![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Unofficial 2405FPW Thread (Now that its been announced)
- Thread starter Ed
- Start date
CalKenneth
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 136
raps said:
Yes, that video card can definitely produce a 1920x1200 resoultion over DVI. I don't know about the blanking thing though.
A MX400 w/ 32mb of RAM was able to drive the screen at 1920x1200 on a Mac G4 Cube that my friend has. If the MX400 can do it I'm sure the Ti4600 can handle it!
Thanx for the confirmation. Though, that MX400-story is about producing that resolution through a VGA-port I guess. I've read many negative posts about monitors with resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher connected through VGA.CalKenneth said:Yes, that video card can definitely produce a 1920x1200 resoultion over DVI. I don't know about the blanking thing though.
A MX400 w/ 32mb of RAM was able to drive the screen at 1920x1200 on a Mac G4 Cube that my friend has. If the MX400 can do it I'm sure the Ti4600 can handle it!
CalKenneth said:Yes, that video card can definitely produce a 1920x1200 resoultion over DVI. I don't know about the blanking thing though.
A MX400 w/ 32mb of RAM was able to drive the screen at 1920x1200 on a Mac G4 Cube that my friend has. If the MX400 can do it I'm sure the Ti4600 can handle it!
Unfortunately this logic may not be entirely valid. 1920x1200 is pushing what a single TDMS DVI port can output. Basically the video card needs to have a very clean DVI signal to handle this resolution well and it seems several cards (specifically nVidia ones) use substandard transmitters. For more info take a look at this...
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041129/index.html
When it comes to DVI transmitters ATI cards generally fare much better (I'll leave the gaming argument out of this) so if you just want it for 2D work, I'd go with an ATI. I'm running my 2005FPW at 1680x1050 DVI on a All-in-Wonder 7000 (the original Radeon which is over 4 years old) and I've had no issues whatsoever.
CalKenneth
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 136
ajabbari said:
All I'm saying is that if the nVidia MX400's substandard transmitter can output at that resolution, so can the same substandard transmitter on the Ti4600. I've read the Tom's Hardware article before, but thanks for linking it for others' reference. I don't disagree that the ATI DVI signal is much cleaner than nVidia's.
Thanks for the information. I've read the article, at least most of it, and I understand the whole issue a lot better now. Unfortunately, it doesn't say anything about resolutions higher than 1600x1200 for the tested cards.ajabbari said:
Unless I require more relevant information tonight, I think I'll be ordering a 9200 and make an agreement with the shop that it has to support my monitor and I want to return it otherwise.
Thank you all for your help and attention.
It's probably the users hearing that varies. Not all people hear the same things, not everyone listens under the same conditions and as close to the screen as some others.CalKenneth said:
It's known that power supplies may cause some noise, but by the limited number of 'voluntary' negative reports I would assume that the noise is very minor or non-existent on this monitor (in general). Of course it's always possible someone gets a defective unit that does produce a lot of noise.
Muhumbe said:
I had the same question a few days ago. Since I don't have either of these monitors, I decided to come up with some numbers based on the viewable area, aspect ratio and resolution of each. I threw in the same information for a 17" CRT (assuming 16.0" viewable) and for a 19" LCD panel.
16" @ 1280 x 960, 4:3 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 12.8" x 9.6"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.00" x 1.00"
19" @ 1280 x 1024, 5:4 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 14.8" x 11.9"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.16" x 1.16"
20.1" @ 1680 x 1050, 16:10 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 17.0" x 10.6"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.01" x 1.01"
24" @ 1920 x 1200, 16:10 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 20.3" x 12.7"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.06" x 1.06"
Using these calculated numbers, it looks like the largest pixels are on the 19" LCD, and the smallest are on my 7 year old 17" CRT that I'm staring at right now. If my margin of error isn't astonishingly bad, you probably won't notice a different in font size going from the 20" widescreen to the 24" widescreen (assuming you keep the font sizes the same).
Hopefully someone with actual real-world data can verify this!
Kevin
codehoser said:I had the same question a few days ago. Since I don't have either of these monitors, I decided to come up with some numbers based on the viewable area, aspect ratio and resolution of each. I threw in the same information for a 17" CRT (assuming 16.0" viewable) and for a 19" LCD panel.
16" @ 1280 x 960, 4:3 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 12.8" x 9.6"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.00" x 1.00"
19" @ 1280 x 1024, 5:4 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 14.8" x 11.9"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.16" x 1.16"
20.1" @ 1680 x 1050, 16:10 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 17.0" x 10.6"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.01" x 1.01"
24" @ 1920 x 1200, 16:10 aspect ratio:
Viewable area: 20.3" x 12.7"
Size of 100 x 100 pixel box: 1.06" x 1.06"
Using these calculated numbers, it looks like the largest pixels are on the 19" LCD, and the smallest are on my 7 year old 17" CRT that I'm staring at right now. If my margin of error isn't astonishingly bad, you probably won't notice a different in font size going from the 20" widescreen to the 24" widescreen (assuming you keep the font sizes the same).
