Dell's new widescreen 20.1" LCD monitor
11-09-2004, 07:19 PM
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Dell's new widescreen 20.1" LCD monitor
not a bad deal... the resolution is almost perfect for HD and it has a 12ms response time, great for gaming... if I didn't have 2 2000FP's already I would buy this in a heartbeat... considering swapping one of those out for this - the only thing stopping me is that this has a lower screen area (compared to 1600x1200 on the 2000FP).... hmm... I probably won't do it... but this is great for anyone that has been waiting to get an LCD....
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/P...ctlisting.aspx
DELL
UltraSharp 2005FPW 20.1-inch Flat Panel LCD Monitor
with Height Adjustable Stand
$679.15
Viewable Size: 20.1"
Display Type: Flat Panel Display / Active Matrix TFT - Desktop
Depth: 9"
Features: Automatic Setup Adjustment, Kensington Lock Slot, 100 mm VESA Mounting, Height Adjustable Stand Included
Height: Compressed: 15.3", Extended: 22.4"
Weight: 17.64 lbs
Width: 18.6"
Image Max H-View Angle: ±88°
Image Max V-View Angle: ±88°
Color Support: 16.7 Million
Connectivity Technology: Cable
Device Type: Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand
Dimensions (WxDxH) / Weight: 18.6" x 9" x 15.3" to 22.4" / 17.64 lbs
Enclosure Color: Midnight Gray
Image Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Image Brightness: 300 cd/m²
Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1
Max Resolution: 1680x1050 Pixels
Max Sync Rate (V x H): 75 Hz x 83 kHz
Port(s) Total ( Free ) / Connector Type: VGA / DVI-D / S-video / Composite / 4 x USB 2.0
Power Consumption Operational: 75 W (maximum), 55 W (typical)
Diagonal Size / Viewable Size: 20 / 20.1"
Compatibility: PC
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/P...ctlisting.aspx
DELL
UltraSharp 2005FPW 20.1-inch Flat Panel LCD Monitor
with Height Adjustable Stand
$679.15
Viewable Size: 20.1"
Display Type: Flat Panel Display / Active Matrix TFT - Desktop
Depth: 9"
Features: Automatic Setup Adjustment, Kensington Lock Slot, 100 mm VESA Mounting, Height Adjustable Stand Included
Height: Compressed: 15.3", Extended: 22.4"
Weight: 17.64 lbs
Width: 18.6"
Image Max H-View Angle: ±88°
Image Max V-View Angle: ±88°
Color Support: 16.7 Million
Connectivity Technology: Cable
Device Type: Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand
Dimensions (WxDxH) / Weight: 18.6" x 9" x 15.3" to 22.4" / 17.64 lbs
Enclosure Color: Midnight Gray
Image Aspect Ratio: 16:10
Image Brightness: 300 cd/m²
Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1
Max Resolution: 1680x1050 Pixels
Max Sync Rate (V x H): 75 Hz x 83 kHz
Port(s) Total ( Free ) / Connector Type: VGA / DVI-D / S-video / Composite / 4 x USB 2.0
Power Consumption Operational: 75 W (maximum), 55 W (typical)
Diagonal Size / Viewable Size: 20 / 20.1"
Compatibility: PC
11-09-2004, 07:26 PM
#5
Well, I dunno...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bozeman, MT
Age: 42
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005FPW Height: Compressed: 15.3", Extended: 22.4"
vs
2001FP Height: With stand: 25" (fully extended in portrait mode), 18" (compressed/locked in landscape mode)
vs
2001FP Height: With stand: 25" (fully extended in portrait mode), 18" (compressed/locked in landscape mode)
11-09-2004, 07:28 PM
#6
Well, I dunno...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bozeman, MT
Age: 42
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does look cool - I just dont know if the resolution will work as well for games though. The 12ms is great though - awesome monitor for movies! If I didnt just get a 2001FP I look pretty serious at this one.
BTW - Soopa, I think you meant 4:3 aspect ratio
BTW - Soopa, I think you meant 4:3 aspect ratio
Trending Topics
11-09-2004, 07:44 PM
#9
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Resolution: 1680x1050 Pixels
downsized from 1600 x 1200!Contrast is improved from 400:1 to 600:1
Price is downsized from $1100 to $679, not bad but I'd still not want to sacrifice pixels.
Response time: 16ms-->12ms
brightness: 250nits-->300nits
I'd take another 2001FP for cheap. Or even a Samsung 213T
11-09-2004, 07:58 PM
#10
The Creator
the 2001FP is the about the same price. the cheapest dell has ever sold it for new is 609. its bout 639 right now with deals
1680x1050 is not a huge difference from 1600x1200
your getting 80 more horizontal pixels and losing 150 vertically.
not too bad really.
1680x1050 is not a huge difference from 1600x1200
your getting 80 more horizontal pixels and losing 150 vertically.
not too bad really.
11-10-2004, 10:18 AM
#16
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by srika
if I didn't have 2 2000FP's already I would buy this in a heartbeat...
or I'd go buy one of those. Good find though. nice monitor.
11-10-2004, 10:32 AM
#17
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by KavexTrax
Max Resolution: 1680x1050 Pixels
downsized from 1600 x 1200!Contrast is improved from 400:1 to 600:1
Price is downsized from $1100 to $679, not bad but I'd still not want to sacrifice pixels.
Response time: 16ms-->12ms
brightness: 250nits-->300nits
I'd take another 2001FP for cheap. Or even a Samsung 213T
It's a small drop in resolution. I bet it's done to meet the proper 16:9 aspect ratio.
