Dell new 20" wide LCD 2005FPW. Has anyone seen this beast?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Skylander

Junior Member
Oct 10, 2004
13
0
0
Originally posted by: Sadhu

It appears noticably brighter. How much brighter? Well, when setting them both to 100% brightness, I think anyone who isn't completely blind would say that the 1600x1050 is remarkably "brighter." Whites especially are considerably whiter, and you have to turn the 2005FPW down below 70% for them to even begin to get close. It's still noticably brighter even at 70% and still easier to read at that level. I haven't really decided about the colors yet. I know there was some worry that colors would looked washed out, and maybe they do a little washed out by comparrsion to the 2001, .......


According to what you said, you lowered the brightness (or contrast) at your 2005FPW. So what is the brightness level and contrast level of your 2005FPW now? You should be able to see it by click on the "-" key on your monitor. Moreover, what's the default level once your first use the LCD?

 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
I put everything back to default all color 100% and brightness and contrast to 100%.. I changed those settings on my vid card its a little better but still needs some work. Is anyone here running the 2005FPW with a 9800 pro in DVI. ? If so what settings are you using. ?
 

REMF

Member
Dec 6, 2002
141
0
0
Originally posted by: Skylander
I have a similar feeling. I got a 2001FP (4:3) lately. I think it's actually better than the widescreen version (2005FPW). It's not only the gaming resolution issue. The height of the monitor is not enough for 2005FPW. 2001FP has a better screen height. I know widescreen sounds attractive to a lot people. I agree that it would be great on LCD TV. For LCD monitor (PC or Mac), I think 23" would be a better model to use widescreen. For 20", 4:3 still looks better in my point of view.

while we can all agree that 1920x1200 HDTV resolution would be an ideal standard for the PC to settle on, have you considered the video-card(s) that you would need to drive this resolution properly?

yes, a SLI 6800GT rig may well be able run D3/HL2 at max details in 1920x1200, but what about 12 months down the line when the latest crop of games arrive? i dunno about you, but i don't fancy spending £550 every year on video-cards alone!

that's why the 2005WFP with its 1680x1050 res is so appealing to me.
 

agent2099

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2002
1,166
0
0
Originally posted by: eliteramen
Originally posted by: Fr0zen2k4
Lower resolutions look weak on desktop not as crisp as native.

This is to be expected with any LCD, though, yes?


Very much so. But the 2001fp had a reputation as scalling down better than most monitors. Of course, that always referred to scaling in games and not on the desktop. No one would have any reason to scale down the desktop res.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
Originally posted by: Skylander
Originally posted by: Sadhu

It appears noticably brighter. How much brighter? Well, when setting them both to 100% brightness, I think anyone who isn't completely blind would say that the 1600x1050 is remarkably "brighter." Whites especially are considerably whiter, and you have to turn the 2005FPW down below 70% for them to even begin to get close. It's still noticably brighter even at 70% and still easier to read at that level. I haven't really decided about the colors yet. I know there was some worry that colors would looked washed out, and maybe they do a little washed out by comparrsion to the 2001, .......


According to what you said, you lowered the brightness (or contrast) at your 2005FPW. So what is the brightness level and contrast level of your 2005FPW now? You should be able to see it by click on the "-" key on your monitor. Moreover, what's the default level once your first use the LCD?

Skylander,

I am running at a brightness level of 76%. Not that I will probably leave it there, but that is where it is right now. I did that as test to see if I could drop the brightness to where they started to look the same ... in order to see if the color saturation would match on both monitors. I don't think they do match exactly ... and the colors do look more staturated on the 2001FP even with the brightness at that level.

However, it should be noted that I wouldn't describe the colors as "washed out, even at the default setting, and I only noticed the difference in direct comparrison to the 2001FP. If you are looking at just the FPW alone, it would be wrong to say that immediately gives the impression that's washed out. You might not even say it's washed out, it's not as saturated, surely. But it's not so extreme to be saying ... "Hey this is terribly washed out." No definetly not.

Also, I'd still have to say that when both monitors are running Clear Type at Native Mode (which now, I can say seems the only way to run the desktop on BOTH monitors, the text does seem noticably better, and noticably cleaner and sharper on the FPW ... even at 76 % brightness. No doubt. And the colors, at that brightness, the colors still seem more saturated on the 2001FP, but not by much.

