Dell 2005FPW & 2405FPW vs. 1905FP & 2001FP

[GearCat]

I'm seeking comments on the performance and practicality of the Dell 2005FPW & 2405FPW, and wide screen displays in general. These Dell flat panel displays have a 16:10 aspect ratio with a native resolution of 1680x1050 (WSXGA) and 1920x1200 (WUXGA), respectively.

AnandTech gives high praise to the Dell 2001FP which has a 4:3 aspect ratio with a native resolution of 1600x1200 (UXGA). That speaks volumes on the quality of Dell flat panels!

However, when it comes to wide screen displays, are there really enough applications and games, now and coming up soon, that will take advantage the wide screens ? ? ?

As an alternative, for the same money as a 2005FPW, you could buy two 1704FPVs (or two 1905FPs for $200 more), and for the same money as the 2405FPW, you could buy two 2001FPs. Are two 4:3 displays better than one 16:10 ? ? ?

Also, please respond with any comments (pro or con) regarding games or other software that supports wide screen resolutions! In particular, I'm looking at support for WUXGA and WSXGA.

I'm sure many of us are now faced with deciding between the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio displays versus a wider aspect ratio display. I hope the thread which develops from here will provide some help in deciding on the applicability of wide sceen displays. I've also left posts in other categories on this forum.

 

[ones3k]

Do you play games? If so, dont buy a dell LCD. I've used them before, and i had to call the ghosting busters. Get a samsung or viewsonic 19inch for games. Hell, even for office applications, the ghosting on these really bothers me.

 

[imperium95]

Never had a problem with ghosting with a dell monitor and they are generally considered top class monitors. (I play HL2, BF2, jedi knight II/academy, etc.) I have a 2005fpw and I love it. What a great monitor and you can get it for a great price with coupons + a sale. I got mine for little over $400. Anands review of the 2005FPW was quite favorable. A friend of mine has both a 2005FPW and a 2405FPW and likes them both. He says the 2005 is better for gaming than the 2405.

Just a note, but the 2005FPW has a native resolution of WSXGA 1680x1050 while the 2405 is WUXGA 1920x1200

As for widescreen vs 4:3 standard; I much prefer the widescreen, particularly for watching movies. It also looks great for games that support widescreen modes, such as HL2. It's a bit of a bummer that Jedi knight: jedy academy does not support widescreen...

 

[drifter106]

I have 2 2005's and do not have ghosting problems at all...kids play halo and CS exclusively and they work great...

 

[GearCat]

Note that I edited my original post to correct some errors, including the one pointed out by a previous post.

Yes I do play games but so far that's been pretty much limited to UBI's IL2, a combat flight simulator. I was supprised to hear about the ghosting problem with the Dell. I know the Dells are a bit slowing in response time compared to the Samsung for example (I have a Samsung 710T which for its generation has nice specs). But the Dells are aledgedly much better with color. Hopefully that bad ghosting problem was a rare occurrence, if not an isolated one, and most out there are pleased like the the last two posts. These are the comments I'm looking for to reach a conclusion.

Also, I like to hear what different preferences there are for games and other applications which have wide screen support. As noted in a previous post, it seems like many good games simply don't support wide screen. You play them in a 4:3 window or in stretch mode. What a waste of money for a wide screen if that's what the state of affairs in gaming is and will remain to be for the forseable future for the majority of the better games.

In addition to games, my favorite being combat flight simulators, although I'll try any game that looks to be incredible in wide screen, I'm also concerned about video editing & production. Once I shift into HD recording, I will have to edit & produce in 16:9 more than I am now.

I think on the subject of dual 4:3 displays, one wide screen is a better choice, although there are some cool applications for multiple 4:3 screens in flight sims, but you really need three displays.

 

[GearCat]

Did a few calculations recalling my days of triganometry so many years ago. Consider this for the similarly priced regular (4:3) and widescreen (16:10) Dell flat panel monitors, both having a viewable diagonal measurement of 20.1 inches.

The 4:3 Dell 2001FP has almost 7% (6.8 to be exact) more viewable screen area than the 16:10 Dell 2005FPW, but if you're running a 4:3 windowed application (e.g., most games) on the 2005FPW, it's like using little better than a 17 inch (diagonal) 4:3 display (17.75 to be exact), or 22% less usable screen area than the 2001FP. Now, if you wanted to run a 16:10 windowed application (e.g., a few games) on the 2001FP, your're diagonal is 19 inches and you have 11% less usable screen area than the 2005FPW.

So at this point, my conclusion is pointng to the 2001FP being more bang for the buck as it 's better for the larger majority of 4:3 applications, particularly games, and if you do need to work in a 16:10 window (letterbox), you're not giving up as much as you would working in 4:3 window on a wide screen display.

