Gaming LCD: Dell 2001FP or Samsung 213T or other???

[Trey22]

Flame disclaimer : I searched the AT forums and actually did quite a bit of reading on this subject, as no doubt others have asked similar questions, but... I still wasn't confident of my choice, especially when I'm about to drop up to or more than a grand.

Short version:

Looking to pickup a 17" or bigger LCD monitor that can handle FPS gaming and has good clear text quality.

Long version:

I do play alot of BF1942, and just bought Joint Ops today, and will be picking up other games like Call of Duty, Soldner, etc... yeah, I'm a FPS junkie, especially WWII.

I was at Fry's on my lunch hour... and ALMOST bought the Samsung Syncmaster 213T ($1149 plus tax). This of course after searching for a good deal on the Dell 2001FP (I've read they go for +/- $750 when a hot deal is going on).

Should there be another LCD monitor to throw in the ring of consideration? I've heard some nice things about a certain BenQ LCD, though I don't remember the model. Honestly, my head hurts from trying to make a decision on a gaming LCD monitor. At this point I'm even considering a nice 17", especially if it's about half the cost of the 20-21"'s. Currently using an older Envision 900 series 19" non-flatscreen CRT.

If it comes down to it, I'll just take advantage of Fry's return policy, and buy one, try it out, and see if I like it. If not, I'll return it and take a look at another one. Only thing is that their selection is limited.

Cheers,

Trey

Edit: Currently have a 9800 Pro 128MB.

 

[grimreaper19]

What video card are u using? Since w/ a big lcd 20" or larger, u will have to run the resolution at 1600x1200. Anything lower would result in interpolation and won't look too good. I bought my 2001fp two months ago. Its great, but i had to upgrade my video card. Since the 9800 pro couldn't cut it for 1600x1200. You should consider the 19" planar that has 16ms response time. Don't recall the model number.

 

[Trey22]

Currently have a 9800 Pro 128MB. I'm surprised it wouldn't push 1600x1200.

BTW, what did you upgrade to? X800 or 6800?

 

[grimreaper19]

I have a x800 pro for now. Probabily will get the x800 xt pe. Try running halo or far cry at 1600x1200 on the radeon 9800 pro.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

If you can't run 16x12, you can always run 8x6.

The 2001FP scales resolutions very well. I don't notice nearly as much quality loss in 640x480, 1024x768, 1280x1024, etc on the 2001FP as I do my other LCDs. So if oyu don't like 16x12 or 8x6, it won't look horrible at the other resolutions either.

That being said. I don't notice ANY ghosting on the Dell playing UT2k4, or any other game for that matter.

 

[jrphoenix]

I have a Samsung 213T that I use for gaming (read older games as I have a crappy system now) I play BF 1942 (Desert Combat) mostly. The monitor games great and the image quality is better in my opinion than the Dell.

Checkout Anand's review of the Samsung 213T (he compares it with the Dell). You won't be sorry with the Samsung.... probably not with the Dell too at the lower price

P.S. I should have a new system soon (been waiting for a new build since I joined the forums).

 

[Nebor]

Go for the Samsung 213t, it's the glass ceiling of LCD monitors (in it's size range)

EDIT: One more thing, the new designed Apple Cinema 20" widescreen will be out soon, with a standard DVI connection, if you're interested in waiting.

 

[Trey22]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
I have a Samsung 213T that I use for gaming (read older games as I have a crappy system now) I play BF 1942 (Desert Combat) mostly. The monitor games great and the image quality is better in my opinion than the Dell.

Checkout Anand's review of the Samsung 213T (he compares it with the Dell). You won't be sorry with the Samsung.... probably not with the Dell too at the lower price

P.S. I should have a new system soon (been waiting for a new build since I joined the forums).

I was hoping the 213T would dip to a grand... maybe wishful thinking at this point.

jrphoenix, how much did you pick yours up for? I'd like to order from someone that would take it back, just in case I didn't fall in love with it (yeah, like that would happen).

Thanks, I just finished reading the review, and... whew, tough choice. Is the 213T I saw at Fry's for $1149 (plus tax) a good deal?

Gracias for you input.

 

[Nebor]

Fry's is good because for such a big ticket item, you don't want to deal with a restocking fee or anything if somethings wrong. Plus you can make them show you yours in the store, before you buy it, to ensure there aren't any dead pixels or whatever.

 

[Trey22]

Duh! Have them show me the (my) monitor to ensure no dead pixels... that borders on genius Nebor !

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Trey22
Duh! Have them show me the (my) monitor to ensure no dead pixels... that borders on genius Nebor !

If they try to argue just tell them you'll buy the $1200 elsewhere, like CompUSA.

 

[Mik3y]

go with the 2001FP. it has less ghosting, but for me, i'd go for the 213T.

