Sony XBRITE vs 2001FP

[LuckyNumber]

Sony HS94P/B - $599 at Fry's
Dell 2001FP - $569.25 at Dell.com (free shipping)


Trying really hard to decide between these monitors. i know theyre not the same size but im having a tough time deciding not just which one is better for gaming but overall monitor. i am aware of the backlight issue with the sony, but im pretty sure the ones in the store are new enough to avoid this issue. i basically want the one with the best picture that i can also play pc games on (hl2, d3, etc..) which one should i get?

or should i go with the

NEC FE2111 - $379.99 (refurb) at Overstock.com / $550.00 at NewEgg.com

 

[bytor33]

Go with the sony unless you have an expensive sli rig or something as you'll not always be able to play games with awesome framerates at 1600x1200. 1280x1024 is the sweet spot right now for a decently high end video card like a 6800 gt. You can run all games at a great framerate often times with full aa and af on. The sony will also have less ghosting and less dead pixels also from what I've read. The backlight bleeding on the newer manfactured sonys is so minor that it's not bothersome at all.

 

[Roger]

I'd say Dell all the way. Sony has narrow viewing angles and is much more reflective. The Dell is bigger and has higher resolution. The Sony may be a little bit faster but the Dell is a much better monitor overall IMO.

 

[atlwriter]

Another vote for the Dell. I can run all the latest games on their highest settings at 1600x1200, and the extra space gives tons of room for multiple open apps/windows.

 

[darktiger]

Games go with the Dell, if you websurf, do graphics, watch movies, go with the sony...Sony makes great monitors..

 

[agentzero9]

I'd go with the 2001 for the resolution. 1280x1024 and 19" seems like just a waste of space. Also, I'm not so sure the Sony's 12ms response time is better than the Dell's 16ms.

 

[bytor33]

The sony is better in every way except for resolution. That's just how it is, the bigger the screen and resolution the more drawbacks you have such as response time, contrast, brightness, screen door effect, etc. I personally like to play my games at really fast framerates and unless you have an sli rig you won't be able to do that with all games at 1600x1200 and I certainly won't be caught dead playing anything on an lcd except at it's native resolution. Also I mean come on, one is dell and one is sony, hmm I wonder what the better display company is...

 

[Decelerate]

Also I mean come on, one is dell and one is sony, hmm I wonder what the better display company is...

This is as blind prejudice as blind prejudice comes. I'm not really fond of Dell and I usually get Sony products, especially when it comes to televisions. However your statements dwelve into fanaticism towards Sony and you're just begging to be flamed.

The 2001fp is a very respectable screen from my readings. I can't really comment on which one is best since I've experienced neither of them.

Like I said, I have a bias towards Sony, but generalized review trends should always come before the company logo.

Dell's 2001fp/2005fpw, you can't bash those products on the argument that they're not Sony products.

 

[agentzero9]

Also I mean come on, one is dell and one is sony, hmm I wonder what the better display company is...

LOL, I didn't know Dell made their own monitors.

 

[bytor33]

Whatever, you guys keep using your inferior screens just so you can have 1600x1200. Just remember it has a worse response time, bad screen door effect, and is much more likely to have or develop dead pixels.

 

[wake6830]

Whatever, you guys keep using your inferior screens just so you can have 1600x1200. Just remember it has a worse response time, bad screen door effect, and is much more likely to have or develop dead pixels.

Aww, it's cute when they get so mad.

 

[heatsinker]

Whatever, you guys keep using your inferior screens just so you can have 1600x1200. Just remember it has a worse response time, bad screen door effect, and is much more likely to have or develop dead pixels.

Actually, that's what I plan on doing. I can't wait until the mysterious dead pixels and worse response time come to bother me; I'll be sure to show them who's boss.

 

[gunbust3r]

The shiny mirror screen on the sony is yuck.

 

[Sinclair]

Reflective with lots of lights in front of it, sure. Reflective in the average home, not really. I don't notice any more reflections on mine then I had with my CRT. All depends how much ambient lighting you have in front of the screen. I personally prefer the Sony simply because I prefer running at 1280x1024 on my screens, small enough not to be big, and not too small that I go blind.

