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

  • 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/...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now