 

[bcoupland]

If you're thinking of a 17", and you are into fps as am I, you should take a look at the
Samsung 172X LCD. It has a 12 ms response time which is currently the best. Anandtech
gave it a good review. Newegg has it for about $550 last time I checked.

 

[SilentZero]

I use the Dell 2001FP and its great, but if I had the extra $200 at the time I would have gone with the samsung 213T. They both are great IMHO.

 

[imported_Yooshaw]

Originally posted by: bcoupland
If you're thinking of a 17", and you are into fps as am I, you should take a look at the
Samsung 172X LCD. It has a 12 ms response time which is currently the best. Anandtech
gave it a good review. Newegg has it for about $550 last time I checked.

I second the 172X. I have it, and play BF 1942 (and DC) and BF Vietnam. No ghosting at all, love the color, and text is great. Running off DVI from a 9800 Pro. i noticed a huge difference between it and the 18" LG that I still use as a second monitor. I highly recommend the 172X.

 

[Nebor]

I think choosing a 17" LCD over a 213t would be a mistake of gargantuan proportions.

 

[lopri]

I have both so I can somewhat judge from my experience. (Don't get me wrong, I do not own both - my roommie owns the Dell)

And? I can only say 213T is whole lot better. Brighter, Crispier, Better Design, Wall-mountable (not sure if the Dell could be mounted but I mounted my 213T)
Ghosting could be subjective to individuals, but I haven't noticed any on my 213T. I coupled my 213T with 9800Pro, and I max everything in in-game settings, but don't bother with AA/AF. (No problem playing WarCraft, Prince of Persia, FarCry, whatever.) At 1600x1200, you really don't need those and especially when the native resolution is 1600x1200, I'd definitely take 1600x1200 with no AA/AF over 1280x1028 with 4xAA/8XAF. Anyone with 21" LCD would agree with me.

lop

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: lopri
I have both so I can somewhat judge from my experience. (Don't get me wrong, I do not own both - my roommie owns the Dell)

And? I can only say 213T is whole lot better. Brighter, Crispier, Better Design, Wall-mountable (not sure if the Dell could be mounted but I mounted my 213T)
Ghosting could be subjective to individuals, but I haven't noticed any on my 213T. I coupled my 213T with 9800Pro, and I max everything in in-game settings, but don't bother with AA/AF. (No problem playing WarCraft, Prince of Persia, FarCry, whatever.) At 1600x1200, you really don't need those and especially when the native resolution is 1600x1200, I'd definitely take 1600x1200 with no AA/AF over 1280x1028 with 4xAA/8XAF. Anyone with 21" LCD would agree with me.

lop

I seriously doubt other people with a 21" LCD would agree with your assessment that anisotrophic filtering isn't needed @ 1600x1200. That is, people with 21" LCDs who know what AF is.

 

[lopri]

I seriously doubt other people with a 21" LCD would agree with your assessment that anisotrophic filtering isn't needed @ 1600x1200. That is, people with 21" LCDs who know what AF is.

We're talking about Monitors, right? The original poster is weighing on two 21" monitors (well, 17" isn't out of option either, indeed), which have native resolution of 1600x1200. In this thread a few people are recommending 17" monitors to him with their various reasoning (some of them are surely valid, I agree) but IMHO monitors are not something that you'll want to upgrade every so often.

In that sense, picking up a 17" LCD because of his GPU limit (unable to enable AA/AF at 1600x1200) doesn't make much sense to me. I own a 9800pro now, and I know games like FarCry are not playable with AA/AF on at 1600x1200 with it. So, would I lower the resolution to 1280x1024 (or even 1024x768) just to enable AA/AF? Hell, NO! (fuzzy text, blocky characters, yikes!)

Don't get me wrong. I did not say either AA or AF are of no need at 1600x1200. (May have sounded like such, which was my mistake. But if you read the context you can tell that's not what I was trying to claim) If you can get everything, why the hell not? (Unless you don't know what AA/AF are.)

He has a same GPU as mine, and he can upgrade it in the future (just like I'm planning to get a 6800U OC when available, or even to wait till the "SLI" is available). Sure if I had either X800 XT or 6800U I'd definitely turn AA/AF on, but we're talking about a "trade-off" here. (At least I was) Seriously, would you really pick 1280x1024 with 4AA/8AF over 1600x1200 with no AA/AF? (Even after counting out the fact that the monitor's native resolution is 1600x1200)?

Just curious

 

[Trey22]

My current desktop on my 19" monitor is set to 1280x1024, but I game at 1600x1200 w/ no AA/AF. So that leads me away from 17" LCD's.

Since I'm still learning about LCD's, here's another question... I know it's not that you can't, but should you not run a resolution other than what is native to the LCD monitor? A previous post by JustAnAverageGuy talked about resolution scaling.

Also, what makes the upcoming Apple display better, if at all?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: lopri

I seriously doubt other people with a 21" LCD would agree with your assessment that anisotrophic filtering isn't needed @ 1600x1200. That is, people with 21" LCDs who know what AF is.

We're talking about Monitors, right? The original poster is weighing on two 21" monitors (well, 17" isn't out of option either, indeed), which have native resolution of 1600x1200. In this thread a few people are recommending 17" monitors to him with their various reasoning (some of them are surely valid, I agree) but IMHO monitors are not something that you'll want to upgrade every so often.

In that sense, picking up a 17" LCD because of his GPU limit (unable to enable AA/AF at 1600x1200) doesn't make much sense to me. I own a 9800pro now, and I know games like FarCry are not playable with AA/AF on at 1600x1200 with it. So, would I lower the resolution to 1280x1024 (or even 1024x768) just to enable AA/AF? Hell, NO! (fuzzy text, blocky characters, yikes!)

Don't get me wrong. I did not say either AA or AF are of no need at 1600x1200. (May have sounded like such, which was my mistake. But if you read the context you can tell that's not what I was trying to claim) If you can get everything, why the hell not? (Unless you don't know what AA/AF are.)

He has a same GPU as mine, and he can upgrade it in the future (just like I'm planning to get a 6800U OC when available, or even to wait till the "SLI" is available). Sure if I had either X800 XT or 6800U I'd definitely turn AA/AF on, but we're talking about a "trade-off" here. (At least I was) Seriously, would you really pick 1280x1024 with 4AA/8AF over 1600x1200 with no AA/AF? (Even after counting out the fact that the monitor's native resolution is 1600x1200)?

Just curious

Easy there champ, he actually said that he didn't think AA\AF was NEEDED at 1600x1200. That's what I was taking issue with.

 

[Mellman]

Personally i'd go with the samsung, even though the dell and samsung are pretty much the same, the smaller bezel of the samsungs has always attracted me, and if you ever plan on getting two...well then that nice 2.5" or so gap between them would be pretty unattractive(the ladies wouldnt like it as much ) you'd be much happier with a 21, over a 17, any day, any time, "only" 4 inches is a hell of a lot of desktop space!!! If ya cant run max settings on a game that just came out, who gives a rats arse, eventually you'll be able to, the 17" you'll get tired of, and be in this same pickel again later, samsung is the way to go, whether its the 19, or the 21, go samsung

 

[Trey22]

Originally posted by: Mellman
Personally i'd go with the samsung, even though the dell and samsung are pretty much the same, the smaller bezel of the samsungs has always attracted me, and if you ever plan on getting two...well then that nice 2.5" or so gap between them would be pretty unattractive(the ladies wouldnt like it as much ) you'd be much happier with a 21, over a 17, any day, any time, "only" 4 inches is a hell of a lot of desktop space!!! If ya cant run max settings on a game that just came out, who gives a rats arse, eventually you'll be able to, the 17" you'll get tired of, and be in this same pickel again later, samsung is the way to go, whether its the 19, or the 21, go samsung

True, I can see myself wanting a bigger panel (than 17") a couple of months down the road, and kicking myself for not getting a 19 or 21".

With tax, the 213T will be right about $1250 (time to give blood, sell the dog, rent the extra room, and donate some dna).

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Trey22

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
I have a Samsung 213T that I use for gaming (read older games as I have a crappy system now) I play BF 1942 (Desert Combat) mostly. The monitor games great and the image quality is better in my opinion than the Dell.

Checkout Anand's review of the Samsung 213T (he compares it with the Dell). You won't be sorry with the Samsung.... probably not with the Dell too at the lower price

P.S. I should have a new system soon (been waiting for a new build since I joined the forums).

I was hoping the 213T would dip to a grand... maybe wishful thinking at this point.

jrphoenix, how much did you pick yours up for? I'd like to order from someone that would take it back, just in case I didn't fall in love with it (yeah, like that would happen).

Thanks, I just finished reading the review, and... whew, tough choice. Is the 213T I saw at Fry's for $1149 (plus tax) a good deal?

Gracias for you input.

Sorry for the delay in my reply (only computer in the late evening for a couple hourse lately). I bought mine for $1200 a while back and have seen them as low as 1100. They may go down more in the future but, I haven't been following their pricing lately. I would recommend finding a good deal at a retailer and then go to a retailer you like for price matching (i.e. if you find a deal at Best Buy.... Comp USA will price match... they don't do this for online vendors).

The one you saw at Frys is most likely as good a deal as you will find right now. I can't say for the future? P.S I like Frys (miss them since I moved to FL from AZ by way of CO).

P.S.... a lot of computer stores show the 213t running the thing at 800x600 with a crap graphics card. When you hook the systemp up right you won't be disappointed!

 

[Maverick]

I love my Viewsonic VX910

19 inch 16 ms response time