Dell UltraSharp 2001FP Preview: Gaming LCDs for the Masses
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 10, 2003 12:36 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Construction (continued)
| Dell 2001FP | |
| LCD | 20.1" UXGA LCD (Active Matrix) pixel pitch: 0.255mm Anti-glare coating Super IPS Mode |
| Scanning Frequency | Horizontal: 31-80kHz (analog) Vertical: 56-76Hz |
| Response Time | 16ms (Typical) |
| Contrast Ratio | 400:1 (Typical) |
| Compatibility | 1600 x 1200 (Native) |
| Brightness | 250 cd/m2 |
| Dimensions (WxHxD) | 16.4"x 17.7" x 8.2" |
| Power | Working: 90W Max Standby/Off: 5W |
| Weight | 15.4lbs |
| Warranty | 3 years parts and labor |
Notice a few quick things from these specifications. First of all, the contrast ratio of 400:1 is quite modest in comparison to other LCDs on the market. As we will find out later on in the benchmarking of this monitor, it is perhaps the most honest too. The 16ms response time and Super IPS display modes are dead giveaways that this is an LG.Philips LCD panel.
Ventilation is provided by about 20 1/8" holes under the inputs on the screen, as well as small slits all around the backside of the panel. We have been hesitant to commend screens that have excessive ventilation because it poses concern for dust buildup inside the unit. The Samsung 192T did an excellent job of dissipating heat without any ventilation holes.
Click to enlarge.
Our monitor came with 5 dead subpixels. Two blue, two greens and a red/green pair were stuck off. The greens were all within a 2" diameter of each other, and the blues were near the center of the screen, which is a noticeable shame. All of the broken pixels were in the lower left quadrant of the screen. However, considering the density and volume of pixels (1600x1200), we expected a higher pixel failure rate. Dell has informed us that had this been an actual production unit, and not a pre-production sample, the defect rate would have been much lower.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
miomao - Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - link
marcstThe new NEC 2080UX+ (note the "plus") has the same panel of the Dell 2001FP.
:)
KristopherKubicki - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
Its the same thing. :) So in a way, you have the new champ ;)Kristopher
marcst - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
Before pronouncing the 2001FP as "new big LCD champion", you should really have a look at the NEC 2080UX, 1600x1200, S-IPS-Panel. Really awesome panel, and not a single annoying dead pixel/subpixel (my panel)!KristopherKubicki - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
We tested with a 9800 Pro. Sorry about the mixup.Kristopher
miomao - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
No CRT is sharp as LCD...and for color next years we will have 30bit colors LCDs.
Remember Sony will stop Trinitron production in 2004!
The main issue of LCD will remain fixed resolution.
wicktron - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
it's improbable for lcd's to ever match the color accuracy and sharpness of a crt.ripdude - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
neat article.I still find the performance of (any) LCD unrewarding for its price. Until LCD's are on the same quality as CRT's I'm not trading in my 17" CTX :).
Slingman - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
Great article Anandtech! I know a lot of us were waiting for a good review of the new LG panel. My only question would be in regards to how it compares to the Samsung 213T? I believe this to be every bit as competitive as the 192T is, especially considering it runs at 1600x1200, just like the 2001 FP does. Granted, it is more expensive, but many of us will use it as a basis of comparison when shopping for a new 20"+ display.Before knocking the review for their comment on DVI, one should have their facts in line. All the newer video cards on the market, in particular the newer Radeons and Geforce FX's, support 1600x1200 on the DVI interface. You do not need a pro-level card in order to do this.
mcveigh - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
can't remember where I saw it but 9800 series does it I believeShalmanese - Monday, November 10, 2003 - link
What video card did you test this with? To the best of my knowledge, consumer grade cards only support 1280x1024 on DVI. You need a fairly expensive pro card if you ever want to use 1600x1200 on DVI which makes it rather flippant to recommend that people can ignore the VGA issues and use DVI instead.