2001FP vs 2005FPW

[SofaKing]

I'm looking to purchase one of the two in a few months, I'm a bit unsure. I realize that the 2005FPW's screen ratio (16:10) is a bit different because of its widescreen format, so I might not be able to play some games at its supported resolution. But the 2005FPW seems to have advantages, such as that 12MS response time. Anyhow, what would you guys recommend? I plan to do a lot of gaming, watching DVDs, and the usual.

 

[JBT]

The 2005 and 2001 both have 16MS response times. You can also ussually force resolutions with all games if they don't have them by default. Its really easy esspecially with Nvidia drivers.

 

[SofaKing]

Really? On dell's site it says the 2005FPW has a 12MS response time.. including many sites who reviewed the monitor.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/Prod...320-4111&c=us&l=en&cs=19&page=external

Delivers distortion-free, sharp images with 600:1 contrast ratio and 12 millisecond response time

This makes my decision a bit harder..

And about forcing resolution with games, won't it make it look stretched?

 

[JBT]

On the specs when it was released it said 12MS black to white and 16ms black to black. So ussually the highier one it what YOU should go by not what they say to get you to buy it.

 

[SofaKing]

So all in all, which would you recommend?

 

[JBT]

Well I personally own the 2001 and its GREAT. I got mine just before they released the 2005. I have never seen a 2005 in person but I have seen 2001's and 2005's next to each other in pics and the 2005 looks better, but they also have been known to have back light issues. If you don't mind the risk or possibly having to mess with game files to get wide screen to work I'd go 2005 but either one is REALLY nice IMO.

 

[SofaKing]

hmm ok.. i heard that most 2005FPWs have the backlight issue so i'm kinda leaning towards the 2001..

 

[JBT]

In my post what I meant be looks it just the way the actual monitor looks, certianly not the actual screen. If you are scared of the back light issue then grab a 2001 they are AMAZING. Probably my favorite upgrade ever.

 

[amol]

i :heart: my 2005FPw

of course, if you plan on running dual monitors in the future, i suggest 2001FP

 

[darkswordsman17]

Well I have both, and I like the 2005 better. Mine has a little bit of backlight bleed through, but its brighter and I just like it better.

They're both great screens, however I'd rather have a 2005.

 

[Stoneburner]

I have a stuck red pixel on the top right hand side

 

[SynthDude2001]

I've used both, but I like the 2005FPW better. Brighter and lower response time. However, you have to decide if widescreen is for you - it's not for everyone.

 

[ZombieJesus]

I love my 2005fp ... something about the widescreen fitting ones field of view so well. The panel in the 2005 is newer and faster with 12 ms grey to grey and 16 black to white. As for the defect of back light bleeding it is true. The new revisions have mostly fixed it. I had to return my monitor twice one being rev a00 one being rev a01. The third monitor they sent me was perfect in every way, no dead pixels or subpixels and no bleeding. It is understandable how quality control missed the flaw on my first a01 as the bleeding was only visable after the screen had heated up from 45 minutes+ of use. Don't worry about bleeding or flaws Dells return policy lets you return as many times as you like until you get a good monitor so don't let concerns about the quality stop you.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Niether, go with that Viewsonic one.

 

[Stoneburner]

how long after you get a replacement do you have to exchange it? This stuck pixel is bothering me badly. hopefully i can get used to it...

 

[imverygifted]

by what you say definitely go w/ 2005, i love it for gaming and watchin movies- maybe i was jus lucky but i have no backlight bleed what-so-ever its perfectly even and no dead pixels. i upped from a 19" LCD and its a big difference- its a fantastic monitor

 

[Stoneburner]

how many 2005fpw have dead or stuck pixels? I wonder what the odds are of me getting one w/o them.

 

[Stoneburner]

how many 2005fpw have dead or stuck pixels? I wonder what the odds are of me getting one w/o them.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
how many 2005fpw have dead or stuck pixels? I wonder what the odds are of me getting one w/o them.

you're going to experience dead or stuck pixels with ANY LCD . . . try rubbing them out, if not, RMA

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
how many 2005fpw have dead or stuck pixels? I wonder what the odds are of me getting one w/o them.

you're going to experience dead or stuck pixels with ANY LCD . . . try rubbing them out, if not, RMA

right. No matter who you are getting the LCD from your running the risk of getting one with dead/stuck pixels. The thing with Dell is that they will accept returns no questions asked for upto 30 days I belive possibly even longer.

Both 2001FP's I use niether of which have any dead/stuck pixels.

 

[Spike]

My 2005 has some backlight bleeding and a single dead pixel. I will probably have Dell send me a replacement but if that one is worse than the first I will keep the original as the defects are hardly noticable.

As for response, the 2005 has 12ms grey to grey and 16ms black to white while the 2001 has 16ms on both. I have heard it argued both ways that grey to grey is the better/worse measurement for gaming. Either way you can't complain as any lower rate is bound to be a good thing. Also the 2005 is brighter and I believe it has higher contrast.

I have not compared the two side-by-side but I will soon as my friend has the 2001.

Originally posted by: wolfman579
Niether, go with that Viewsonic one.

Oh, and take whatever wolfman579 has with a VERY LARGE grain of salt. He has it out for the dell flat panels as shown in his biased and unaccurate review. I agree that there are still benefits to CRT's, but all together the LCD is looking like the way to go.

-spike

 

[Taelvin]

I was thinking about ordering the 2005, how can you tell what revision it is when you get it? Which one should i be looking for?

 

[Stoneburner]

Dell is being a pain. I was trying to get an exchange this morning and they kept sending me to tech support where the wait time is about 30 days. They also keep asking why i want to return it. THey have a full satisfaction policy, they need to stop trying to violate the essence of that or they should just change it.

anyway, my second replacement should be here in 2 weeks. I'm hoping for no dead pixels. I have 1 dead pixel which is terrible and a few partially lit which can't be noticed at all unless you look up close.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Taelvin
I was thinking about ordering the 2005, how can you tell what revision it is when you get it? Which one should i be looking for?

It'll be on a sticker on the back of the panel, with a barcode and serial number on it. It'll also list the date of manufacture and the revision. As far as I know, A01 is the newest revision.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Originally posted by: wolfman579
Niether, go with that Viewsonic one.

Oh, and take whatever wolfman579 has with a VERY LARGE grain of salt. He has it out for the dell flat panels as shown in his biased and unaccurate review. I agree that there are still benefits to CRT's, but all together the LCD is looking like the way to go.

-spike[/quote]

It was accurate enough to get the point across.

I'm biased, really, did you see ANY indication of me being biased in my review? I was stating the facts. And isn't the Viewsonic better than the 2001 and 2005 overall anyways?

Don't be an ass.