With the Window fully maximized, I cannot see the entire Outlook 2003 on my desktop UNLESS I drag everything over to the 2001FP. That might irk some users. It's definitely a SHORT screen, no doubt about that. So what people say in this forum about it not being BIG enough for them is a valid complaint.

What would be nice would be 2005FP which had the improved clarity of text, without slightly better color saturation, and with taller screen. Then, I'd say, you really have something. But this is really a wonderful montior. I haven't compared to the Samsung, but I did have my glasses with me when I went to CompUsa and Best Buy where the 23-inch monitor was selling for $899 and I must say that I don't remember being as impressed with the clearity and sharpness ... to the extent that I was with this FPW. That's not to say that it isn't as good, but I don't remember it being a stand out ... and this IS a standout. Even better than the 2001FP. There is a awful lot here to like. As a 2nd monitor, this could be a very welcome addition, and the two together, the 2001 and the 2005 make a very nice combination.
 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
Yes not washed out just not alot of color saturation it could use some more. I guess im to used to my old CRT. I turned the gamma and brightness down a little in my video card settings everything on the monitor is at 100% colors, brightness and contrast. Im happy with this monitor just sometimes the text calarity and color saturation could use some work. I will further attempt to tweak it etc..

As for the outlook I can see my entire outlook on the 2005FPW but im useing outlook express.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
Originally posted by: Fr0zen2k4
Yes not washed out just not alot of color saturation it could use some more. I guess im to used to my old CRT. I turned the gamma and brightness down a little in my video card settings everything on the monitor is at 100% colors, brightness and contrast. Im happy with this monitor just sometimes the text calarity and color saturation could use some work. I will further attempt to tweak it etc..

As for the outlook I can see my entire outlook on the 2005FPW but im useing outlook express.


Yeah, the whole thing is different in 2003 Outlook. There are the Mail, Calendar and Contact bars and other bars at the bottom. If you get used to them, you will want to see them and have them fit. Actually, you can make them fit using the 2005FPW, but you have to have less of your mail showing. I guess I should have said that with more of the mail showing, I can see the whole thing on the 2001FP. But it's nothing to worry about because you can show less of the mail, and then you can see the whole thing with the FPW. It just pointed out to me that it was a shorter monitor, and that there are times when having that extra real estate at the bottom can be a practical asset.


It's interesting that you find the 2005FPW could sometimes use a little more text clarity. I don't find the text clarity lacking. Actually, I think it is superior to both my EIZO 21" CRT. When you say that it could stand to have more clarity, I'd be curious to have you elaborate. What do you actually mean? Is it that the text doesn't stand out as strikingly from the backright because the blacks aren't as "saturated?" I don't find that the blacks to look grey. They look black to me.

And are you using Clear Type? What I find is that Clear Type works really well, especially well with these 20.5 Dell Ultra Sharp monitors. It works better, in fact, than even the Dell 1905, which I also have on my desk. In other words, in the past, when I've tried "Clear Type" I've always thought that the text looked a little funny, a little blurry. But with these 20.5 Dell monitors, I don't really see that blurriness. I'd say that I actually prefer both the 20.5 sharpness of the text to the larger scale of the 1905 1280x1024. As I said earlier, this was one suprising factor for me. I thought I would have had a preference for the slightly larger scale for the text on the 1905, but the more I looked at both them, the more I felt the sheer appeal of the sharpness and complete clarity of the 2001 and 2005. I found the slight lack of crispness of the 19 a little distracting. Of course, I am sometimes distracted by the sharpnes too. I find myself saying "Geez! This looks really sharp!" But that kind of distraction is easier to live with than the other way around! The one that looks the best for me is not the 2001. It's the 2005. That's one reason why I don't think it's fair to say it's not the better monitor ... on size alone. I think some people, might prefer a slightly more crisp monitor, and to my eyes, it appears that way (I'm wearing my glasses, folks). Also, not a single dead pixel on the 2005FPW. The 2001 mus have at least 6 dead pixels. I don't know what's to be expected. I don't find the dead pixels annoying on the 2001. They aren't in a prominent spot, like right in the middle or at the top by the menus, even at the bottom by the toolbar.