1680/1050=1.6 (so .1 off from a true 16:9 aspect ratio)
16:9 is 1.77
Too bad it's not 1920x1080. That comes out to 1.77.
11-10-2004, 11:28 AM
#20
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by soopa
the 2001FP is the about the same price. the cheapest dell has ever sold it for new is 609. its bout 639 right now with deals
1680x1050 is not a huge difference from 1600x1200
your getting 80 more horizontal pixels and losing 150 vertically.
not too bad really.
1680x1050 is not a huge difference from 1600x1200
your getting 80 more horizontal pixels and losing 150 vertically.
not too bad really.
11-10-2004, 11:51 AM
#24
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Too bad the 2000FP is 25ms response time or I'd go buy one of those. Good find though. nice monitor.
or I'd go buy one of those. Good find though. nice monitor.
11-10-2004, 11:53 AM
#25
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SiGGy
Too bad the 2000FP is 25ms response time or I'd go buy one of those. Good find though. nice monitor.
or I'd go buy one of those. Good find though. nice monitor.
11-10-2004, 11:59 AM
#26
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Python2121
also, what would happen if i play a game? will it support this resolution, or will i have to run it at 1600x1200?
newer games such as Doom3 allow you to set a custom resolution - check this Doom3 Tweak Guide
you can do it in Unreal 2004 and Halo PC too - and others, check this link...
http://blogs.msdn.com/tristank/articles/222215.aspx
well what do you know....
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/
I got these from just the first page of Google results...
11-10-2004, 11:59 AM
#27
The Creator
Originally Posted by Shawn S
I really don’t see the need for a 16:9 PC monitor unless you’re watching a lot of movies on there.
Isn’t most software setup for 4:3 ???
Isn’t most software setup for 4:3 ???
they expand/contract to fit your screen.
I guess your right in saying there is no benefit in having the widescreen 20.1 over the 4:3 because your not getting a substantiallly wider screen real estate despite the aspect ratio. Your only getting a few pixels horizontally and losing a few vertically.
For other Widescreen monitors though, the benefit is that you can fit alot more content in the screen area... this is essential for applications like Photoshop or any Macromedia product where there are TONS of toolboxes.
11-10-2004, 12:09 PM
#28
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
check out this game:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com...opic.php?t=331
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com...opic.php?t=331
11-10-2004, 12:25 PM
#29
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
you are losing some real estate... I've always thought of the whole "widescreen" thing as being almost a kind of fad, something that's fun to say you have - but I think it's here to stay and its going to continue getting more and more popular. I guess the whole thing is based on the premise of the movie theatre experience... I think I'm rambling.... im feeling kinda under the weather
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
you are losing some real estate... I've always thought of the whole "widescreen" thing as being almost a kind of fad, something that's fun to say you have - but I think it's here to stay and its going to continue getting more and more popular. I guess the whole thing is based on the premise of the movie theatre experience... I think I'm rambling.... im feeling kinda under the weather
11-10-2004, 12:42 PM
#30
The Creator
Originally Posted by srika
1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
In terms of maybe a PHOTOGRAPH, thats alot of pixels.
In terms of screen real estate... it doesn't really give you any idea.
Its simple. You lose 150 pixels vertically, and gain 80 horizontally.
Its not much of an issue IMO unless you need an extra 150 vertical pixels.
The bigger issue for me, is how big is the viewable area of the screen in inches. I'd like to know the PPI comparison
11-10-2004, 01:18 PM
#31
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I was being sarcastic about losing a lot of pixels 
no..... really.
no..... really.
yet again by srika's transparent sarcasm 
11-10-2004, 01:22 PM
#33
The Creator
Originally Posted by srika
1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
Originally Posted by srika
1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
Originally Posted by srika
1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
Originally Posted by srika
1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
1680x1050 = 1,764,000
you're losing 156,000 pixels!!!! that's a lot
11-10-2004, 01:25 PM
#34
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
i like to take the road less travelled...
11-10-2004, 02:10 PM
#36
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by SiGGy
It's a small drop in resolution. I bet it's done to meet the proper 16:9 aspect ratio.
1680/1050=1.6 (so .1 off from a true 16:9 aspect ratio)
16:9 is 1.77
Too bad it's not 1920x1080. That comes out to 1.77.
1680/1050=1.6 (so .1 off from a true 16:9 aspect ratio)
16:9 is 1.77
Too bad it's not 1920x1080. That comes out to 1.77.
Discuss.
11-10-2004, 02:25 PM
#37
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by srika
I read somewhere that 1920x1200 was "true" HD resolution...
Discuss.
Discuss.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl.../ai_ziff128132
11-10-2004, 02:30 PM
#38
i know this is stupid, but wide screen just looks cool
but im also considering buying a new flat panel screen.....oooor i could just take my bro's CRT for free (plus shipping from NY to TX). tough call
but im also considering buying a new flat panel screen.....oooor i could just take my bro's CRT for free (plus shipping from NY to TX). tough call
11-10-2004, 02:36 PM
#39
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by ViperrepiV
i know this is stupid, but wide screen just looks cool
but im also considering buying a new flat panel screen.....oooor i could just take my bro's CRT for free (plus shipping from NY to TX). tough call
but im also considering buying a new flat panel screen.....oooor i could just take my bro's CRT for free (plus shipping from NY to TX). tough call
11-10-2004, 02:40 PM
#40
The Creator
Originally Posted by srika
I read somewhere that 1920x1200 was "true" HD resolution...
Discuss.
Discuss.
720p = 1280x720
1.78:1