A Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor - 7 Models Reviewed
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 30, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Dell 2001FP
To put things in perspective, we added our reigning LCD champion, the Dell 2001FP to our fray. The nearly identical Planar and ViewSonic VP201s could also be substituted, as they all cost about the same and incorporate the same features and panel.
| Dell 2001FP | |
| LCD | 20.1" UXGA LCD (Active Matrix) pixel pitch: 0.255mm Anti-glare coating Super IPS |
| Scanning Frequency | Horizontal: 31-80kHz Vertical: 56-76Hz |
| Response Time | 16ms (Typical) |
| Contrast Ratio | 400:1 (Typical) |
| Compatibility | 1600 x 1200 (Native) |
| Brightness | 250 cd/m2 |
| Viewing Angle | 176 / 176 (Horizontal / Vertical) |
| Power | Working: 90W Standby/Off: 5W |
| Warranty | 3 years parts and labor |
| Interface | DVI 15-pin D-sub |
Our Dell 2001FP quickly became the definitive monitor that any other monitor we reviewed had to aspire to equal. A year later, it is starting to show its age; every monitor that we are looking at today shines brighter, but no LCD today can match its higher resolution and feature set. Not only does the 2001FP come with an adjustable stand. but other amenities as well, like a USB hub, composite and S-Video inputs, etc. Again, feel free to check out the original review, including an in-depth analysis of our thoughts and praises.
There were dozens of things that we liked about the 2001FP, and a year later, it still outperforms the other LCDs that we picked out for our 19" comparison. Unfortunately, not everyone has $800 to spend on a new monitor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
MAME - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
thank god the dell 2001fp is the (2nd) best one here. I got it for $650 a few days ago on a whim. The reviews are kinda mixed but there's a 21 day return policy. Problem is, it's 21 days from the invoice and the expected shipping date would put the LCD in my hands AFTER that time. Thus, I couldn't return it even .1 seconds after receiving it :-/Alas, it seems the monitor is a good choice nonetheless and I should have decent product on my hands soon. My eyes can't wait!
Peter - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Because that's a barenaked LCD Panel, not a finished product?Azsen - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Hi, why does no-one have any information on this monitor:http://www.samsung.com/Products/TFTLCD/Monitors_n_...
19" 8ms response, 600:1 ratio
Peter - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Regarding the aspect ratio: If someone had taken the time to actually MEASURE, they would have found that all those LCD panels that sport a 1280x1024 resolution actually do measure 5:4, thus having correct aspect ratio at that resolution. Moot point, actually.(Running a CRT at 1280x1024 is wrongwrongwrong, though.)
Peter
ceefka - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#4 Jeff7181: LCD's use less power, take up less space (especially from 19" on) and produce less interference and heat. That times 2 if you are working with 2 screens. If a CRT works for you, then fine. It's not so much ignorance as it is choice.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
D0rkIRL: Thanks for the catch. Fixed.bookem dano: We know of the problem and we should have it fixed soon.
klah: I was only aware of Xbitlabs doing so. We feel that the methods for measuring reponse time thus far are OK, but not represent gray to gray response time measurements well. Its something we are working on and we will probably have a better methodology before the next roundup.
Kristopher
bookem dano - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
For some reason while looking at this article, my cpu was pegged at 100%.I tried IE, Net, FIre, all same thing. Quite annoying.
carlivar - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
OK so the tips at the beginning say to get a monitor with the correct aspect ratio such as 1280x960 resolution. I agree. Then all of the monitors reviewed (other than the Dell) have 1280x1024, which they specifically warn against.I know that most 19" LCDs are 1280x1024 but couldn't they at least have explained why this is?
And actually, why is this?! I don't understand the popularity of 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960! IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.
Googer - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
You will have to pry MY CRT from my cold dead hands before I let an LCD connect to my Graphics Card.klah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"The TrTf response time is normally a pretty useless measurement - but it makes for an easy specification in which to market LCDs. "Why not provide us with a graphs of response times across the entire spectrum? There are at least 2 sites that do so now: X-bit and Tom's.