 

[wasserkool]

Originally posted by: GearCat
Did a few calculations recalling my days of triganometry so many years ago. Consider this for the similarly priced regular (4:3) and widescreen (16:10) Dell flat panel monitors, both having a viewable diagonal measurement of 20.1 inches.

The 4:3 Dell 2001FP has almost 7% (6.8 to be exact) more viewable screen area than the 16:10 Dell 2005FPW, but if you're running a 4:3 windowed application (e.g., most games) on the 2005FPW, it's like using little better than a 17 inch (diagonal) 4:3 display (17.75 to be exact), or 22% less usable screen area than the 2001FP. Now, if you wanted to run a 16:10 windowed application (e.g., a few games) on the 2001FP, your're diagonal is 19 inches and you have 11% less usable screen area than the 2005FPW.

So at this point, my conclusion is pointng to the 2001FP being more bang for the buck as it 's better for the larger majority of 4:3 applications, particularly games, and if you do need to work in a 16:10 window (letterbox), you're not giving up as much as you would working in 4:3 window on a wide screen display.

interesting calculations..so you are saying the non widescreen is better for gaming and applications after all due to more screen space? The reason i am asking is because i am contemplating to buy the Eizo S2110W widescreen monitor - 21 inch widescreen that has the same res ans the dell widescreen

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: wasserkool

Originally posted by: GearCat
Did a few calculations recalling my days of triganometry so many years ago. Consider this for the similarly priced regular (4:3) and widescreen (16:10) Dell flat panel monitors, both having a viewable diagonal measurement of 20.1 inches.

The 4:3 Dell 2001FP has almost 7% (6.8 to be exact) more viewable screen area than the 16:10 Dell 2005FPW, but if you're running a 4:3 windowed application (e.g., most games) on the 2005FPW, it's like using little better than a 17 inch (diagonal) 4:3 display (17.75 to be exact), or 22% less usable screen area than the 2001FP. Now, if you wanted to run a 16:10 windowed application (e.g., a few games) on the 2001FP, your're diagonal is 19 inches and you have 11% less usable screen area than the 2005FPW.

So at this point, my conclusion is pointng to the 2001FP being more bang for the buck as it 's better for the larger majority of 4:3 applications, particularly games, and if you do need to work in a 16:10 window (letterbox), you're not giving up as much as you would working in 4:3 window on a wide screen display.

interesting calculations..so you are saying the non widescreen is better for gaming and applications after all due to more screen space? The reason i am asking is because i am contemplating to buy the Eizo S2110W widescreen monitor - 21 inch widescreen that has the same res ans the dell widescreen

After owning an actual Viewsonic VP191b, and seeing both a 2005FPW and a 2001FP, I have concluded that having a 20" 4:3 screen is the best bet. It doesn't feel very square like my 19" LCD, but it doesn't have the whole widescreen look. However it's an awesome monitor I think in terms of display space utilization. Unless you're going to be watching 16:9 movies 24/7, I don't see any reason to get a 2005FPW. It's only as tall as a 17" LCD. I'm not paying that much to have 1050 pixels high on something only as small as a 17" LCD. That means my text will be TINY on a 2005FPW compared to a VP191b/1905FP.

 

[svi]

Your calculations are correct, and your conclusion on screen size and aspect ratios is one that is widely accepted by the home theater crowd. That's about that.

A 4:3 display is a good idea if your usage pattern involves many things that specifically benefit from a 4:3 aspect ratio. Examples: most games (most game engines distort or clip a 4:3 picture to produce widescreen output, and as such have higher image fidelity at 4:3), web browsing (most web pages are designed for a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio, and look a bit strange in widescreen resolutions; those of you used to running high resolutions will probably not notice this), and probably image editing (unless you edit a lot of very wide images).

A widescreen display is a good idea if your usage pattern involves many things that specifically benefit from a wider screen. Examples: movies (this one is obvious), CS:S (Source is one of the few engines that actually puts more picture in the picture for widescreen operation; I guess you could say it actually clips the output for 4:3 screens), and probably video editing (unless you edit a lot of 4:3 or 5:4 videos).

You'll notice that a lot of activities do not seem to fall in either category. This isn't entirely because of the limited scope of my example lists: what the "best" aspect ratio is for a given activity is usually subjective. Example: some people prefer 16:10 displays for programming and word processing so they can put wide windows side by side more easily, others prefer 4:3 for the increased screen area.

