Dell 2001FP

To put things in perspective, we added our reigning LCD champion, the Dell 2001FP to our fray. The nearly identical Planar and ViewSonic VP201s could also be substituted, as they all cost about the same and incorporate the same features and panel.



Dell 2001FP
LCD 20.1" UXGA LCD (Active Matrix)
pixel pitch: 0.255mm
Anti-glare coating
Super IPS
Scanning Frequency Horizontal: 31-80kHz
Vertical: 56-76Hz
Response Time 16ms (Typical)
Contrast Ratio 400:1 (Typical)
Compatibility 1600 x 1200 (Native)
Brightness 250 cd/m2
Viewing Angle 176 / 176 (Horizontal / Vertical)
Power Working: 90W
Standby/Off: 5W
Warranty 3 years parts and labor
Interface DVI
15-pin D-sub

Our Dell 2001FP quickly became the definitive monitor that any other monitor we reviewed had to aspire to equal. A year later, it is starting to show its age; every monitor that we are looking at today shines brighter, but no LCD today can match its higher resolution and feature set. Not only does the 2001FP come with an adjustable stand. but other amenities as well, like a USB hub, composite and S-Video inputs, etc. Again, feel free to check out the original review, including an in-depth analysis of our thoughts and praises.

There were dozens of things that we liked about the 2001FP, and a year later, it still outperforms the other LCDs that we picked out for our 19" comparison. Unfortunately, not everyone has $800 to spend on a new monitor.

ViewSonic Q190MB Cost Analysis
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • xann - Monday, January 14, 2008 - link

    it is like:
    640*480 1 :1
    800*600 1,25 :1,25
    1024*768 1,6 :1,6
    1152*864 1,8 :1,8
    1280*1024 2 :2,13

    1600*1200 2,5 :2,5

    1440*900 2,25 :1,87
    1680*1050 2,625 :2,1875
    1920*1200 3 :2,5
    2560*1600 4 :3,33333

    wide screen resolutions are not one on one.
    i look for 19" LCD with res 1600*1200

  • xann - Monday, January 14, 2008 - link

    it is like:
    640*480 1 :1
    800*600 1,25 :1,25
    1024*768 1,6 :1,6
    1152*864 1,8 :1,8
    1280*1024 2 :2,13

    1600*1200 2,5 :2,5


    1440*900 2,25 :1,87
    1680*1050 2,625 :2,1875
    1920*1200 3 :2,5
    2560*1600 4 :3,33333
  • Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link

    One of the main reasons I think PVA is in a completely different league regarding response time compared to TN/IPS, is this guide by X-Bit Labs.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd...
  • Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link

    The tips at the start were great though, and pointed out several important things I'd have overlooked otherwise.
  • Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link

    This review wasn't very useful to me, frankly. It contains too much subjective talk, and barely any data. I miss the following:

    .) For each panel, clearly state the technology used (TN, M/PVA, IPS), as well as if it's 8 or 6 bit. This gives more meaningful information than all the manufacturer specs.

    .) Screen photographs of select, demanding images taken under the same conditions. Here, I want to see how each image looks like on EACH screen, not just 3 samples total.

    Printer reviews do this well. You can dedicate one HTML page for each test image (eg 1 for the Max Payne scene, 1 for the Morrowind pic), and put the results from different monitors right below each other. This would allow me to directly compare how still images look like. At the end of the image block, you can put your comments.

    With well-chosen test images, this might give a pretty complete idea of how good a monitor's still image/color quality/contrast is.

    .) A meaningful measurement of response time.
    When you claim to "not notice any difference" between a PVA and a TN panel, I have to conclude that the Anandtech crew is much less sensitive to response time than most people. That's great for you, but bad for me - I'm not getting any response time information.

    Build a device to measure all gray-black or grey-grey response times. Tom's Hardware and X-Bit have some you can use for inspiration.

    Just including this measurement does not mean that you have to emphasize its importance. You can put it in a section together with your subjective response time interpretation.
  • 610 - Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - link

    Is the NuTech L921G currently available in the US?

    The article says that the review unit was not store-bought, but doesn't specify how it was obtained. I've found only one site anywhere that claims to sell it, and it's not listed in any of the usual price-comparison sites (like PriceScan, for example).
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link

    ecove:

    I believe all of the monitors you mentioned use the same AUO panel. Performance will be very similar.

    Hope that helps,

    Kristopher
  • ecove - Thursday, December 9, 2004 - link

    I've noticed in researching 19" LCDs that there are a number of models from various manufacturers (eg Princeton LCD19D, CTX S962A/G, Advueu ADV190DT) that all share what appear to be identical specs to the Nu and Viewsonic models reviewed here. Is it a safe assumption that these monitors all share the same panel and have essentially the same performance?
  • stephenbrooks - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    That sample blue image on the penultimate page really made me worry about the LCD I'm using to view it here because it looked terribly dithered! Fortunately I realised the image you showed there was actually a 256-colour GIF (?!) of the image you should have used.
  • R3MF - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    @ #69 -
    agreed, i would like to see what the Dell 1905FP is like too.........

    @ #87 -
    yes, the Dell 1905FP is rated at 20ms, and while it may not be best for games like UT2k4, but what about games like Mafia and Rome: TW where twitch gaming is irrelevant?

    REMF

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now