Hopefully someone with actual real-world data can verify this!
Kevin
Uhm, y dont u look up the dot-pitch? I can verify that 2405 has larger dot pitch than 2001 but as for 2005 i am not sure. I believe 2005 would have the smallest dot-pitch.
raps said:
Dude, as I posted in another thread, ATI's site says that the 9200 won't do 1920x1200 over DVI. Why buy it for ~$50? If you bought the 2405FPW, then get a fanless Sapphire 9600/256MB for ~$100. Someone reported the 9550 working at that resolution, and I trust them (ATI's site did not post the info on the 9550 using DVI).raps said:
However, my Sapphire Radeon 9600 "Atlantis" with 256MB DDR card is giving me one problem when I try to rotate the 1920x1200 display 90 degrees:
The same card did not have a problem rotating my 17" CRT @ 1152x864. I may call Sapphire and find out what's the problem if no one here posts a solution first.
* Edited to fix model numbers *
codehoser said:Hopefully someone with actual real-world data can verify this!
Kevin
My dpi calculator (written in Ruby):
Code:
def dpi(width,height,diagonalinches)
(width**2 + height**2)**0.5 / diagonalinches
endHere's some numbers my ruby dpi method comes up with for a typical 19 inch LCD panel, the 2405, 2005, the Apple 23" ACD, a 12 inch powerbook, and two variations of dell's inspiron 8600 screens (i've got the 1680x1050 version, and, *cough*, if you don't like reading 94dpi, 128dpi is definately not for you
)std 19" LCD: dpi(1280,1024,19) => 86.2736739359373
samsung 213T dpi(1600,1200,21.3) => 93.8967136150235
2405FPW: dpi(1920,1200,24) => 94.339811320566
Apple 23inch dpi(1920,1200,23) => 98.4415422475472
2005FPW: dpi(1680,1050,20.1) => 98.5639819767108
12" powerbook dpi(1024,768,12.1) => 105.785123966942
dell i8600: dpi(1680,1050,15.4) => 128.645197255317
dell i8600: dpi(1920,1200,15.4) => 147.023082577506 (!!)
The 2405FPW definately has a lower DPI than the 2005FPW, so people might have a slightly easier time reading text on it -- it's not that big a difference, but there is one. It's definately going to be a bit harder to read than a 19 inch, but I have trouble believing most people would have a problem with it. The 90-100 dpi range (give or take) seems to be very popular right now, and I don't see it moving much higher right away, at least until OS's include better support for scaling gracefully.
Maad said:My dpi calculator (written in Ruby):
Code:def dpi(width,height,diagonalinches) (width**2 + height**2)**0.5 / diagonalinches end
Here's some numbers my ruby dpi method comes up with for a typical 19 inch LCD panel, the 2405, 2005, the Apple 23" ACD, a 12 inch powerbook, and two variations of dell's inspiron 8600 screens (i've got the 1680x1050 version, and, *cough*, if you don't like reading 94dpi, 128dpi is definately not for you
std 19" LCD: dpi(1280,1024,19) => 86.2736739359373
samsung 213T dpi(1600,1200,21.3) => 93.8967136150235
2405FPW: dpi(1920,1200,24) => 94.339811320566
Apple 23inch dpi(1920,1200,23) => 98.4415422475472
2005FPW: dpi(1680,1050,20.1) => 98.5639819767108
12" powerbook dpi(1024,768,12.1) => 105.785123966942
dell i8600: dpi(1680,1050,15.4) => 128.645197255317
dell i8600: dpi(1920,1200,15.4) => 147.023082577506 (!!)
The 2405FPW definately has a lower DPI than the 2005FPW, so people might have a slightly easier time reading text on it -- it's not that big a difference, but there is one. It's definately going to be a bit harder to read than a 19 inch, but I have trouble believing most people would have a problem with it. The 90-100 dpi range (give or take) seems to be very popular right now, and I don't see it moving much higher right away, at least until OS's include better support for scaling gracefully.
Could be easier to go to Dell and look it up
2405 - .270mm (http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/2405fpw/English/about.htm#Specifioications)
2001 - .255mm (http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/2001fp/EN/specs.htm)
2005 - .258 (http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/2005FPW/English/about.htm#Specifioications)
193 - .294 (http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/E193FP/English/specs.htm)
173 - .264 (http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/E173FP/English/specs.htm)
Just received mine through the post... 7:50AM - the 2nd day after I placed my order!
So far so good. It looks enormous. Almost comically big. The screen dwarfs the 17" sat next to it as well as the 2005FPW I had before (believe me, you don't even need a screen to compare: it's just HUGE).
