• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

2001fp or 2005fpw

C

cell_491

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
2,608
im considering buyin either a 2001fp or a 2005fpw. id really like to have a widescreen experience but im afraind that the widescreen resolutions might hurt my framerates...will i notice the fps diff between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050 resolutions also whats the refresh rate for these two monitors...i cant stand anything lower than 75hz
 
I just got my 2005fpw 3 days ago, upgraded from my 2 yr old viewsonic 17in CRT. All I gotta say is I never want to go back to 4:3 again lol. The 2005 has a aspect ratio of 16:9 or 16:10, HL2 is amazing, I didn't notice any drops in framerate @ 1680 1050. I have a Athlon 3200+ w/ X800XT-PE. Doom 3 does take a lil hit as ati is not as good as nvidia in open gl, but I have it set to ultra quality w/ no aa or af on, and was getting 41.4 fps @ 1680 1050 res. If you can I would go with the 2005, its really amazing very clear. UT04 supports 1680 res in the options and looks amazing. Call Of Duty doesn't but all u have to do is go in the game cfg file and set the res to 1680 and select read only it looks great
to. I see you have a pretty powerful pc so I would not be worried about framerate drops at all. If you have HL2 run it at 1680 x 1050 4 aa and 8af on thats how I have it and its pretty smooth. I highly recommended this lcd.
 
yea im definately starting to lean towards the 2005fpw the thing looks absolutely beautiful...just one more month and ill have the cash :D
 
The widescreen would technically give you better framerates. 1680x1050 is 1.76M pixels while 1600x1200 is 1.92M pixels. 1600x1200 is more pixels = more work for your graphics card = slower framerates. Also, the refresh rate on the 2005fpw (and probably the 2001fp as well) is 60Hz. Keep in mind though that LCDs refresh differently than CRTs so you will not see any flickering even though it's set at 60Hz. An LCD changes the colors of individual pixels when necessary rather than refreshing lines on the screen.
 
Elec said:
The widescreen would technically give you better framerates. 1680x1050 is 1.76M pixels while 1600x1200 is 1.92M pixels. 1600x1200 is more pixels = more work for your graphics card = slower framerates.
Click to expand...

Actually, I recall a 2001FP vs. 2005FPW comparison thread wherein the frames in HL2 in identical places in the game were lower on the 2005. IIRC, it has something to do with the FOV being greater due to the 16:10 aspect ratio.

blisstik said:
that sounds about right... since 16:10 requires an FOV of > 90, i would assume that the system has to push out more bandwidth than 4:3 with an FOV of 90 or less... i did some research about FOV on 4:3 games, unreal engine usually has 90 and quake-ish engines have around 80, switching the res to 16:10 mode means the FOV goes up to 100+...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top