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

  • Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Kristopher, could you comment on the perceived lag that I've felt on three different 2001FPs? There's no ghosting, but the delay between moving the mouse and having an update on the screen is horrible. DVI-I and D-SUB, different video cards, systems, the works, they all have it.

    I don't see this on the other LCDs here at work. I know there was a Slashdot post about this a while back, and some have said it's caused by bad batches, but three of them having the same problem? I don't know if I should send my personal 2001FP back ...
  • InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    >Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone >explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if >the resolution is the same (ignoring that the >dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).

    It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20"
  • InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    >"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same >viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" >LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" >CRTs."

    >angle = area in this case?

    >Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and >some not so well...


    a 19" LCD is measured EXACTLY 19"image display size, but a 19" CRT is usually like 18" or 17.x", the 19" is usally the glass size, not the actual image size for CRTs
  • sonicDivx - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if the resolution is the same (ignoring that the dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).

    Also why not list the settings you used for each monitor to attain the results you got (during subjective tests). This way we could set the LCD to your spec and go from there. Where is the Samsung 912N in review, its a common LCD out there?

    >HelToupee
    >viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
    >
    >angle = area in this case?
  • HelToupee - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    In the second paragraph on the first page:

    "Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."

    angle = area in this case?

    Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and some not so well...
  • IHYLN - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    I'm no english major but "more are better" "less are better" in some of the graphs made me wonder.
  • nastyemu25 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    I agree, let's see a Sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology review!
  • ocyl - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Should have dropped Benq's colour scores to 2 (or 1, even) for its decision to use a 6-bit panel instead of a True Colour (8-bit) one :P
  • Filibuster - 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.

    LCD displays don't have a refresh rate at any resolution. There is no flicker to be worried about.
  • Ensign - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    In the Intro, it says, "A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350; a reasonably cheap, new 21" LCD runs for about $330." I'm guessing that was supposed to say 17" or 19" LCD?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now