 

[bytor33]

I could care less if you guys think I'm getting mad and are perfectly happy with your 2001 fp's. I have no doubt they are a decent lcd, but I'm giving my opinion on which would be the overall better lcd for the original poster's needs. For anyone playing the new games such as doom 3, half life 2, etc, you need an sli rig to be able to play these games at 1600x1200 at a good framerate. And for me, playing a game at a non native resolution is simply unacceptable as it just degrades the image quality too much, I don't care how nice of a job scaling it does. A 19" 1280x1024 display is perfect and you should be able to play any game at that resolution as long as you have a decently up to date video card. The sony and the viewsonic are the best 19's out there right now for gaming imho. I would also check out the new sony hs95p which just came out, as it looks like a slightly upgraded hs94p for the same price

 

[Ocean]

i bought the sony 19 inch xbrite at cicuircuit city to check is 12ms was good enough for me.

i hated it. there was something slow about it still, heavy smearing or their specs were off. then i bought a lg with 12ms, and it felt right, and i could see the 12ms.

the xbrite might was good for desktop viewing and color. but horable for reading scrolling text and video games.

 

[ajabbari]

I think the XBRITES look good except for when it comes to black levels, the higher backlight output seems to blow out blacks. In a dark room with a dark game it may not look so great.

The whole resolution vs performance issue is a valid consideration. As far as brands go, I personally own a 2005FPW which in some ways is similar to the 2001FP and I worked on the 2000FP a long time ago. I can tell you that that my 2005FP at least keeps up with anything Sony has out when it comes to accurate color rendition, good response times, and viewing angles. So there's nothing inherently wrong with Dell LCDs.

In case anyone is thinking that I have anything against Sony I should mention that I've been buying Sony CRTs exclusively for some time now. I just don't think that they've been at the level in the LCD market that they were in the CRT market. As an example, go to a Fry's and compare their 24" widescreen display (their flagship LCD) to Samsung's 24" especially when it comes to brightness, contrast, and viewing angles and you'll see what I mean. There are some exceptions but generally their LCDs will at best keep up with other screens on the market, they won't surpass them.

In my view the only property the Sony has that would be a definite plus for gaming is the more friendly resolution, the rest probably falls into Dells column.

 

[nervx]

NEC FE2111

Great monitor that will hold you over until LCD becomes worth the money. Right now main lcd problems are: ghosting/blur, crap colors, dithering, poor viewing angles, uneven back lighting and so on.

 

[jrb75]

I have the sony and there is nonething wrong with the black levels. I also have a colorometer that I use to calibrate it. When the calibration is finished its black levels are only .2 points higher the a samsung crt that I have. Its delta E value is 1.2 which is means it is outstanding at reproducing the color range. The CRT barely beat it. yes it is reflective but it is not noticable in your home. Yes at the default setting of High or Medium the blacks are washed out. But what default settings aren't.

 

[ajabbari]

Wouldn't you loose a significant amount of the overall brightness before getting the black levels down that low (partially defeating the purpose of XBRITE)?

 

[moralpanic]

Wouldn't you loose a significant amount of the overall brightness before getting the black levels down that low (partially defeating the purpose of XBRITE)?

You're obviously somebody who's never seen the Xbrite, just coming to an assumption and then writing a longwinded post pretending that you know what you're talking about.

 

[jrb75]

The X-Brite screen is designed to enhance colors not make the image brighter as the name seems to imply. The Sony has a brightness of 400cd/m2. That is bright enough to light up a small room. X-Brite makes the image more vivid and vibrant. Yes there were some minor back light issues in pre-week 43 models but since then the display has been great as reviewed by so many people here. I have read posts after posts concerning Dell displays and their lack of quality. Its up to you to choose but the Sony has made a name for itself in the high end display market. Dell has made a name for itself in using the cheapest possible parts to cut costs. I personally don’t consider that value. I consider that a shame that a company can’t produce better products.

 

[ajabbari]

Fair enough...

I'll admit that I've only done side to side comparisons between the XBRITE and other LCDs in store (where it stands out against other LCDs but reflections become an issue). In a store environment it looked like I had to sacrifice some of the overall brightness to get good blacks, to the point that it wasn't too different than a 193P. I've also read a few reviews of the unit on various sites the most notable being Tom's Hardware. If you guys are able to get satisfactory black levels on it then I stand corrected.

I'll also admit that I am a bit curious about their new 500cd/m2 19" XBRITE, that's brighter than most plasmas

 

[magic_p]

I could care less if you guys think I'm getting mad and are perfectly happy with your 2001 fp's. I have no doubt they are a decent lcd, but I'm giving my opinion on which would be the overall better lcd for the original poster's needs.

