A Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor - 7 Models Reviewed
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 30, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
benk - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I just (like two hours ago) got my Dell 2005FPW...played an hour of CS:S. Didn't notice any ghosting, blacks were all black, etc. I have my desktop set up stretching across this LCD and my old Sony Trinitron 17" and the color and sharpness on the LCD is markedly better. It actually surprised me; I thought I was giving up color in trade for a wider monitor that's a little easier on the eyes. Nope. It looks great, plays great, and, according to my girlfriend, is lots more stylish.IceWindius - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Screw LCD, SED is the wave of the future.Until then, i'll stick with my Viewsonic CRT monitor, thank you.
archcommus87 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Can anyone go back to the issue that someone asked prior about running non-native resolutions? My biggest deterrent about LCDs was always the fact that if I run my desktop at 1280x1024, I have to run all of my games at that, too. Sorry, but unless I'm buying two video cards a year, that's sometimes hard to do.Can you use other resolutions without getting crappy images?
Yes, at times I have considered selling my 19" and 17" CRT dual monitor setup for one, single 19" LCD. But then I think, nah I love my Philips, and two monitors is cool. Plus I'd hate to have to run all my games at such a high res.
nullpointerus - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Cat: The lower the refresh rate on the video card, the more sluggish the mouse feels to me. Anything below 75 Hz feels terrible. Setting it up to 100 Hz (assuming your card and display support it) feels extremely fluid. I'm just suggesting possibilities, so YMMV.TCfromNL: From what I can tell, the article doesn't make any such claims about whether you have problems if the GIF appears dithered on your display; it's just presenting a visual aid.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
It depends on each peoples eyes, I guess it's not quite as noticable to some. Also not all the 25ms screens are created equal.I have a 25ms LCD, and I don't really notice ghosting, I got it over 2 years ago, though when it cost alot. Though 25ms for an LCD to do continous motion as that enough to generate 40FPS, I also don't really play that many FPS. The new LCD's that are capable of 12ms are amazing that like double the FPS at maximum.
Yeh it would have been nice to test some of the newer LCD panels as well, but to me I don't know why people want it so bright, my LC is around 350:1 range and I already fine that awfully bright, 800:1 just seems so much :S
drinkmorejava - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I'm confused, how can all those 25ms monitors have no noticeable ghosting. I've always known that a black-white measurement does not truly show how much ghosting there will be, but a 5?TCfromNL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Okay. Small problem with the 256-shades-of-blue thing, referred to as "the image below".Since it's a GIF, it only contains 256 shades of color, tops. Including all the greys.
I imagine you have a losslessy (or un-)compressed 24-bit copy somewhere. Still, it's not nice to scare your readers by displaying some 20-shades-of-blue thing while saying that if it doesn't display smooth as a baby's skin, which it doesn't, the viewer's monitor is at fault.
Further, nice article. But since these monitors are all 1280x1024 (except for the 20" Dell), I can't help but leave disappointed. I don't like squarish monitors. There's a reason why TV evolved from 4:3 to 16:9. I agree with the cry above: IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
gwynethgh - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Now to find a good but reasonably priced DVI KVM switch.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Klah: have they benchmarked any units using that methodology except the example? I checked around and couldnt find any.Kristopher
klah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"klah: I was only aware of Xbitlabs doing so. We feel that the methods for measuring reponse time thus far are OK, but not represent gray to gray response time measurements well. Its something we are working on and we will probably have a better methodology before the next roundup.Kristopher"
Here is Tom's methodology:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20040923/...