2001fp vs. 2005fpw, "gamers" point of view

H

Halicon

n00b
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
3
I have searched like crazy for some educated opinions on if there are any difference between theese two monitors in games. Besides the fact that 2001fp has slightly washed out colors compared to the fpw, what else is there actually? Some people say the fpw is faster, some people say it isn't.
And about the colors, the 2001fp appears to have some sort of gray hue, whereas the fpw is clearer, am I right about this one?
 
2005 had some back light issues (all lcds do, its luck of the draw how bad yours is)

i beleive the 2005 is 12ms and the 2001 is 16ms, i never seen ghosting or any issues with my old 17" 25ms samsung, would ignore the speed rating... its all in how they work the numbers

keep in mind your going to kill framerates running 1600x1200, or 1680x1050 even, ant not all games run in widescreen format, so for those games, your back to a 17" screen

Some say you need SLi to run those resolutions and get good framtrates but SLi seems like a massive waste of cash right now, you can buy a 6800gt and kick ass 19" and get superb framrates at the highest of settings (and then go put a downpayment on a car when your done)

I run a 6800gt @ 1280x1024 on CS:S, 4x AA and 4AF with v sync on and it doesnt drop off 60fps where its locked (tearing to me isnt worth 120 fps that looks like ass)

for those reasons i went with my 19" sony... love it

also when i called to ask dell about the backlight issues on the 2005 i got some arrogant camel jocky which turned me off dell for my own use, bad enough id eal with them all day at work :)
 
How does your 6800GT not deliver playable frames at 1600x1200? I have a widescreen monitor but no new game has really taxed my system except the nVidia hating game that was Far Cry.
 
Thanks for the quick reply. About the framerate problem, I'm riding on a 9800pro, so I'll be fine. My friend is rocking with his 20" crt, and no fps issues there.
But about 200fpw being classed as a 12ms panel, I read something about this somewhere. The grey-to-grey is 12ms, but the black-to-black is still 16ms (or other way around), just as the 2001fp. Don't know the grey-to-grey on the 2001fp tho.
Right now I'm leaning towards a 2001fp, the extra workspace and compability in general with apps just can't be passed down. Not sure whether I dare to roll my dice against dell on a 2005fpw either, they pretty much cleared all the problems with the 2001's by now?
 
2005fpw here. some minor backlight issues, but its tolerable. im not sure on the response time, I thought it was 25ms. I could be wrong though. Games look and work great. Eyestrain is now GONE. I play WoW mostly, and have no problems with FPS or appearance.
 
ramuman said:
How does your 6800GT not deliver playable frames at 1600x1200? I have a widescreen monitor but no new game has really taxed my system except the nVidia hating game that was Far Cry.
Click to expand...


no idea, once you start using AA and AF you get performance drops, im sure you could adjust them to let you play the high rez

but what looks better 1600x1200 0AA and 0AF or 1280x1024 4x AA and 4x AF ?
dont know, but the high rez mixed with high Q doesnt mix to well, espcially if you plan on playing CS:S with a 32 or 64 person server with smoke nades flying around

formyself 1280x1024 4x AA and 8AF seems to bog with a 24+ man CS:S server when you get alot of action going, thats at the highest Q mind you
 
I have experience with both the 2001fp and the 2005fpw.

1. The 2001fp does not have a washed out color look.

2. The 2001fp runs at a response time of 16ms the 2005fpw runs at 12ms. at 16 or 12ms the ghosting is lower then something with a higher response time. As for if you can see it or not is going to be if the individual has the eye for it. Ghosting for me is almost non-existent at 16ms I do however see it quite well at 23ms or higher.

3. The 2001fp is a 400:1 contrast ratio the 2005fpw is a 500:1 contrast ratio. This accounts for the slightly better look the 2005fpw has. What this does is that with the higher contrast ratio the blacks look darker and the white looks brighter giving it a better look.

As for is either one good for gaming? I would say both are good, with the 2005fpw having some better specs. there are better LCDs out, but also at a much grater cost. CRTs still owns in most respects, but I believe that both the 2001fp and 2005fpw are a good showing of what LCDs can do.
 
they are both great for gaming...

comes down to if you want games on widescreen or 4:3, keeping in mind that not all games support widescreen...so you may need to run it on aspect, causing it to be more like a 17" lcd.

but most major games, and new ones support widescreen. ea sport games are still a pain in the butt though.
 
Granted I'm not looking at buying either of these, but figured I'd better ask this anyway since others are shopping and I'd be really pissed if this happened to me...
I seem to recall someone commenting on here about how thier widescreen LCD insisted on streaching 4:3 modes to fill the screen. Unfortunately I can't recall what model it was. Does the Dell handle it properly and leave black areas on the sides? Anyone recall what screen it was that had that problem? (ie- one to *not* buy?)
 
zandor said:
Granted I'm not looking at buying either of these, but figured I'd better ask this anyway since others are shopping and I'd be really pissed if this happened to me...
I seem to recall someone commenting on here about how thier widescreen LCD insisted on streaching 4:3 modes to fill the screen. Unfortunately I can't recall what model it was. Does the Dell handle it properly and leave black areas on the sides? Anyone recall what screen it was that had that problem? (ie- one to *not* buy?)
Click to expand...


proper would be to leave blak on the side and not distort the game....
 
I bought both the 2001FP and the 2005FPW at the same time. I played games on both for awhile until I just started using the 2001FP all the time instead. The 2005FPW sat on my desk collecting dust. Since I upgraded from a 17in LCD, I prefered something that seemed bigger. The 2005FPW was the same height as the 17in it was just wider. And the vertical res was only 26 pixel bigger. The 2001FP also has more pixels on the screen on its max res as then the 2005 has on its max res. Pretty much to the normal person, the 2001FP just seems BIGGER. My dad even said it all the time "You hardly ever use that smaller one do ya?" "So your selling the smaller one huh?" The widescreen really isnt a step up by any means for gaming either. The color on both, to me, looked exactly the same, the both looked as equally sharp. The quality of the screens are pretty much the same. I would say between the two, get the 2001FP because it will just seem bigger. Although if you wanna wait, and pay a lil more I would say the 2405FPW will beat the hell outa both when it comes out simply because its going to be massive.
 
I must thank you all, you removed my doubt, and right now I'm surfing dells website about to order a brand spanking new 2001fp. :)
 
The 2001fp *is* bigger, at least in a square inches sense. They both have a 20" diagonal, but the 2001 is closer to a square, this yielding a larger surface area.
 
Keep in mind though, with a widescreen resolution, you can see more on the sides than a 4:3 resolution. This can be quite advantageous in Counterstrike Source which utilizes full Field of View for widescreen resolutions. Most of the newer games can be played in widescreen, but most crop off the top and bottom of the image to make it appear wider while not actually increasing the Field of View.
 
I have tried both, but I preferred the 2001FP.

The contrast ratio difference is really negligible if you have the 2 monitors sitting side by side. Neither of my 2001FP monitors had the light bleed the 2005FPW had. Also the resolution was more gaming friendly.

I did play a couple games on the 2005FP (Quake 3, Need for speed underground 1) and it game me the black bars on the left and right (so it was like an 18" monitor).

No ghosting on either. I stuck with the 2001FP and gave the 2005FPW to my mother for christmas.
 
zandor said:
The 2001fp *is* bigger, at least in a square inches sense. They both have a 20" diagonal, but the 2001 is closer to a square, this yielding a larger surface area.
Click to expand...

thats what I thought but i suck at math...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top