Brightness wise, I'm sat next to a window so it doesn't seem too excessive. In fact, I have the brightness up to 75% atm. The colours seem a little on the bluey side by default: going to see if I can get these changed today. Very sharp image, though I'm not sure it's as bright at default as the 2005FPW. No dead pixels (yet!) and the backlight appears to be completely uniform. Hard to tell in the day time of course! I do see what some users say about having a problem looking at the screen. I'm sat maybe about 2 feet away, and it's too close. There's no way you can take in this screen at once unless you're at least 4 feet away.
Oh, one slight annoyance: the screen does appear to "sag" to the right hand side. Looks lop-sided for it. I know several others on the hardocp forum have had the same issue. Did anybody come up with a solution?? Will see if there's a chance of fastening some nuts in the stand.
Apart from that, very, very pleased!! Too big!!
Will post some pics very soon.
So far so good. It looks enormous. Almost comically big. The screen dwarfs the 17" sat next to it as well as the 2005FPW I had before (believe me, you don't even need a screen to compare: it's just HUGE).
Brightness wise, I'm sat next to a window so it doesn't seem too excessive. In fact, I have the brightness up to 75% atm. The colours seem a little on the bluey side by default: going to see if I can get these changed today. Very sharp image, though I'm not sure it's as bright at default as the 2005FPW. No dead pixels (yet!) and the backlight appears to be completely uniform. Hard to tell in the day time of course! I do see what some users say about having a problem looking at the screen. I'm sat maybe about 2 feet away, and it's too close. There's no way you can take in this screen at once unless you're at least 4 feet away.
Oh, one slight annoyance: the screen does appear to "sag" to the right hand side. Looks lop-sided for it. I know several others on the hardocp forum have had the same issue. Did anybody come up with a solution?? Will see if there's a chance of fastening some nuts in the stand.
Apart from that, very, very pleased!! Too big!!
Will post some pics very soon.
RipTide,
Wherever you are mate. You're definitely right about the colours. Changing the ATI gamma to about 0.90 (as opposed to 1.00) gives everything a slightly darker tint, which in turn eccentuates the colours and makes them more like the 2005FPW. Best way for me to describe this screen would be to say that, to get some decent contrast out of it, you have to whack up the brightness (to 75% imo). But in doing that, the screen gets sharper - fine! - but also a little too bright. Result: slightly washed out colours. The taskbar colours are definitely lighter than on the 2005FPW. I haven't played with the screen's colour settings yet: still on sRGB. Definitely noticed it's tinted blue whilst at sRGB though (i.e. less warm than 2005FPW).
Wherever you are mate. You're definitely right about the colours. Changing the ATI gamma to about 0.90 (as opposed to 1.00) gives everything a slightly darker tint, which in turn eccentuates the colours and makes them more like the 2005FPW. Best way for me to describe this screen would be to say that, to get some decent contrast out of it, you have to whack up the brightness (to 75% imo). But in doing that, the screen gets sharper - fine! - but also a little too bright. Result: slightly washed out colours. The taskbar colours are definitely lighter than on the 2005FPW. I haven't played with the screen's colour settings yet: still on sRGB. Definitely noticed it's tinted blue whilst at sRGB though (i.e. less warm than 2005FPW).
Sleepy,
My last post for the day. My X800XL will be here in less than 12 hrs. Otherwise I am running a Radeon 8500 with no prob at 19x12. Just so you know.
I just want to be able to play BF2 at full res.
As far as Corel and Adobe, yeah works fine. I don't think I would need another card.
But, hehe, A64, DFI NF4, X800, all arrive in the morn. G' Night all.
One last bit, HDTV looks amazing on this LCD.
My last post for the day. My X800XL will be here in less than 12 hrs. Otherwise I am running a Radeon 8500 with no prob at 19x12. Just so you know.
I just want to be able to play BF2 at full res.
As far as Corel and Adobe, yeah works fine. I don't think I would need another card.
But, hehe, A64, DFI NF4, X800, all arrive in the morn. G' Night all.
One last bit, HDTV looks amazing on this LCD.
Here's a couple of pics. Have taken one with my shuttle next to it and the other next to a 17" tft. Also, I've thrown a cd into the pic to get an idea of how ENORMOUS this thing is. Please excuse the *ahem* pink wallpaper: I'm set up in my lil sis' room atm (don't ask).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v727/daddyorchips/103_0370.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v727/daddyorchips/103_0368.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v727/daddyorchips/103_0370.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v727/daddyorchips/103_0368.jpg
Now that I have had the 2405 a few days I only have one complaint. When watching live TV
through my wonder card there is a definate sound latency. I did not notice this much at all with my Sony 17" LCD. It is about a 11/2 second delay enough to notice. I've "taped" a few shows last night and see how the replays work out.
