Resolution: Size Difference of 2001FP vs. 2005FPW

[Mephibosheth]

I've heard many say that the 2005FPW's height is an issue and not as tall as the 2001FP, but if one considers the resolutions, it seems like the 2005's picture should be slightly *taller* by 80 pixels. I was considering the 2005FPW, but after reading comments such as "the vertical height is about that of a 17" monitor" and "the 2005 has less area", I firmly decided on the 2001FP.

It should be said that I use my systems to run a business, but also for leisure. This includes almost no gaming, but I do watch a lot of TV and DVD's on the system for which I want the monitor.

So what's the reality here? How is it that the 2005FPW has less vertical space and area than the 2001FP?

Thanks,
Meph

 

[llamaSpire]

You correctly recalled everyone's comments. I'm not sure exactly what little piece you're missing, but I'll go a bit overkill and see if it helps. Both the 2001fp and 2005fpw are 20.1" screens (diagonally measured). Hence, since the 2005fpw is longer in one dimension, it's going to be shorter in the other dimension. As for the physical screen area, it's less because it's getting farther away from a square shape, which would be the optimum physical area for a given diagonal measurement.

As for screen resolution, I'm almost sure both screens have dot pitches (distance between pixels) of exactly the same (in both directions)--so the resolutions "agree" with the physical sizes.

Wow, a solidly nerdy and probably confusing post. In short, go to www.dell.com and type '2001fp' into the search bar.

 

[cbehnken]

Simple:

2005 is: 1680x1050
2001 is 1600x1200

Dot pitch is the same. So you give up 150 pixels in height for only 80 pixels in width.

A typical 17" screen has a very similar dot pitch to both of these screens and is 1280x12024, therefore you can see that the 2005 is *barely* taller than a 17" LCD.

 

[llamaSpire]

Yeah. Much better.

 

[ChuckHsiao]

The dot pitches are actually slightly different (but not by much). LlamaSpire is correct, they both have same diagonal but the widescreen is farther from a square so it has less area. However, the 2001FP has to fit more pixels into that area as well -- 1600x1200 = 1.92M as opposed to the 2005FPW's 1680x1050 = 1.764M. Thus the 2001FP actually has a smaller dot pitch, 0.255 mm compared with the 2005FPW's 0.258 mm.

The 2001FP has more area and more importantly, more pixels than the 2005FPW (that means you can see more information using it). However, the 2005FPW is better if you intend to watch a lot of movies, because it's widescreen. So it's really up to how you'll be using it.

I gave a chart detailing monitors' size, dot pitch, *true* diagonal size (it's rarely exactly what the manufacturers say, but pretty close), and other information here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1651650&enterthread=y

Scroll to the middle, because my first chart has some incorrect information regarding the 23.1", and my second one has more information. As you can see, the 2001FP's panel's dimensions are 16.06" x 12.05", while that of the 2005FPW is 17.06" x 10.67". For a 17" monitor, the dimensions are 13.30" x 10.64".

 

[Peter]

It depends on what you're doing. Watching movies? Get the widescreen. Got applications with sidebars eating into document width, or often use two windows side-by-side? Get the widescreen. Got applications with "long" rather than "wide" documents? Get the widescreen, and pivot it to Portrait orientation.
Now when to get the 4:3 one? Erm ... can't think of anything actually

 

[sundev]

Originally posted by: Peter
It depends on what you're doing. Watching movies? Get the widescreen. Got applications with sidebars eating into document width, or often use two windows side-by-side? Get the widescreen. Got applications with "long" rather than "wide" documents? Get the widescreen, and pivot it to Portrait orientation.
Now when to get the 4:3 one? Erm ... can't think of anything actually

I can't think of a reason NOT to get a widescreen either, especially if you're doing little gaming. Watching DVDs on the 2005FPW is amazing, as essentially the entire screen is filled.

If you're basically just doing word processing/web browsing, but then also watching movies, I would say get the 2005FPW - you don't get as much "area" or vertical height when doing word processing/web browsing (though it's much easier to use two programs side-by-side with a widescreen as Peter said), but you do get a much better movie experience. The movies actually end up using a larger area as there isn't as much black bar wastage as on a 4:3 screen, and if there is one thing that should take precedence when you're considering the total size, it's movies.

EDIT: Spelling.

 

[Mephibosheth]

Thanks for all the replies, and my apologies for the delayed response...Unavoidable. As llamaSpire stated, I was indeed missing "a piece" of the puzzle. Somehow I had applied the incorrect resolution of 1600x1280 to the 2005FPW. So, that resolves the area issue.

I see that most here recommend the 2005FPW. It *is* cheaper (there must be a reason for that though, right?). Unfortunately, I don't know anyone with either monitor, so I can't actually check it out firsthand.

Although I *do* watch a lot of movies, and would probably enjoy the 2005FPW for that reason, I do also run a business from the machine I plan on using the monitor on (actually, 2 machines with KVM usage), so I'm concerned that vertical space might become an issue. Also, while I might save money with the 2005, I would have to buy a new video card to accomodate the native resolution of the 2005FPW, ergo, I most likely will stick with the 2001FP unless someone can soundly convince me otherwise.