Great, but so far you haven't done anything but bash Del ldisplays simply because of the name on the front, ignoring the fact that Dell has never manufactured a display in their history. Samsung, Lite-On, LG, etc. do the panel manufacturing for them.

For anyone playing the new games such as doom 3, half life 2, etc, you need an sli rig to be able to play these games at 1600x1200 at a good framerate.

Bullshit. My 6800GT can run FarCry at 3360x1050 with shitty framerates, but I can see it. It runs Doom 3 at 1680x1050 with awesome framerates. It make Half-Life 2 look like butta.

And for me, playing a game at a non native resolution is simply unacceptable as it just degrades the image quality too much, I don't care how nice of a job scaling it does.

Why do you need scaling when most games can be run at 1600x1200 no problem? Hell, my 2005FPW doesn't have issues running games at native resolution. Newer games can be forced to accept non-standard resolutions and enlarge the viewport appropraitely if they don't already support them out of the box. Widescreengamingforum.com is your friend.

A 19" 1280x1024 display is perfect and you should be able to play any game at that resolution as long as you have a decently up to date video card. The sony and the viewsonic are the best 19's out there right now for gaming imho. I would also check out the new sony hs95p which just came out, as it looks like a slightly upgraded hs94p for the same price

I would agree with the Viewsonic. Their screen is a very nice one, however the Dell models aren't bad either. Don't knock them for the Dell logo, they are all rebadged panels with slightly different casing and stands. The Dell name doesn nothing to prohibit them from performing well.

 

[jrb75]

For now, we as consumers will have to wait to get everything we “want” from a display. We must make the best discussion possible for the task at hand. For me it was the Sony for gamming and web browsing, but I might have went for the dell if it wasn’t for the quality issues. I think Sony is going for overkill with the 500cd/m2 brightness levels. The current model will blind you at 400cd/m2. I would love to see the contrast levels increase more and the response times fall. The perfect display would have the viewsonic VP line adjustability, the Sony brightness and the Samsung contrast with zero problems display non-native resolutions in a wide screen format. I personally wanted the 23 inch Sony widescreen but the 1920 by 1200 resolution and price was just overkill for current games. We will not be getting there for a while though. My best suggestion is choose wisely as it is your hard earned cash that is going to be spent and just remember that you will have to take the bad with the good…

 

[LuckyNumber]

NEC FE2111

Great monitor that will hold you over until LCD becomes worth the money. Right now main lcd problems are: ghosting/blur, crap colors, dithering, poor viewing angles, uneven back lighting and so on.

its just so damn expensive. i would rather spend 700-900$ now to get a good lcd thats going to last than spend 400-600$ on the NEC and then another 500$ on an lcd.

does anyone who has actually played doom3/halflife2 on the 2001FP have any comments about how these games or any others look on the monitor?

 

[atlwriter]

Yes, I've played Doom 3, HL2, Far Cry, UT2004 and many others on my 2001FP. I've seen zero ghosting, blur, color problems, etc. All my games look great. As long as your computer's video card can handle these games, the 2001FP will perform very well. Try it and if you don't like what you see, just return it to Dell.

 

[bytor33]

That's cool, I didn't mean to offend anyone, if you can put up with crappy framerates by all means get a 1600x1200 or widescreen display. I guess I just like my framerates a little more than most people (if it drops below 40 it's intolerable to me) and the only resolution I've found you can do that for EVERY game with ONE video card is 1280x1024 or below. To each their own I guess but I'll be the one fragging the easiest online with my super smooth framerates

 

[Decelerate]

That's cool, I didn't mean to offend anyone, if you can put up with crappy framerates by all means get a 1600x1200 or widescreen display. I guess I just like my framerates a little more than most people (if it drops below 40 it's intolerable to me) and the only resolution I've found you can do that for EVERY game with ONE video card is 1280x1024 or below. To each their own I guess but I'll be the one fragging the easiest online with my super smooth framerates

You just can't stop can you..

I didn't mean to offend anyone

So you say, but then you spill out some stupidities like this one:

if you can put up with crappy framerates by all means get a 1600x1200 or widescreen display

Oh, and doesn't this sound hypocritical :

I guess I just like my framerates a little more than most people (if it drops below 40 it's intolerable to me)

And again, trying be all mighty and rubbing it in, but wait, here's the conciliatory tone:

To each their own I guess

Followed by the narcissistic one:

but I'll be the one fragging the easiest online with my super smooth framerates

There goes professionalism...