Any ideas that might help this issue anyone ?
My only thought is to change the card out for one that does it in "hardware" and see if that makes any difference.
through my wonder card there is a definate sound latency. I did not notice this much at all with my Sony 17" LCD. It is about a 11/2 second delay enough to notice. I've "taped" a few shows last night and see how the replays work out.
Any ideas that might help this issue anyone ?
My only thought is to change the card out for one that does it in "hardware" and see if that makes any difference.
chrism said:I went with the simplest solution:
Put a folded piece of paper under the right side of the stand.
Or tie strap the DVI cable to the stand. I actually think this is why it sags on the right, the cables weigh the left side down, maybe just not enough in some cases.
TehQuick said:
Oh sure, that might work for some people. But let's say you were stranded on a remote desert island and all you had was a tape measure, a pencil, a piece of paper and a stack of monitors with known resolutions. Then what are you going to do? Huh?!
Anyway, I agree that the 2005's dot pitch is smaller. I think that's the way I've got it on my fake-number-chart. Also, the numbers I found on the InterWeb seem to indicate a .27 mm pitch on the 2405 and a .255 mm pitch on the 2005.
Kevin
Okay I need some help here. I want to know if everyone else is experiencing this because so many people seem to be reporting their display has no ghosting. Use this web page you are looking at right now, my Hardforum thread. Drag the window left and right across the screen. What I see is 1/4" blur/ghost being left behind in the light gray area where the username info is on the thread. The darker gray ghosts onto the lighter gray and so does the text/icons in the surrounding area. Does this happen for everyone. It carries over to games like WoW for me also.
I came from a Viewsonic VP912B 19" LCD which exhibited a very tiny blur when doing the above test, but nowhere near as bad. I'm using an EVGA Geforce 6800ultra. I've tried plugging the monitor into both DVI outputs.
Also another weird problem that I mentioned earlier in the thread is when playing old dos games full screen using dosbox. These are games that use a resolution of 320x200. When set to full screen, the image shakes violently and it is unusable. I also tried setting the windows desktop to 320x200 and it does the same thing. Does everyone else experience this same issue?
I came from a Viewsonic VP912B 19" LCD which exhibited a very tiny blur when doing the above test, but nowhere near as bad. I'm using an EVGA Geforce 6800ultra. I've tried plugging the monitor into both DVI outputs.
Also another weird problem that I mentioned earlier in the thread is when playing old dos games full screen using dosbox. These are games that use a resolution of 320x200. When set to full screen, the image shakes violently and it is unusable. I also tried setting the windows desktop to 320x200 and it does the same thing. Does everyone else experience this same issue?
Have spent the last 3 hours playing World of Warcraft and colour me impressed!! It's absolutely fantastic. The game runs smoothly in 1920x1200 with 4xAA/16xAF on my configuration - x800xt, 3800+ - and performs just as well as it did at 1600x1200 on my old 2001FP. I was unsure about the colours on this screen at first, but they've grown on me. Yes, it's still day time so too early to tell, but I don't think they're lacking at all. Definitely more towards 5000K than 6500K - unlike the Dell 2005FPW - but that's not bad thing. WoW looks fantastic to me at the default sRGB setting with brightness at 75%. Not fiddling with the ATI gamma at all. I did lower it a bit on the desktop at first, which made it look darker and brought the colours out more, but then I started missing the brightness
Now I think that the image reproduction on this screen is much nicer than my old 2005FPW. Even though it's meant to have higher specs, it doesn't seem as sharp and glary as that screen (the picture appears more still for one). Still need to try it at night though. It looks great anyway - very, very happy about it and wished I'd never worried. There's too much nit-picking going on with this screen. It's fantastic! Very happy indeed
Now I think that the image reproduction on this screen is much nicer than my old 2005FPW. Even though it's meant to have higher specs, it doesn't seem as sharp and glary as that screen (the picture appears more still for one). Still need to try it at night though. It looks great anyway - very, very happy about it and wished I'd never worried. There's too much nit-picking going on with this screen. It's fantastic! Very happy indeed
Riptide_NVN
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,062
ctishue, I think that is normal. We were talking about that earlier in the thread. Open up My Computer on your desktop and drag it from side to side - you will see what looks like tearing. Drag it up and down and the effect isn't there. This shows up with my other LCDs as well. Is it ghosting? Maybe, not really sure.
Try gaming and tell me if you see much ghosting though. I don't.
Try gaming and tell me if you see much ghosting though. I don't.
ctishue said:
Did you last screen have a high contrast ratio or was it anywhere near as bright as this one? I think the high contrast helps excentuate any ghosting unfortunately. Ingame I think this screen is on a par with the Hyundai L90D+ (which I've owned and tested).