently isn't completely capable of running games smoothly at 1600x1200, the 2001FP's native res. Plus at that res, screen text is too small for my tastes. Is running games/apps/desktop out of native res really put that huge of a hit on the display quality? On the testing I did with the 1900 I really couldn't tell, however I wasn't looking for it. I was also using analog. Would DVI enhance this flaw?
3) Other than a higher native res (and obviously an extra inch of screen), in what ways are the 2001FP better than the 1905FP? If that higher res doesn't benefit me, is the 2001FP still worth the extra cost?
4) Would it be wise to invest in the 2001FP, use larger screen fonts for visibility, and game at 800x600 until I can afford a new PC, or go with the 1905FP which stops at 1280x1024 (1280x1024/960 is my visibility comfort zone) and live with the fact that it'll never get the 1600x1200 res when I upgrade?
5) Is there another montitor (19"+, 8-bit panel, decent response time, has DVI, under $450) that I should be eyeing?
I appreciate any help!