 

[bytor33]

What's your problem? If you would please enlighten me on how to get great framerates with any game at 1600x1200 or higher without an SLI rig please do, I would be really happy to hear how. Is it that hard to fathom that some people have different expectations for framerates? While 30 might be fine for someone it might be horrendous to someone else for any number of reasons. If you want to be competetive at all online you have to have a smooth framerate or people with faster framerates will simply have the edge on you, it's not that complicated. Where does your anger stem from? Are you unhappy with your current display, video card, whatever?

And like I said before I am trying to give the original poster the best advice I can on the display he chooses. He stated that he wants to be able to play doom 3. That is a very high demanding game that only high end nvidia's can handle well at high resolutions. If he is a hardcore gamer at all and likes to compete online, then obviously a 1280x1024 display will suit his needs better UNLESS, like I've been constantly saying, he has an SLI setup. The simple fact is ONE video card, no matter how good or overclocked, ati or nvidia, will not give you consistently smooth framerates at all times for all games. With older games it definitely will, but not the newest ones or ones coming out in the future. So it all boils down to how well you like fast framerates. I like fast framerates and if that somehow makes me high and mighty so be it.

 

[nervx]

its just so damn expensive. i would rather spend 700-900$ now to get a good lcd thats going to last than spend 400-600$ on the NEC and then another 500$ on an lcd.

I got my FE2111SB for $320 refurb and it looks great. It will be fine unless it breaks where as no lcd will last long unless you don't mind crappy image quality. If LED backlit lcds come out this year they will make every other lcd out right now look horrible. So i would at least wait for those.

Then again we'll probably see OLED screens next year too which will destroy everything else out there.

 

[Sinclair]

It will be fine unless it breaks where as no lcd will last long unless you don't mind crappy image quality.

What? Since when do they "degrade"? My LCD in my ThinkPad is approaching 7 years old now and its still as clear and sharp as the day I got it.

 

[mort]

Just get the xbright screen. If you see all the screens next to eachother the sony blows them all away by mere contrast. If you want speed get the normal tft screen, if you want image quality go for the xbright.

Have a sony s170 for a couple of months now and work at creative company where loads of people have powerbooks etc. They all are blown away because black for once actually looks black and not 'tft black'.

I'm now looking for a 23/24" tft for home use, shame sony doesn't have one with xbright because i would get it instantly.

 

[magic_p]

For anyone playing the new games such as doom 3, half life 2, etc, you need an sli rig to be able to play these games at 1600x1200 at a good framerate.

According to Anandtech.com ([H] is down so: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2146&p=3 ) states:
"Another intersting observation we've made is that if your 6800 Ultra Extreme can handle the game, Ultra Quality at 1600x1200 with 4xAA is a playable reality."

Notice the graphs on that page also show a 6800GT dropping below 40FPS only when it reaches Ultra Quality at 1600x1200 with 4xAA. A bit of overclocking on the 6800GT and you could easily stay above 35FPS, and if you pull back the quality settings a notch you easily stay at 40FPS in the High Quality test at 1600x1200 with 4xAA.

I'm disagreeing with you because you've made some statements that I don't think are true . I have a dual DVI 6800GT with a pair of 2005FPWs. It's a great setup, and I know how well Doom 3, FarCry, UT2004 and Half-Life 2 look at 1680x1050 non-scaled and native. Using other monitors with the dual DVI 6800GT, I can tell you what 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 looks like on the same computer with the same graphics card.

Notice that I'm not shitting on the monitors you chose . They are fine displays, and the OP wouldn't go wrong by using one of them.

To state, however, that SLI is necessary for a 1600x1200 display and that dropping below 40FPS at any time means the monitor is crap isn't really true. I understand, from a gaming perspective, that's how you see it, but gaming is possible at 1600x1200 with a non-SLI setup and at a decent framerate (IOW, one that I'm sure you'd find acceptable). The added bonus is that you have a larger desktop, so you can see more [H] forums on your screen at a time.

 

[c1001]

I use a Sony HS-94P at home and the Dell 2001FP at work.