So I don't really ever notice it the dead pixels on the 2001. But having none with the FPw is definitely a plus. I thought I had one but it turned out to be dust. I don't think I'm alone. I think a few people have remarked so far that there are no dead pixels. Can't remember if it was you, or Zeppelin2282. AS I said before, I can see others who have the 2001 getting this as 2nd monitor and loving it. Maybe not if the 23 Widescreens come down in price. But I got my FPw when it was on sale, and it was an excellent deal for the sale price. I believe I will hang on to it, happily, just because I find it to be more crisp and sharp than anything I have yet had. And that's a really nice asset ... at least for someone like me that uses Word and email and Dreamweaver a lot.
 

XyKo

Member
Oct 11, 2003
73
0
0
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Originally posted by: XyKo
How about checking out the 30" Syntax Olevia LCD for $999? Looks nice.

Not for PC usage it doesnt.

It does have DVI, and alot of people are satified with the monitor for PC usage. Gaming was great on it, and it's 15ms. I have to admit that it's huge, but would rather pay $3-400 more to get a 30" then 21".
 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
Yeah mine has 0 dead pixels also and im useing clear type. The text clarity owns my two CRT's but sometimes like flashfxp file listing looks kind of small or a folder with alot of folders with names. I cant complain the only thing I would like to see is a tad bit more color saturation.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
Originally posted by: Fr0zen2k4
Yeah mine has 0 dead pixels also and im useing clear type. The text clarity owns my two CRT's but sometimes like flashfxp file listing looks kind of small or a folder with alot of folders with names. I cant complain the only thing I would like to see is a tad bit more color saturation.


I thought that it might have been you that mentioned this.

Yes, I quite agree, it could use just a little more color saturation. If it was similar to the 2001FP in color saturation it would really be hard to find any faults with the darn thing. It's not at all washed out, just not perfect. It would be otherwise ... execpt that it could use a little more height ... and then a little more width ... and then a little more height ... and then a little more width). As I perhaps keep pointing out, perhaps a little too much (forgive me, folks), for the price, and discounted to below $650, which it has been previously, it's a nice monitor.

I'm someone who has trouble reading the newpaper without glasses, and I'm sitting more than 36 inches away from the darn thing, I don't have to strain to read the small text in this message. This is fabulous. On my CRT at 1600x1200, I was unable to read anything without glasses.
 

Skylander

Junior Member
Oct 10, 2004
13
0
0
Sadhu,

Are you using DVI ? I am still keeping the default contrast level (50%) of my 2001FP. The color saturation is pretty good and is very bright.
 

Sadhu

Member
Nov 11, 2004
96
0
0
Originally posted by: Skylander
Sadhu,

Are you using DVI ? I am still keeping the default contrast level (50%) of my 2001FP. The color saturation is pretty good and is very bright.

Yes, DVI. DVI on both the 2001FP and the 2005FPW.

 

amol

Lifer
Jul 8, 2001
11,679
1
0
i'd love to see a monitor like this with a built in tv tuner . . . that'd be just awesome! i could play ps2 and look at strategy guides on the same screen!
 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
You can why would u need a TV tuner. ? It has s-video and composite input. I watch satilite tv when playing hl2 with pip on this monitor.
 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
No s-video composite has worse quality. TV tuners are a thing of the past no one use's regular tv antenna anymore practily everyone has Cable or Satillite these days.
 

amol

Lifer
Jul 8, 2001
11,679
1
0
oh wait, i thought it said "component", not "composite"

lol, i always get confused between the two

EDIT: anybody think that dell is going to release a 23" widescreen, with component jacks . . . that would also have a good price?

haha, i can dream, can't i?
 

agent2099

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2002
1,166
0
0
Originally posted by: Sadhu
Originally posted by: Skylander
Originally posted by: Sadhu



With the Window fully maximized, I cannot see the entire Outlook 2003 on my desktop UNLESS I drag everything over to the 2001FP.

Wait, so when you maximize windows such as MS Word, Firefox, Outlook .... they window goes beyond the size of the screen??!



 
Nov 13, 2004
39
0
0
No all programs work fine for me and fit the demensions of the screen perfectly as does every game and movie that I played/watched. I think he means the outlook 2003 is just a little bit smushed due to the shorter screen height.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |