Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
179 Posts
0
3850
2001FP review
I received my Dell 2001FP yesterday evening in a very impressive 2 days shipping time. Impressive because this is from Dell to Florida with normal shipping costs (free). If this is "normal" shipping what in the world would express be? I carefully removed the LCD panel and hooked it up to the stand. The panel easily dropped into the stand with a resounding CLICK that took absolutely zero effort. The 2001FP initially sat next to my 19 inch Viewsonic G790 CRT. The CRT looked like a bus sitting next to a late model Ferrari. For comparisons sake I had both the CRT and the LCD connected to my ATI Radeon 9700 PRO. Of course the LCD was connected via the DVI port. When Windows XP booted to both monitors I was impressed again. Out of the box with no tweaking/adjustments the 2001FP was noticeably sharper than the Viewsonic. This and the drivers were not even installed yet. At this point the color between the 2 monitors was about equal, but remember the 2001FP is still just out of the box with no tweaking. It is also important to note that the Viewsonic CRT was always strong at displaying color. So, to say that the 2001FP out of the box is the equal of the Viewsonic is, again, impressive! Time to load the drivers and set screen resolution/color depth. The default screen resolution was already set to 1600 x 1200, but for some reason the color depth was set to 16 bit. I changed the color depth to 32 bit and now the 2001FP looks better than the Viewsonic. However, not by a huge margin. My naked eye best guess is about 10% better. Next I load several different solid colors to scan the 2001FP for dead/stuck pixels. I find none. Now comes the games test. I’m not a first person shooter fan, but I do cyber race. I have a ton of saved replays from NASCAR 2003 season by Sierra/Papyrus. I load up a replay from Pocono as this track is about the most demanding on the video card. When the replay starts the 2001FP really shines. As the cars go across the screen the 2001FP is making the CRT look dated. NASCAR 2003 season at 1600 x 1200 x 32 is just beautiful to look at. It’s like watching a HDTV broadcast. The long camera shot coming out of turn 4 and looking down the straight away I can clearly see "Monte Carlo" on the front of the lead car (me) with the 2001FP. The Viewsonic car at the same point looks good, but you can not make out "Monte Carlo" on the front of the car. The sharpness of the picture on the 2001FP is clearly better than the Viewsonic with NASCAR 2003 season. Before I purchased the 2001FP I did a lot of research on the internet. I read a lot about ghosting and pixel blur. The 2001FP I have has no, none, zero, zip, nadda pixel blur and ghosting. I suspect that the people who wrote about pixel blur and ghosting had the 2001FP connected analog via the VGA connector. I haven’t connected the 2001FP to an analog source and I have no plans to. Anandtech tested the 2001FP with first person shooter games. There could also be a difference with pixel blur and ghosting there. However, I don’t see how first person shooters can be more motion intensive than a racing simulation!
In closing consider that I’m not a good candidate to review the 2001FP. Because of NASCAR 2003 racing season I already had the hardware to display 1600 x 1200 x 32. If I was someone that had been looking at a CRT displaying 1024 x 768 x 16 and then hooked up the 2001FP at 1600 x 1200 x 32 I would have been AWED and BLOWN AWAY, but as it is I’m only IMPRESSED! My congrats to Dell and LG Phillips (manufacturer of the LCD panel). I highly recommend the Dell 2001FP. Especially at the $749.00 I paid!
Message Edited by Joe Average on 02-11-2004 12:41 PM
ortleeb
575 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 14:00
Excellent review.
I also got my 2001FP yesterday also in Florida. Delivery was free and the delivery time was 3 days. Paid $794.21 incl FL sales tax. No dead or stuck pixels. Set it up on DVI with the default resolution of 1600X1200 and color depth set to 32 bits. Colors are rich and the text is very clear. The screen is huge but, because of the thin bezel, the monitor as a whole doesn't seem that big (for those who want to see some real world pics of the 2001FP, see this review http://www.firstadopter.com/fa/archives/000004.html ) I read here and in some other forums about a "screen door" effect on the monitor screen - if there is one, I didn't notice it.
For me, the 2001FP replaces a 1702FP (although I'll probably use them both in a dual monitor set up). The 1702FP is an excellent monitor which also has rich colors and clear text. In fact, when CNET reviewed the 1702FP, it tested at an incredible 894:1 contrast ratio. However, as good as the 1702FP is, I was literally blown away by the 2001FP.
Dysseron
96 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 16:00
Excellent reviews. I have a quick question for both of you:
Going from the monitors you had to the 2001, what do you think of the 1600 x 1200 resolution? I'm concerned that, even at 20.1" of screen, the high resolution will make things a bit too small for my tastes. Right now, I have a 19" CRT and like the setting at 1280 x 1024.
Thanks for your help.
Joe Average
179 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 16:00
Message Edited by Joe Average on 02-11-2004 12:04 PM
ortleeb
575 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 16:00
Exactly! I read about it before I got the monitor, then looked for it when I set up the monitor, but quite literally had to put my nose up against the screen before I saw anything. My guess is that, now that someone has given it a "name", I'll see the same thing at the same distance on every LCD screen (in fact, as I type this, I can see it on the LCD I use here in my office). In reality, its a non-issue and I hope others disregard it when considering the 2001FP.
Joe Average
179 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 17:00
I was previously using 1600 x 1200 x 32 prior to purchasing the 2001FP. So, I was already used to it. However, Windows (any flavor) is 100% customizable with respect to display icons and text size. Simply adjust them to your specific tastes. The real test here is my 70 year old father. When he comes over he can see my settings at 1600 x 1200 x 32 just fine, but I do have my text and icon sizes set to 125%.
IMHO 1600 x 1200 x 32 for gamers is a real advantage. At 1600 x 1200 x 32 you do not need anti aliasing like you do at lower resolutions. Turning A.A. off increases your frame rates big time. However, if you have fast enough hardware A.A. combined with 1600 x 1200 x 32 is drop dead gorgeous. Once you see it you can not go back to lower resolutions. Since the 2001FP was designed for 1600 x 1200 x 32 this is where it really shines. Another note for sim racers. At 1600 x 1200 x 32 you can see further down the track. This luxury allows you to see your turn in much clearer as well as sooner. Seeing your turn in sooner and clearer makes for better lap times. This contributes to better positioning on the starting grids and even poll positions. The only down side being the scenery outside the car is so good that you find yourself looking out the window. This can lead to really bad crashes. However, once the car stops rolling and flipping and the dust clears you can look at the scenery again. Only this time you’re out of the race.
In closing you’ll love 1600 x 1200 x 32, but just know that it takes fast hardware (read expensive) to render it!
Dysseron
96 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 17:00
What do you think of running games at a lower resolution than 1600 x 1200? I play a few first person shooters, such as Jedi Academy at 1024 x 768 with all the goodies turned on, even though my desktop and 2d environments run at 1280 x 1024 (19" CRT). I don't think I would get acceptable frame-rates at the 1600 x 1200 resolution, as I have a 2.53 p4 with a 64 mb G4ti4200 video card.
Obviously, the lower resolution will not be the "native" resolution of the 2001, but how does it look in the game?
Thanks.
Joe Average
179 Posts
0
February 11th, 2004 19:00
I spent 5 minutes trying a lower resolution last night. The look of NASCAR 2003 season was terrible at non native resolution. Soft and fuzzy looking. The strange part is on my particular system the FPS gain was nominal if anything at all. So, given the fact that it looks terrible and their is no gain I won't be trying that again. As the EPA says, "Your mileage may vary"!
ortleeb
575 Posts
0
February 12th, 2004 00:00
Marc
30 Posts
0
February 13th, 2004 20:00
ortleeb,
I'm considering purchasing the 2001fp (along with a new system) and have done a lot of research - and frankly had been a little put off by all of the "screen door effect" naysayers. I'm fairly critical about image quality (currently run a 19" trinitron at 1280 x 1024 x 32) and don't want to be disappointed with my replacement flat panel choice. You're one of the few who I've seen say it is a "non-issue" and I was wondering if you still feel that way?
Any help or input would help my neurotic mind!
Ripp123
3 Posts
0
March 24th, 2004 19:00
Hi Everyone,
I just purchased a 2001FP monitor and will be receiving it in a few days. As I was reading through the monitors manual online I noticed that the DVI port for the montior is DVI-D, I will be hooking this monitor to a Dimension 4550 with a ATI 9700 TX video card that has a DVI-I port. Am i going to be able to hook this montor to the computer using the DVI port given that one is DVI-D and the other is DVI-I? If so, can i hook them up with the cable thats supplied with the monitor or will I have to buy a special cable?
Thanks for your help.
talmy
1K Posts
0
March 25th, 2004 13:00
I'm sure you will enjoy the 2001FP!