I now have a viewsonic E790 19" CRT, which I run at 1280x1024. The screen size (and just the screen) is: 18" Diag, 10 3/4" Vertically, 14.5" wide. How does the 2005FPW stack up to that? Also, having mentioned the KVM, are there any known issues with the 2005 or 2001 regarding KVMs?


Thanks again,
Meph

 

[Bona Fide]

Widescreen always looks better. In movies, games, anything. Plus, the FPW is one sexy monitor, if there ever was one.

 

[Quantum Mechanic]

I got the 2001FP and love it.

At 1600x1200 I find that the resolution is great for a variety of uses. I game, I word process, I stare at Anandtech for many hours etc.. The thing is beautiful at standard resolution but also does interpolation(I know god forbid) well because it is a 4 square of 800x600.

The widescreen was tempting but the resolution is so nonstandard that it is doomed to be obsolete. If I wanted a widescreen I would save up for the 24 in. That supports HD resolution native. Of course that is twice the price so I am being a little rediculous.

At times they are within $30 of each other but at others the widescreen is as much as $100 cheaper.

 

[jb20thae]

The 2005fpw looks MUCH smaller than the 2001. The 2005fpw is deceptive, doesn't looke like a 20" monitor at all where as the 2001 has a kind of "wow" factor due to it's size (did for me at least).

But, if you're not doing any gaming the 2005fpw is much cheaper and has a better aspect ratio for video. For games I'd take the 2001 for sure.

 

[duragezic]

Originally posted by: Mephibosheth
Thanks for all the replies, and my apologies for the delayed response...Unavoidable. As llamaSpire stated, I was indeed missing "a piece" of the puzzle. Somehow I had applied the incorrect resolution of 1600x1280 to the 2005FPW. So, that resolves the area issue.

I see that most here recommend the 2005FPW. It *is* cheaper (there must be a reason for that though, right?). Unfortunately, I don't know anyone with either monitor, so I can't actually check it out firsthand.

Although I *do* watch a lot of movies, and would probably enjoy the 2005FPW for that reason, I do also run a business from the machine I plan on using the monitor on (actually, 2 machines with KVM usage), so I'm concerned that vertical space might become an issue. Also, while I might save money with the 2005, I would have to buy a new video card to accomodate the native resolution of the 2005FPW, ergo, I most likely will stick with the 2001FP unless someone can soundly convince me otherwise.

I now have a viewsonic E790 19" CRT, which I run at 1280x1024. The screen size (and just the screen) is: 18" Diag, 10 3/4" Vertically, 14.5" wide. How does the 2005FPW stack up to that? Also, having mentioned the KVM, are there any known issues with the 2005 or 2001 regarding KVMs?


Thanks again,
Meph

The 2005FPW is 17" wide and 10.67" tall IIRC. I have a 19" CRT as well. Unless you run 1600x1200, you don't lose anything. I'm waiting on slow-ass Dell till Friday, but I wanna run my 900NF with the 2005FPW side-by-side if possible, otherwise just compare them one after another. I have a feeling the LCD will be much better in almost all aspects. The majority of games that I currently play have native WS support, which IMO will be killer. My computer, overclocked, is just fast enough to play 'em at 1680x1050. So I think I will be happy with the FPW. The only good LCD I've used before is just today when I used a 1905FP in the new labs. I was pretty impressed, and basically I'll have the same monitor except an inch or two wider so it was easy to visualize what it'll be like. The quality looked nice and they were using a analog connection.

 

[unsped]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Simple:

2005 is: 1680x1050
2001 is 1600x1200

Dot pitch is the same. So you give up 150 pixels in height for only 80 pixels in width.

A typical 17" screen has a very similar dot pitch to both of these screens and is 1280x12024, therefore you can see that the 2005 is *barely* taller than a 17" LCD.

dot pitch is not the same. i belive 2005 = .258 2001 = .264

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: unsped

dot pitch is not the same. i belive 2005 = .258 2001 = .264

2001FP is 0.255, 17" 5:4 LCDs are .264

 

[unsped]

ah so it is, my bad

 

[Mephibosheth]

The 2005fpw looks MUCH smaller than the 2001. The 2005fpw is deceptive, doesn't looke like a 20" monitor at all where as the 2001 has a kind of "wow" factor due to it's size (did for me at least).

That has been my concern and the determining factor in steering me to the 2001. Movies aside (which should be fine, given that I've been watching them on an 18" viewable display for several years now...), I do a lot of multi-tasking, and the more space, the better. I think when it comes to apps, the vertical space would be sorely missed.

 

[jb20thae]

If they were priced the same, I would have bought the 2001fp now that I've seen the 2005fpw.

But, the 2005fpw is very nice... just a little short looking

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: unsped

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Simple:

2005 is: 1680x1050
2001 is 1600x1200

Dot pitch is the same. So you give up 150 pixels in height for only 80 pixels in width.

A typical 17" screen has a very similar dot pitch to both of these screens and is 1280x12024, therefore you can see that the 2005 is *barely* taller than a 17" LCD.

dot pitch is not the same. i belive 2005 = .258 2001 = .264

Sweet Jesus!@! Even if you were correct we are talking about 6 hundredths of an inch.

 

[Batti]

I just got the 2005fpw at work, and I absolutely love it. A co-worker has the 2001, and I'd rather have the 2005 after comparing the two.