Dell 2001FP

To put things in perspective, we added our reigning LCD champion, the Dell 2001FP to our fray. The nearly identical Planar and ViewSonic VP201s could also be substituted, as they all cost about the same and incorporate the same features and panel.



Dell 2001FP
LCD 20.1" UXGA LCD (Active Matrix)
pixel pitch: 0.255mm
Anti-glare coating
Super IPS
Scanning Frequency Horizontal: 31-80kHz
Vertical: 56-76Hz
Response Time 16ms (Typical)
Contrast Ratio 400:1 (Typical)
Compatibility 1600 x 1200 (Native)
Brightness 250 cd/m2
Viewing Angle 176 / 176 (Horizontal / Vertical)
Power Working: 90W
Standby/Off: 5W
Warranty 3 years parts and labor
Interface DVI
15-pin D-sub

Our Dell 2001FP quickly became the definitive monitor that any other monitor we reviewed had to aspire to equal. A year later, it is starting to show its age; every monitor that we are looking at today shines brighter, but no LCD today can match its higher resolution and feature set. Not only does the 2001FP come with an adjustable stand. but other amenities as well, like a USB hub, composite and S-Video inputs, etc. Again, feel free to check out the original review, including an in-depth analysis of our thoughts and praises.

There were dozens of things that we liked about the 2001FP, and a year later, it still outperforms the other LCDs that we picked out for our 19" comparison. Unfortunately, not everyone has $800 to spend on a new monitor.

ViewSonic Q190MB Cost Analysis
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • soki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    We want to see some reviews of the new wave of 19'' LCDs. Like the sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology, viewsonic VP912b or some 10 bit eizo monitors.. When?
  • UlricT - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    umm... page #4
    "The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms"

    could be kinda confusing for the noob there. You guys really need an editorial staff :D
  • screech - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    #4 true.....i have also heard that working at a CRT monitor for 8 or more hours a day doubles the chances of glaucoma.....so it might be safer going LCD (for the eyes)........anyway.....
  • Jeff7181 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Man... I guess ignorance is bliss... I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of my $80 17 inch CRT... I can't imagine paying over $500 for a monitor unless you're doing graphics work as a profession.
  • D0rkIRL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Why does the Dell 2001FP have a 25ms typical response time while on your older review you state it as having a 16ms typical response time?
    The pixel pitch changed from .255mm to .55mm.

    Any reason behind these?
  • skunkbuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    just out of curiosity, what happens to all these lcds after they are reviewed?
  • KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.

    I still haven't found a monitor better than a high quality, high res trinitron.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now