Final Thoughts

The Dell 2001FP is arguably what the 192T should have been. Even though the cable management leaves something to be desired, this monitor excels in several areas:
  • Multiple input support
  • Clean interface
  • Good performance
  • (Relatively) Low Price
At the same time, on a more personal note, we are extremely pleased with how accurate the specifications are with our tested data. Particularly when it comes to displays, consumers are given the “marketing” specifications. Although Dell's specifications look somewhat modest compared to other 19" and 20" LCDs on the market, we can declare openly that they are the most accurate.

Price and features are the dead winners in this competition. Even though the unit still costs $899 (MSRP), Dell loves to run coupons and deals, even on its brand new items. The 2001FP's nearest competition, the Samsung 192T and Dell 1901FP both run around $700. Considering the 30% increase in pixels, AV inputs, and faster response time, the additional $200 is essentially a bargain.

Why do we consider the Samsung 192T to be the Dell 2001FP's nearest competitor? The simple answer is size and price, mostly. A lot of people were disappointed with the mediocre release of the 192T, which was basically a repackaged 191T without zoom features, a narrow bezel or pivot/swivel.

Dell picked an excellent choice when they went with LG.Philips for the panel. Although panel prices have been getting cheaper, innovation in the section has been near stagnant for 18 months (some people considered the 18-bit 16ms TN panels from AUO a step backward if anything). We are very pleased to pronounce the 2001FP our new big LCD champion over the Samsung 191T and 192T.

Benchmark analysis


View All Comments

  • miomao - Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - link

    The new NEC 2080UX+ (note the "plus") has the same panel of the Dell 2001FP.
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    Its the same thing. :) So in a way, you have the new champ ;)

  • marcst - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    Before pronouncing the 2001FP as "new big LCD champion", you should really have a look at the NEC 2080UX, 1600x1200, S-IPS-Panel. Really awesome panel, and not a single annoying dead pixel/subpixel (my panel)! Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    We tested with a 9800 Pro. Sorry about the mixup.

  • miomao - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    No CRT is sharp as LCD...
    and for color next years we will have 30bit colors LCDs.

    Remember Sony will stop Trinitron production in 2004!

    The main issue of LCD will remain fixed resolution.
  • wicktron - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    it's improbable for lcd's to ever match the color accuracy and sharpness of a crt. Reply
  • ripdude - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    neat article.

    I still find the performance of (any) LCD unrewarding for its price. Until LCD's are on the same quality as CRT's I'm not trading in my 17" CTX :).
  • Slingman - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    Great article Anandtech! I know a lot of us were waiting for a good review of the new LG panel. My only question would be in regards to how it compares to the Samsung 213T? I believe this to be every bit as competitive as the 192T is, especially considering it runs at 1600x1200, just like the 2001 FP does. Granted, it is more expensive, but many of us will use it as a basis of comparison when shopping for a new 20"+ display.

    Before knocking the review for their comment on DVI, one should have their facts in line. All the newer video cards on the market, in particular the newer Radeons and Geforce FX's, support 1600x1200 on the DVI interface. You do not need a pro-level card in order to do this.
  • mcveigh - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    can't remember where I saw it but 9800 series does it I believe Reply
  • Shalmanese - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link

    What video card did you test this with? To the best of my knowledge, consumer grade cards only support 1280x1024 on DVI. You need a fairly expensive pro card if you ever want to use 1600x1200 on DVI which makes it rather flippant to recommend that people can ignore the VGA issues and use DVI instead. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now