Dell 2001fp or 2005fpw

[vladmech]

I'm trying to decide between these two monitors. Cost isn't an issue because I'll just wait until they are on sale.

I mainly use my computer for playing games, lots of FPS, RTS and World of Warcraft. Is there a noticable advantage of one over the other?

Thanks for any help

 

[Genx87]

I got a 2001FP last week. Nice LCD, not as nice of picture quality as my Samsung 19" CRT. But it will do.

I am not a big fan of widescreen. It seems unatural to me hehe.

 

[drifter106]

I have the the 2005fpw and although I have not seen the 2001fp I would be hard pressed to switch...games, internet surfing and evening watch dvd's make the 2005 my first choice... wide screen is really nice...

 

[Corey0808]

I'm in the same boat also. I don't know which one to get. Are there any comparison reviews out there between the two?

 

[Bateluer]

I like my 2005FPW, even with the minor backlight issue it had. I hear its been mostly fixed on the on newer revisions though.

 

[JBT]

I've only owned the 2001 between these two and it was great. Mine did have a little bit of back light bleed but the monitor was just really nice. I thought that it was the best investement I had ever made for my PC until I got the 2405FPW lol.

 

[pulsedrive]

I personally own the 2005FPW, and it is a fantastic monitor. I own one of the revision 2 panels which is the one they fixed the vast mojority of their problems with backlighting. The monitor will most likely have a bluish/red tint when looking at it on an angle, but that is the only thing I can find even remotely odd about it. The widescreen particularly if you play WoW is really nice, because you gain a good chunk of screen real estate for it. As far as reviews comparing the 2001 and 2005, I doubt it because they are diffrerent aspect ratios. But anand has done some reviews or the 2005.

 

[R3MF]

2005FPW 8)

currently £361 in the UK, i paid £400 two weeks ago.

 

[peleejosh]

i like my 2005

 

[Hadsus]

The 2005fpw has a better contrast ratio than the 2001fp (600:1 to 400:1). I hope this translates into better blacks because the 2001fp performs quite poorly with Doom3 and other dark games....which is one of the reasons why I returned it. Vertically the 2005fpw is similar to a 17 inch monitor. That would give me reason to pause. The 2001fp is 1.5 inches taller and 1 inch shorter horizontally. I suppose, in the end, each have their plusses and minues.

 

[peleejosh]

Once you game in widescreen you wont go back to the "square"

 

[Schadenfroh]

i like my 2001FP, never have seen any ghosting. Went with it because 1600x1200 is more standard than the widescreen format and many of my old games do not support it. Plus it has more surface area than the 2005.

 

[Deinonych]

I bought a 2001fp a couple weeks ago. It's a great monitor, but I ended up returning it because it didn't perform well in FPS games (for me, at least). There was a noticeable blurring when moving from side to side in Battlefield 2, and I found it very distracting. Something to consider if you use your system for gaming primarily. Your mileage may vary.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: peleejosh
Once you game in widescreen you wont go back to the "square"

Yep. I wrestled between getting the 2005FPW and the 2001FP, and decided to go with the 2005FPW. I'm very happy with it.

I am not a big fan of widescreen. It seems unatural to me hehe.

Widescreen is exactly that... more natural. If you look straight ahead and pay attention to your natural field of vision, you will notice that you have considerably more peripheral vison on the sides than you do from top to bottom. Widescreen simply mimicks this better than the square aspect ratio. I have a standard ratio CRT at work, and it feels overly tall and boxy to me now. The only thing that the square aspect ratio is better for is reading AT forums, since see more of the page.

The only drawback to widescreen is native gaming support for WS. Many games do support WS, but surprisingly enough some don't. BattleField2 is an example of that, which, IMO is ridiculous at this point.

 

[Newfie]

Originally posted by: peleejosh

The only drawback to widescreen is native gaming support for WS. Many games do support WS, but surprisingly enough some don't. BattleField2 is an example of that, which, IMO is ridiculous at this point.

I do believe BF2 can support it, you have to mannually set the resoultion I think. Cant remember where I read it but ill keep an eye out.

 

[nitromullet]

There are a few threads on WS support in BF2 in the widescreengamingforum with mixed results. IMO, BF2 should support WS out of the box via a drop down like HL2. Having to edit a config file manually is ridiculous IMO. The way I see it, once Dell offers a something in a new standard it is no longer cutting edge... It is definitely mainstream. EA needs to get with it. Don't get me wrong... A lot of other companies need to get with it too (id), but BF2 just came out and the 2005FPW has been out for over 6 months now. If I can edit a config to make it work in WS, how trivial would it be for the game developer to include support out of the box?

 

[supagold]

I own both the 2001FP and the 2005FPW. I'd go with the 2005FPW. It's brighter, the colors look more vivid, and it's got a faster refresh rate (though I haven't noticed ghosting on either display). Personally, I also prefer the widescreen display for gaming. I've found that at the distance I sit from my displays, about 18-24", the 2001 is a little tall to take in the entire screen at a glance, but maybe that's just me. Overall, the 2005 is just a better display in my opinion. Incidentally, the widescreen gaming forum is must-have bookmark if you get the 2005.