Concerning the 2005FPW Image Quality

When the UltraSharp 2005FPW debuted circa November 2004, several of our forum members promptly bought several units without hesitation. Many readers in response emailed us with complaints, and several forum threads illustrated the debacle. It seemed to us that there were three main complaints:
  • The Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW had severe discoloration, particularly with red hues.
  • The Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW had severe screen uniformity problems.
  • The Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW had problems obtaining/holding DVI signals at 1680x1050.
Of those three bullets, the first two started occurring as soon as the monitors were released; the last bullet seems to have only plagued readers in the last two months. Unfortunately, we didn't have access to an UltraSharp 2005FPW until January (the unit used for the benchmarks of this analysis was built in March 2005), but once we saw our first unit, we had difficulty understanding where the problem was. It could have been that only the original batch of 2005FPW had some isolated problems, or it could have been that those few units were mishandled in shipping.

Screen discoloration, particularly "warm" colors, occurs for many different reasons. Perhaps the largest reason why we see such discoloration is due to the use of a poorly shielded or a heavily interfered 15-pin D-sub connector. At 1680x1050 resolutions (native for the Apple 20" and Dell 2005FPW), so much analog bandwidth is moving over the cable that it becomes very easy for the signal to become unstable. Generally, this results in the whole screen discoloring, but we have witnessed incidents where the strangest interference will discolor only a portion of the screen. The interconnects between the LCD panel and the monitor PCB could also have some interference along them, or even worse, they may be damaged/unset. In our experience with the Dell 2005FPW, when any of these cables were unset, the monitor backlights quickly switched off. The third culprit may have been the Genesis controller itself, although we would expect the whole screen to discolor as opposed to a small blurry portion. Glare and lighting effects also play their portion of tricks on the eye, and we have diagnosed more than one discoloration problem as reflections from unusual sources.

Poor screen uniformity is almost always a product of construction; either the unit was handled improperly or assembled incorrectly. We feel that this is the most severe of all three of the problems, since its almost impossible for the end user to misdiagnose this (unless people are tossing their 2005FPWs on the ground and then sending us pictures just for kicks!).

The last problem troubles us a little, although it can be generally attributed to a poor video card or a poor cable. After working very closely with Silicon Image over the last few months, it has come to our attention that several DVI video outputs and cables are surprisingly low quality. Unlike analogy D-sub cables, a poor DVI signal will just cause the monitor's DSP to ignore the signal. It may be that the Genesis gm1501 chips produced in the last few months have lower tolerances for faulty signals - or it may just be the case that we didn't have any reported cases of the DVI signal problem on older 2005FPW displays.

After repeating the benchmarks from this analysis on a separate Dell 2005FPW assembled in January 2005, we did not find a difference between the two displays within a 1% tolerance. So far as we could tell, both units were assembled with the same revision DSPs and panels. The fact that even the brightness and wattage usage were identical between both units also leads us to believe that the same backlights were used in both panels. The slight discoloration on the image on the right is actually from the March assembled display, and it is nothing more than a trick of the camera.


Click to enlarge.

In our opinion, the fear of Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW image quality may have been a little exaggerated. Although the Apple Cinema displays use the same panels as their Dell counterparts, we never heard a single case of a defective Cinema 20" display. However, do consider the fact that the Apple uses much simplier signal processing and only on a digital source. Also keep in mind that the Cinema displays are also relatively easier for quality assurance; Apple hardware is scrutinized much harder than typical PC hardware - thus, video cards and cabling are more likely to work 100% correctly. The fact that UltraSharp 2005FPW has analog inputs most likely attributed to the early problems mentioned above.

Subjective Analysis Final Words
Comments Locked

70 Comments

View All Comments

  • jediknight - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Only thing I really don't like about Dell is their dead pixel policy. They will only replace a monitor (so I've been told) if it has 6 dead pixels.

    Personally, ONE dead pixel is too many!
  • crimson117 - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Dell's brand is called "UltraSharp", not "UltraSync" as the review states. NEC's brand is called MultiSync, maybe that got confused?
  • mlittl3 - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Here are the final prices (retail not education of both of these monitors).

    Apple $799
    Dell $486.85

    Apple just today reduced the price of their LCD panels. Also, it should be noted that the Dell LCD is listed as $749 but a 35% discount lowers the price.

    This is a perfect example of how hardware costs the same between PC and Mac but volume shipments allow a distributor to lower the cost considerably.

    Apple is selling a lot less of these than Dell therefore their prices are higher. Both panels still cost about the same before volume shipments are factored in. If the whole world buys Apple, then Apple would sell the LCD for $499 and Dell would increase the price to $749.

    Gotta love capitalism!
  • DCstewieG - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    #17 How did you get that $799 price? I followed the link and the session was expired but then I went back to the store and sure enough...$799. Even with my educational discount it's $899.

    Though even @ $799, my point stands.
  • JNo - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Superb...

    Agree that other connections (s-vid, composite) should be tested via eg xbox... shame no component...

    Am really tempted to get widescreen now that games are beginning to support it or can be made to support it. More elegant than dual monitor and better for movies/games too. Really impressed that the Dell 'out-functioned' the Apple with similar/better performance too.

    On the Dell 2405 (1920x1200), does anyone know what panel it uses? LG Philips too?
    Also anyone know if
    a) it supports 1:1 pixel scaling?
    b) it can be bought in UK (does not appear on dell uk website) - and how much?
    c) it can also rotate to portrait mode?

    Thks
  • smn198 - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    #21
    12ms typical (Grey to Grey) / 16ms typical (Black to White)
    http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/200...

    Guess Dell are slightly schizophrenic
  • sandys - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Quite a few games that don't support widescreen natively can be modified to do so, check out http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/ for details, I have a 2405 and run all my games in widescreen with the correct aspect ratio.

    Cheers
  • blwest - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Nice article. I bought two of these in Feb and absolutely agree with everything in this article. I do think that WOW supports 16:10 though. I'm not 100% certain until I get home but I've been playing it and nothing is deformed. In soviet russia, the monitor watches you.
  • segagenesis - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Impressive display but I personally dont like the fact its 16:10... why not 16:9? Did I miss the memo on how LCDs are manufacturered? Having a Trinitron CRT im still hard pressed to want to move to LCD especially for games.
  • toyota - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link

    Dell does NOT claim 12ms response time!! I am looking at their catalog that i got a few weeks ago and it lists 16ms for response time for the 2005FPW!!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now