My advice is to look at the displays you're considering in person, if you can. I/O devices are the most subjective part of any computer. If you can't locate the specific monitors you're looking for (try a local computer store if you can find one, the staff are usually more accommodating than at the big chains), at least try and compare a 16:10 screen and a 4:3 screen to see what you're more comfortable using in regular operation.

 

[akugami]

Many more of the newer games including the latest MMORPG's will support widescreen resolutions. It's only the older games that won't support it. I have a 2005FPW and while I do know it's screen height is not much higher than a 17" LCD, the extra width and widescreen aspect ratio are great for viewing movies as well as gaming.

Aside from the initial run of 2005FPW's with the backlight bleeding problem, the recent ones are pretty decent. The ghosting on a 2005FPW is pretty much non-existent. If it's there, you probably have to stare at the screen specifically looking for it because through normal video viewing and game playing I don't notice any.

I plan to get a 2405FPW or some other widescreen monitor eventually for dual screen goodness. Keep one in portrait mode to view web sites and do picture editing, keep the second for video viewing, picture editing and game playing.

 

[AMCRambler]

I just recently bought a 2005FPW and it is a really nice monitor. Quite an upgrade from my old 1901FP which I'm running as a second monitor now with the widescreen as my primary. My usage of the screen is primarily watching movies and playing games. Now the 2005FPW works great for movies, but when it comes to games, there's really not much gain unless the games you play support widescreen. From what I hear there are not too many that do. I still use the widescren for my gamin though because the 1901FP has a 25ms response whereas the widescreen is the newer panel has a 16ms response time and the difference is noticeable. However for gaming I would much prefer a 19 inch with a 16ms response time and use the widescreen as a secondary monitor for watching movies. Guess I'll just have to save up again.
As far as support in games in the future I don't know. I know that for Battlefield 2, EA has been asked about wide screen support many times, but their answer every time has been no. No patches will make widescreen available. So it looks like that's EA's stance on it. But then again, EA as we all know is not exactly forthcoming with many things. So I'd say for right now, stick to normal screen unless you're a movie buff.

 

[svi]

Many more of the newer games including the latest MMORPG's will support widescreen resolutions. It's only the older games that won't support it. I have a 2005FPW and while I do know it's screen height is not much higher than a 17" LCD, the extra width and widescreen aspect ratio are great for viewing movies as well as gaming.

They support it, yes, if by support it you mean you can select the resolution in the game. However, most game engines distort or clip a 4:3 picture to produce widescreen output, and as such have higher image fidelity at 4:3. Obviously, this includes those games that let you select widescreen output (how could it NOT?).

As such, a widescreen aspect ratio is not what I would call great for gaming unless you only play Far Cry, CS:S, and/or HL2. The illusion of width in other engines is nice, but it comes at a nasty price whether the engine stretches or clips.

 

[troutmask]

I use two 2005 fpw panels for video editing and they work well for the price...

 

[MobiusPizza]

Well a widescreen monitor is definitely a nice looking piece of hardware
I don't watch movies a lot and game a lot

See my sig, I love my monitor

 

[GearCat]

Much input here and in the "Video" forum. This is great!

Wasserkool: Yes that is what I'm saying. Plus consider DLeRium's and svi's response following yours. You definately want to see the Eizo monitor (widescreen or not) before you buy it unless you've read some trusted reviews on them (like those on the Dell). Even then though, it can be subjective

As for the comments on the 2005FPW, I'm sure it is a good quality monitor. It boils down to how you are using it and how comfortable you are with it as has been commented on above.

As for the comments on the 2405FPW, I would expect advantages over the 2001FP, but you don't get that from the 2005FPW (not for my tasts anyway). So unless you have the extra money for the 2405 (around $400-$500 depending on dscounts), the 2001FP is the way to go (note Quantum Mechanic's comments in the "Video" forum thread). Also, I would be concerned about performance issues with larger flat panel (LCD) monitors and how well the video card handles these monitors. While I agree the widescreen is the way of the future, it will probably be several more years before that's a serious concern and many more years before 4:3 computer monitors are unseated, if ever. By that time I suspect, as with most technology, large widescreen performance and quality will be far more advanced for a good price and lower but reasonable quality for far cheaper. Also, more and better software will be available downline for widescreens.

On cost, I prefer not to spend much over $500 on a monitor (say 25%-30% of overall system cost excluding high end printers, scanners, or other peripherals), unless I really had a serious need or was sure of extended longevity (more than 3 years) both in terms of performance and compatibility when compared to evolving technology. In 1992 I bought a 17 inch Nanao Flexscan T560i (used Sony's Trinitron CRT) for $1500 and it lasted me 14 years. I don't expect that to happen again until LCD or other flat panel display technology becomes very, very, very mature.