What's better? Dell 2001 or 2005?

[Zebo]

Thinking about ordering another one of these 2005's.. pretty cheap right now @ $400..(check out gottadeal.com if interested)

Anyway what's better?

Bigger?

Better response times?

The 2001 or 2005?

Any issues I should be aware of bewteen them?

 

[Bateluer]

2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms/"12ms", 1680x1050 native, 16:10 Aspect

fixed

It's a matter of personal preference really (my preference was the 2005FPW, FWIW )

 

[Jeff7181]

How do you guys deal with the limited color depth of LCD's? Anything less than 32-bit color doesn't look right to me.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
How do you guys deal with the limited color depth of LCD's? Anything less than 32-bit color doesn't look right to me.

The 2001 and 2005 are both 8 bit (per channel) panels....am I missing something? 24 bit color is 16.7million colors anyway (and if I'm not mistaken, you can't get higher than that on a CRT anyway..)...both monitors look fine to me, and I'd used CRT's for years before...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

So the 2001 is bigger right, my trig is forgotten?

I'm sending this 2005 off to dad for fathers day but I'm thinking about trying out another LCD.. I tried some games and was surprised.. very little ghost..still noticeable from my 22" diamondpro but almost acceptable..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
How do you guys deal with the limited color depth of LCD's? Anything less than 32-bit color doesn't look right to me.

Biggest problem is resolution scaling and response, not color. has 16 million of them, I mean you can tell 32million from 16million? Rare beast indeed.

Positives: zero dead pixels, decent blacks, crisp clear and bright like all LCD's, and very good viewing angle.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

So the 2001 is bigger right, my trig is forgotten?

I'm sending this 2005 off to dad for fathers day but I'm thinking about trying out another LCD.. I tried some games and was surprised.. very little ghost..still noticeable from my 22" diamondpro but almost acceptable..

Yes, the 2001 has more total pixels (1.92MP vs. 1.76MP, if I remember correctly).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

So the 2001 is bigger right, my trig is forgotten?

I'm sending this 2005 off to dad for fathers day but I'm thinking about trying out another LCD.. I tried some games and was surprised.. very little ghost..still noticeable from my 22" diamondpro but almost acceptable..

Yes, the 2001 has more total pixels (1.92MP vs. 1.76MP, if I remember correctly).

yaya, how about demisions? i.e. square inches?

 

[Chode Messiah]

2005 is ws the other isn't. I heard the 2005 is faster,but has fewer pixels per sq. inch. The 2005 has a lower contrast ratio but I'm not positive.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

So the 2001 is bigger right, my trig is forgotten?

I'm sending this 2005 off to dad for fathers day but I'm thinking about trying out another LCD.. I tried some games and was surprised.. very little ghost..still noticeable from my 22" diamondpro but almost acceptable..

Yes, the 2001 has more total pixels (1.92MP vs. 1.76MP, if I remember correctly).

yaya, how about demisions? i.e. square inches?

I'm pretty sure the pixel pitch is essentially the same between the two monitors and that the 2001 does have more surface/screen area, yes. I could measure specifically if I wanted to (I use a 2005 and my brother uses a 2001 in the next room), but I'm a lazy bastard

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Chode Messiah
2005 is ws the other isn't. I heard the 2005 is faster,but has fewer pixels per sq. inch. The 2005 has a lower contrast ratio but I'm not positive.

I think the 2005's contrast ratio is actually higher than the 2001, now that you mention it. I do believe my monitor seems brighter than the 2001 I used to use.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms/"12ms", 1680x1050 native, 16:10 Aspect

fixed

It's a matter of personal preference really (my preference was the 2005FPW, FWIW )

Dell reports the response time as 12ms, however the actual maker of the panel reports it as 16ms. And since all the other LCDs which use the 2005's panel, including the Apple Cinema Display, report it as 16ms, I will consider the 2005 a 16ms panel.

It is a 16x10 Aspect and 8-bit panel though, should have added that.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms/"12ms", 1680x1050 native, 16:10 Aspect

fixed

It's a matter of personal preference really (my preference was the 2005FPW, FWIW )

Dell reports the response time as 12ms, however the actual maker of the panel reports it as 16ms. And since all the other LCDs which use the 2005's panel, including the Apple Cinema Display, report it as 16ms, I will consider the 2005 a 16ms panel.

It is a 16x10 Aspect and 8-bit panel though, should have added that.