I think the Sony blows the Dell away with color sharpness and image quality. I've played Doom3, HL2 and RTW on both (he he) and because of the picture quality I prefer the Sony at 12804x1024 rather than the larger Dell 1600x1200.

 

[Decelerate]

bytor33, I have nothing against you suggesting such a product over another nor the reasons behind it.

But you have this gift of doing so in such a way that you rub it in anyone that's not agreeing with you with all those "Dell is crap, because it's a Dell, go Sony" type of speech. No matter that the 2001fp is considered by most as one of the very best screens out there, because "X-Brite 0wnz y00 @LL!" or so you seem to imply.

Or the "I'm above average in my demands" arrogance. Where do you think you are? Most if not all the members of this and other enthusiast forums are so [H]ardcore, if only because they take that much of their time being on those forums.

Seriously, tell me that this sentence doesn't have an offensive undertone:

I didn't mean to offend anyone, if you can put up with crappy framerates by all means get a 1600x1200 or widescreen display

As for this one:

The simple fact is ONE video card, no matter how good or overclocked, ati or nvidia, will not give you consistently smooth framerates at all times for all games

I seriously question it. I don't feel like running all around the net to prove you wrong, and magic_p may have already addressed it.

If he is a hardcore gamer at all and likes to compete online...

Yeah and exactly what level of hardcore are you at? From my experience anyone that's competitive enough doesn't run games @ max details with the cherry on top when they go online, and they don't settle for 40fps.

Anyhoo I've greatly diverged from the subject and it's time to put it to rest. LuckyNumber I believe you have enough feedback and good luck with your purchase, whichever screen you decide.

 

[bytor33]

Thank you for over analyzing everything I say Decelerate, I appreciate your time for my free shrink session. Back to the subject at hand though, the sony hs94p is a better overall lcd for gaming than the 2001fp, that's just how it is. And no, I don't have a sony bias as I think the samsung 193p is a better overall display but costs about $100 more. The only thing the sony has over the samsung really is the glass screen which really gives it a nice look over any other lcd but can give certain people reflection problems depending on their setup. I'm curious to find out if the hs95p that just came out fixes the reflection problem as there's really not that much difference between the two spec wise.

I have a 21" crt also magic_p so I have played all of those games at 1600x1200 and the framerate is not acceptable in half life 2 and doom 3, especially during heavy water parts in half life 2 that are shader intensive. My system consists of a 3.2 winchester overclocked to 2400, a 6800 gt clocked at 415/1100, 1 gig of ram, etc so it's by no means an ultimate gaming computer but it's still fairly top of the line. I've found counterstrike source quite playable at 1600x1200 with aa and af off but have found that it looks better at 1280x1024 with 4x aa and 8x af with slightly faster framerates to boot. Doom 3 is perfect at 1280x1024 on ultra quality but it starts slowing down a bit at 1600x1200 during big battles and such.

 

[giga_dude]

I have a 22" Diamondtron VX1120 at work which combined with my 9800XT Im able to play at 1280x1024 with 8/4 AA/AF with great FPS vs 1600x1200 (desktop res)......

I mainly play CS:S, Madden 2005, Call of Duty.

I guess Im wondering what the big fuss about is, do you have to play at 1600x1200 with this 2005FPW or can you play with lower resolutions and still utilize the entire screen?

 

[Sinclair]

I guess Im wondering what the big fuss about is, do you have to play at 1600x1200 with this 2005FPW or can you play with lower resolutions and still utilize the entire screen?

You can play in any resolution you want and still get a full screen picture, however if you game in any resolution that ISN'T the monitor's native resolution, it has to stretch the picture to fill the entire screen, which may or may not yield a good picture. CRTs don't have this hard resolution limitation like LCDs do, so its not surprising that your not seeing any problems gaming at a lower resolution on that CRT. Think of it like this, a 2005FPW has 1680 pixels by 1050 pixels. You can't change that for anything. Now what happens when you have to display a picture thats only 1024x768? It has to start stretching the picture so that it can turn that resolution into something that can fit the LCD's native resolution. Just like blowing up a small jpeg picture to print out a poster, it becomes pixelated and the picture quality drops (Dependant on the monitor, how far your dropping it, etc). Its best to game at a LCD's native resolution to achieve the best picture quality from it, which is where all the 1280x1024 vs 1600x1200 is coming from.

 

[giga_dude]

thanks....so I guess I better make sure that my GPU can handle 1600x1200 before I get this puppy.....