can't decide: 2001FP, 2005FPW, VP201B

[hedpe]

Hey all,

I am quite new to the LCD screen scene.

I have done some research on different LCD's and have narrowed it down to 3 and was hoping people could give me a little feedback so that I could choose one.

I noticed that the VP201B is extremely expensive compared to the Dell LCD's, and I know a lot of gamers and people who have done a lot of research end up getting the Dell LCD's. I just recently noticed the 2005FPW, the wide screen version. I couldn't find the response time on it though. Does it perform exactly like the 2001FP? Or does it have a higher response time?

Is the VP201B worth it's price? The Dells seem as if they perform better AND are priced lower.

So is there a performance difference between the 2005FPW and 2001FP?

Thanks!
George

 

[UnknownSouljer]

This is off the top of my head, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
2005fpw is 12ms Grey to grey
2001fp is 8 seconds rising and falling.

Yes both are different measurements. If I remember correctly the 2005fpw is quicker, newer hardware too. The 2005fpw is supposed to be the successor to the 2001fp after all.

 

[hedpe]

thanks for the response!

so the 2005FPW is superior to the 2001FP for gaming and for normal desktop use??

 

[UnknownSouljer]

thanks for the response!

so the 2005FPW is superior to the 2001FP for gaming and for normal desktop use??

For all intents and purposes yes. The only advantage that the 2001fp has over the 2005fpw is native resolution.

The 2001fp is 1600x1200
the 2005fpw is 1680x1050.

Now while this gives you more horizontle space, you'll notice the vertical space is slightly gimped. Personally from my own experience, the trade off is more than worth it. If you can afford a 2405fpw then you're completely set.

 

[hedpe]

so you're saying that the tradeoff of the verticle space is worth it? in other words, the 2005fpw is superior?

 

[MUCHO]

so you're saying that the tradeoff of the verticle space is worth it? in other words, the 2005fpw is superior?

Sorry I don't know enough about the technology to tell you much regarding technical specs. I can tell you that I recently bought both during a Dell deal because I didn't know which one I wanted.

After hooking them both up the 2005fpw had a much better picture and color scheme.

Both were hooked up to the same computer 1 after the other, both used a DVI cable, had the driver installed and were running in native resolution.

I'll admit - I didn't spend any time adjusting them, but the 2001 picture quality wise did not compare.

YMMV

 

[hedpe]

that was a really helpful post, thank you MUCHO

so do these LCD's require drivers because I run linux. Will i have a problem with this LCD's in linux?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

that was a really helpful post, thank you MUCHO

so do these LCD's require drivers because I run linux. Will i have a problem with this LCD's in linux?

As long as your copy supports WSXGA+ then it won't matter.

And yes I was stating that the 2005fpw is superior in every way shape and form to the 2001fpw with the exception of native resolution.

 

[hedpe]

why is everyone considering the native resolution a downfall? Is it really a downfall? I would think that widescreen would actually be nice.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

why is everyone considering the native resolution a downfall? Is it really a downfall? I would think that widescreen would actually be nice.

Widescreen is nice, that isn't what I'm refering to.

2001fp: 1600x1200
2005fpw: 1680x1050

Notice that you lose 150 vertical pixels. That may not sound like much but think about the difference between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 which is only a difference of 176 vertical pixels. While some may not notice the loss of vertical space it is there which is the only "downfall" I can say about the monitor.

That said, I think the tradeoff is easily worth it.