Is an inch really worth $300?

E

Elec

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
1,944
Specifically, the 2001FP and 2005FPW from Dell as compared to myriad 19 inchers.

The reason I ask is because I'm trying to decide what to do with my Christmas money, and I'm thinking about a new display. I'm using a 6 year old 17" CRT right now. Don't really have any complaints about it, but it's not anything special either. Obviously buying anything new, I'd rather have bigger or there ain't much point. In today's ads, there are several 19" LCDs for about 350 bucks (a Sony, a Mag, and one at CompUSA - model unknown). Now I haven't bothered to go look up the specs on these yet, but is it really worth the extra roughly 300 bucks to go with one of the Dell screens? I have to pay tax, so with a 25% off and no $ off coupon, I'd come out around $650 at the moment.

I'd say I do probably about 70% internet/productivity, and 15% each games and DVDs/video right now. Normally it's a little more in the DVDs/video direction and a little less in the games direction. My card is a 128 meg Ti4200 and the only games I'm playing at the moment are World of Warcraft and HL2. So I guess what I'm asking is, would a 19" LCD be worthwhile? Would one of the two Dells be worth the extra few hundred bucks over a 19"? And (though I know it's been debated before) would I be better off with the 2001 or 2005 if I did go Dell? Thanks!
 
One reason the 20" costs so much more is you have a quantum leap in resolution, from (typically) 1280x1024 to 1600x1200. That's a lot more pixels. Which depending on you may or may not be a good thing. If you don't have 20/20 vision, or if you have a mediocre video card you don't plan on upgrading soon, the extra resolution may actually be a minus (text will be too small or games will run too slow at the higher rez). As you know, LCDs have a native resolution and while you can always run at a lower resolution, it's best to run the monitor at its native rez. So that's one consideration.

Then you have to compare the specs. You want 16ms response time for gaming; 12ms is even better. You want as high a contrast ratio as you can get. And make sure the panel is 8 bit (it says it can display 16.7M colors).

The WS vs 4x3, well, I'll let you search the forum :)
 
Yep, like the others said, it's not the extra inch that cost money it's the resolution. At 19inch, it has 1310720 pixels, the 20inch has 1920000, that's 609280 extra pixels, or about 46% more over the 19inch.

What res are you using on your 17inch? If it's something like 1280*960, then I think you are use to high-res where you might find the 20inch at 1600*1200 more of what you are use too, while moving to a 19inch at the same res nearly, 1280*1024, things might be larger than you want and you'll gain no extra work space.

Though, if you are using 1152*864 on your 17inch, then a 19inch at 1280*1024 may be more what you are use too.

And remember, even a 19inch will be much large than your 17inch, near a 21inch CRT. With CRTs, they measure from the edge of the tube or glass that's hidden in the housing to the other side that's hidden, while the LCDs are measured from what you see on the outside. So a 19inch LCD is larger than a 19inch CRT.
 
LxT said:
One reason the 20" costs so much more is you have a quantum leap in resolution, from (typically) 1280x1024 to 1600x1200. That's a lot more pixels. Which depending on you may or may not be a good thing. If you don't have 20/20 vision, or if you have a mediocre video card you don't plan on upgrading soon, the extra resolution may actually be a minus (text will be too small or games will run too slow at the higher rez). As you know, LCDs have a native resolution and while you can always run at a lower resolution, it's best to run the monitor at its native rez. So that's one consideration.

Then you have to compare the specs. You want 16ms response time for gaming; 12ms is even better. You want as high a contrast ratio as you can get. And make sure the panel is 8 bit (it says it can display 16.7M colors).

The WS vs 4x3, well, I'll let you search the forum :)
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. I used to have a 19" and the 1280x1024 text was HUGE and in my opinion just plain sloppy, lost potential. I was comming from a 17" so you can imagine my first thought... "wait, this panel is 2 inches bigger and I have the same damn amount of desktop space!?"


I would get a display like that for my parents but for these young eyes. I prefer the clean look of 1600.
 
Hmm ok then, it's not the size that counts, but the resolution. I run my CRT at 1024x768. The main reason I don't run 1280 is because my monitor, being 6 years old, doesn't support that resolution at a refresh rate I find satisfactory. 1280x1024 is perfectly fine size-wise and as far as readability goes on the monitor, but 60Hz will kill my eyes in no time flat.

A friend of mine has a 19" Samsung but it's a 25ms panel, pretty smeary for gaming. It's definitely bigger than my 17" CRT but doesn't feel WAY bigger like you'd expect. My card is a Ti4200, so I have no illusions that it'll rock HL2 out at 1600x1200. At the same time, I'm not sure that I really care about games "looking bad" at non-native resolutions unless it's bad in the unplayable sort of way. Hell, I wouldn't be too ashamed to run 800x600 and just have pixel doubling until I could afford to replace my card with something better.

Anyway, I dunno. Gotta do some more thinking about it I guess.
 
I have the 2005-fpw and I love it. I see very minimal to no ghosting, and I play CS competively.
 
Elec: don't worry about the 60hz refresh rate on the LCDs. It's not the same as on CRT (which WOULD be horrible). Different technologies altogether.