That's why I put the "12ms" in quotes

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms/"12ms", 1680x1050 native, 16:10 Aspect

fixed

It's a matter of personal preference really (my preference was the 2005FPW, FWIW )

Dell reports the response time as 12ms, however the actual maker of the panel reports it as 16ms. And since all the other LCDs which use the 2005's panel, including the Apple Cinema Display, report it as 16ms, I will consider the 2005 a 16ms panel.

It is a 16x10 Aspect and 8-bit panel though, should have added that.

That's why I put the "12ms" in quotes

Bah.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

So the 2001 is bigger right, my trig is forgotten?

I'm sending this 2005 off to dad for fathers day but I'm thinking about trying out another LCD.. I tried some games and was surprised.. very little ghost..still noticeable from my 22" diamondpro but almost acceptable..

Yes, the 2001 has more total pixels (1.92MP vs. 1.76MP, if I remember correctly).

yaya, how about demisions? i.e. square inches?

I'm pretty sure the pixel pitch is essentially the same between the two monitors and that the 2001 does have more surface/screen area, yes. I could measure specifically if I wanted to (I use a 2005 and my brother uses a 2001 in the next room), but I'm a lazy bastard

I think I fiqured it out using pythagoras theorem (you kids should know this stuff)

anyway

2001 is bigger @ 192in^2 vs. 180in^2 for 2005.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer
2001 = 20in, 16ms, 1600x1200 native, 4:3 Aspect

2005 - 20in, 16ms, 1680x1050 native, 16:9 Aspect

My 2005 thread

So the 2001 is bigger right, my trig is forgotten?

I'm sending this 2005 off to dad for fathers day but I'm thinking about trying out another LCD.. I tried some games and was surprised.. very little ghost..still noticeable from my 22" diamondpro but almost acceptable..

Yes, the 2001 has more total pixels (1.92MP vs. 1.76MP, if I remember correctly).

yaya, how about demisions? i.e. square inches?

I'm pretty sure the pixel pitch is essentially the same between the two monitors and that the 2001 does have more surface/screen area, yes. I could measure specifically if I wanted to (I use a 2005 and my brother uses a 2001 in the next room), but I'm a lazy bastard

I think I fiqured it out using pythagoras theorem (you kids should know this stuff)

anyway

2001 is bigger @ 192in^2 vs. 180in^2 for 2005.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[Zebo]

Anybody here have both?

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Anybody here have both?

I don't "own" both, but I have access to both, sorta...

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Anybody here have both?

I do. Even though I prefer 2001fp, I think 2005fpw is the better LCD since it uses newer tech. 2001fp is fairly old tech and almost 2 years old.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: Zebo
Anybody here have both?

I do. Even though I prefer 2001fp, I think 2005fpw is the better LCD since it uses newer tech. 2001fp is fairly old tech and almost 2 years old.

Expound on newer tech Naustica. Faster fresh? Runs cooler? Frankly I'm not a fan of wide screen so far. The forums and spreadsheets I use looked whacked. Guess I'm used to 4:3 out of habit.

 

[cbehnken]

I like the 2001 better because you lose way too much height with the 2005. I mean really, it's only as tall as a 17" 4:3 LCD.

 

[Ackmed]

Get the 2005. In games that support WS, you get more game. I also just prefer WS in normal everyday usage.

 

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Get the 2005. In games that support WS, you get more game. I also just prefer WS in normal everyday usage.

:thumbsup:

 

[cornelp]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Get the 2005. In games that support WS, you get more game. I also just prefer WS in normal everyday usage.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup


I use this monitor for games, rendering artowork, photoshop, etc etc. I used to have a Sony 21 Inch Trinitron, and I will never go back. I love the widescreen. In games it looks so owesome (extremely little ghosting, barely see it) due to WideScreen. I play almost all fast FPS games and no problems, UT2K4, HL2, Commandos, Q3 etc etc. When rendering artwork and designing art in Bryce, Daz, Poser, Studio, Lightwave, the screen looks so much better, I can create em WideScreen pics i always wanted to.
If U do not play much games and do not watch many widescreen movies, then go for the 2001, otherwise, get the 2005.
Just one thing. For the future software, games movies, TV etc etc, U will regret NOT getting the widescreen. Pretty much most stuff now is made in widescreen.

Just my 2 cents. I would never go back to my BIG CHUNKY 21 inch CRT, nor a 4:3 ratio monitor.