Just mae sure you have 16ms or 12ms response time. 25ms is too slow. I hear people say they see no ghosting on some 25ms monitors. I think they're blind :)
 
Yeah, I know that LCDs don't have a conventional refresh as the pixels update individually when they can/are told to. What I was saying is that my CRT will only do 1280x1024 @ 60Hz, which is totally unacceptable, and the reason why I only run 1024 :)

I think I'd like the 2005fpw because I do watch a lot of DVDs on my computer, most of 'em widescreen,and I know the two games I mentioned both support a wide format. Black bars don't bother me though, and the 2001 offers more pixels and overall screen area. Pretty tempting with a 25% Dellf coupon and the $45 off out today. Still not entirely sure I want to spend that much, even though it'd last me a lot longer than a new video card or more RAM or something :)
 
I used 1152*864 with my old 19" CRT. The shift to 1680x1050 on the 2005ws was barely noticible. It seems the viewable size in heighth is about the same just the width accounts for the additional space.
 
rcolbert said:
My wife saw the title to this thread and handed me a check for $1200. Sad. :(
Click to expand...

LOL That's what you get for letting your wife control the finances ;)
 
rcolbert said:
My wife saw the title to this thread and handed me a check for $1200. Sad. :(
Click to expand...
Is she paying you for what you have or does she want 4 more?

Guess it's kind of sad either way.

And to stay on topic, I would say that the $300 is worth it. I had a 2001FP and it was awesome, my dad uses it now as I have the 2005FPW now. I was at a friends house and was amazed at how tiny a 17" monitor is and how little you can fit.
 
I take it you prefer the 2005fpw as you gave the 2001fp to your dad?
 
CRXican said:
And to stay on topic, I would say that the $300 is worth it. I had a 2001FP and it was awesome, my dad uses it now as I have the 2005FPW now. I was at a friends house and was amazed at how tiny a 17" monitor is and how little you can fit.
Click to expand...

im completely opposite. i have a 17" widescreen (1440x900px) and I just bought a Dell 1704FPV, and now my widescreen looks small. I love the extra desk space (another 1280x1024px). so much bigger.... :drools:

i took it out of the box, and it was massive. i cant imagine a 2001 or 2005.
 
Elec said:
I take it you prefer the 2005fpw as you gave the 2001fp to your dad?
Click to expand...
Actually, the 2001FP has more space, it's just not wide, I think I might like it more.

I'm used to the 2005 already, might trade him though, haven't decided yet.
 
LxT said:
One reason the 20" costs so much more is you have a quantum leap in resolution, from (typically) 1280x1024 to 1600x1200. That's a lot more pixels. Which depending on you may or may not be a good thing. If you don't have 20/20 vision, or if you have a mediocre video card you don't plan on upgrading soon, the extra resolution may actually be a minus (text will be too small or games will run too slow at the higher rez). As you know, LCDs have a native resolution and while you can always run at a lower resolution, it's best to run the monitor at its native rez. So that's one consideration.

Then you have to compare the specs. You want 16ms response time for gaming; 12ms is even better. You want as high a contrast ratio as you can get. And make sure the panel is 8 bit (it says it can display 16.7M colors).
The WS vs 4x3, well, I'll let you search the forum :)
Click to expand...


Um the wide screen is 1680x 1050

Ih an by the way if you play your cards right you can get the 2005fpw for a little over 500 dollars
 
jacuzz1 said:
Um the wide screen is 1680x 1050

Ih an by the way if you play your cards right you can get the 2005fpw for a little over 500 dollars
Click to expand...

How so? Cheapest I can get it in my cart now is $561 using a 25% Dellf coupon, but I've gotta pay tax which brings me up to almost $600. There was a $45 coupon yesterday which expired, but they dropped the price today by 50 bucks. This is actually a worse thing because the 25% and $45 knocked a couple extra bucks off (percent off a larger amount and all that).
 
Elec said:
How so? Cheapest I can get it in my cart now is $561 using a 25% Dellf coupon, but I've gotta pay tax which brings me up to almost $600. There was a $45 coupon yesterday which expired, but they dropped the price today by 50 bucks. This is actually a worse thing because the 25% and $45 knocked a couple extra bucks off (percent off a larger amount and all that).
Click to expand...

I bought a $150 off $600 coupon for $50 bucks when buying my 2005FPW. So that, with the 25% off and free shipping, the total came to $449, then tax brought it to $482, if you count the $50 I spent for the coupon, my all in all total was $532.

The coupon might be more expensive now that it's expiration is getting closer, which is the 15th. Search with the words Dell and Amex to find it on ebay, or look on the forums at Fatwallet.com where they are in the for sale threads. Not 100% sure if you need to purchase with an Amex card for the coupon to work. Once I had entered the code into my cart it never mentioned anything about Amex in the detailed description, but I used my amex card anyway since they give you a 90 day return policy and add 1 year to the warranty.
 
That's more or less a good deal, but I don't have an Amex card so I don't think I want to chance it. The Dellf coupon is only good through (to?) tomorrow and I don't want to shell out for the amex coupon only to maybe not get it in time or maybe not be able to use it. That'd end up costing me more rather than less. Not that under $600 for this monitor is a bad deal, but less is always better ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top