Dell to offer 16ms response time 20" LCD (2001FP)

[CougTek]

The 2001FP displays powerful, bright images because of its 1600x1200 native resolution and 400:1 contrast ratio. As with all Dell UltraSharp LCD displays, the 2001FP features vertical and horizontal viewing angles of 88 degrees; a thin 0.7-inch bezel; a height-adjustable stand (up to 5.1 inches); four USB 2.0 ports; and a panel that swivels, tilts and pivots to support portrait and landscape orientations.

:drl:

News source

 

[CougTek]

Scratch "to offer". It is currently available with their Dimension XPS system for home and office customers.

 

[Pradeep]

I got that in a catalog a few days ago, it will be offered seperately. It's listed for $1099. Can you Candians get it?

 

[CougTek]

Maybe e-Dawg and CityK can answer your question. As for Québécois, no we can't have it here. Only for U.S home & office customers I believe.

 

[CityK]

Just going by what the Dell announcement said ("It will be available as a standalone product and in additional countries over the next few months."), I don't think so Pradeep. And even when it does become available here, it will:

1) be horribly priced
2) hardly ever go one sale
3) on those rare occasions that it does go on sale, never be for anything more then 10% off
4) never go on sale with the added bonus of having stackable coupons too.

Conclusion: While Dell USA rocks, Dell anywhere else blows goats.

 

[Buck]

Nice monitor.

 

[Buck]

Conclusion: While Dell USA rocks, Dell anywhere else blows goats.

Those are memorable words CityK.

 

[CityK]

Its all in the imagery, Buck.

 

[i]

I got that in a catalog a few days ago, it will be offered seperately. It's listed for $1099. Can you Candians get it?

$1099?? As a standalone product, or as part of one of their Dimension XPS systems?

 

[Buck]

Here are the specs:
Diagonal Size: 20.1"
Viewable Size: 20.1"
Display Type: Active matrix - TFT LCD
Depth: 8.94"
Features: Anti-glare, 3H hard coating
Height: 20"
Weight: 25.3 lbs
Width: 20.16"
Analog Video Signal: RGB
Compliant Standards: VESA ® DPMS, EPA Energy Star®
Device Type: Flat panel display / TFT active matrix - desktop
Diagonal Size ( Viewable Size ): 20.1" (20.1")
Dimensions (WxDxH): 20.16" x 8.94" x 20"
Dot Pitch: 0.255 mm
Enclosure Color: Midnight Gray
Environmental Parameters: Temperature: Temperature: 41°F - 95 °F; Humidity: 10% - 80% (Non-condensing)
Image Brightness: 240 CD/m2 (typical), 200 CD/m2 (minimum)
Image Contrast Ratio: 350 - 1 (typical), 250 - 1 (minimum)
Max Resolution: 1600 x 1200 at 60 Hz
Max Sync Rate (V x H): 76 Hz x 80 kHz
Port(s) / Connector(s) Required: 15-pin D-Subminiature, 24-pin DVI-D, S-video, Composite
Power: 90 - 264 VAC / 47 - 63 Hz
Power Consumption Operational: 50 Watts (<= 5 Watts)
Power Consumption Operational ( Standby : 50 Watts (typical), 60 Watts (maximum)
Voltage Required: 90 - 264 VAC / 47 - 63 Hz
Compatibility: PC

I don't care much for the contrast ratio.

 

[Pradeep]

That's for the monitor only. Catalog said nothing about bundling with XPS system.

 

[Buck]

I would prefer the NEC/Mitsubishi MultiSync LCD1980SX-BK 19-inch instead.

 

[Pradeep]

Eeek, 1280*1024 is not enough for me

 

[Buck]

Eeek, 1280*1024 is not enough for me

I can barely get away from 1024 x 768.

 

[i]

Here are the specs:
...
Image Brightness: 240 CD/m2 (typical), 200 CD/m2 (minimum)
Image Contrast Ratio: 350 - 1 (typical), 250 - 1 (minimum)
...

I don't care much for the contrast ratio.

Ok, that is strange, because from the link to the original page:

"The 2001FP displays powerful, bright images because of its 1600x1200 native resolution and 400:1 contrast ratio."

I wonder which is correct?

 

[Buck]

Both are low, in my opinion, for a $1000.00 + monitor.

 

[CougTek]

I'm sceptical about the specifications Buck posted. Looks more like those of the older 2000FP model than the one I would associate with the 2001FP.

BTW, while 400:1 contrast ratio is relatively low compared to what other manufacturers claim, be aware that most LCD miss their claimed contrast ratio by a lot. I'm not aware of any LCD screen which can display a contrast ratio higher than around 500:1, except maybe those from Solar something (can't remember the name). There are only a few different screen models and the differences between each manufacturers' implementations rely on electronic tricks rather than true physical differences between the screen. The worst offender in this department is probably Viewsonic and their poor implementation of the MVA technology. Their spec. often show contrast ratio of 600:1 and even 700:1, while in reality, it's more around 150:1 (yes, it's that poor). The low real contrast ratio is more often than not caused by the inability of the screen to block efficiently the light emitted by the back lights, so while the white is very bright, the black is more like dark gray, therefore decreasing a lot the ratio between the darker and lighter tones.

So I would have no problem with a 400:1 contrast ratio, if it's accurate.

 

[CityK]

This is a rather useful link

 

[Buck]

Very helpful, thanks CityK.

 

[CityK]

Pretty interesting insight on the manufacturing chain. For example, the NEC1760NX is made for NEC by LiteOn, but (as widely known) uses the AU Optronics panel.

 

[Buck]

What is everyone's opinion of this Neovo monitor based on the specs or on use?

 

[i]

TCO = ???

I can't remember what TCO stands for, other than Total Cost of Ownership.

But in this context I'd guess "Total Cancer Output". Am I close?

 

[CougTek]

For example, the NEC1760NX is made for NEC by LiteOn, but (as widely known) uses the AU Optronics panel.

And that the Dell 2001FP is made by BenQ.

 

[CityK]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that.

Well it would have been appropriate if you had considering its the topic of discussion here!

I know, I know....But I did mention it over on SR!

And how does that help over here?

Err, probably very little. Sigh, I've just been surfing too much today.

CK

 

[CityK]

To add what I said on SR, and to go with the 1760NX example:

Despite being made by Benq, it could very well (as widely believed) be using a LG/Philips panel.

CK

 

[CougTek]

What is everyone's opinion of this Neovo monitor based on the specs or on use?

Specs say MVA is used for the screen. Me says MVA = crap for all those I've seen. Me would be surprised if this MVA better than other crappy MVA-based screens.

 

[Howell]

Pretty interesting insight on the manufacturing chain. For example, the NEC1760NX is made for NEC by LiteOn, but (as widely known) uses the AU Optronics panel.

Can you tell this from the chart?

 

[Buck]

What is everyone's opinion of this Neovo monitor based on the specs or on use?

Specs say MVA is used for the screen. Me says MVA = crap for all those I've seen. Me would be surprised if this MVA better than other crappy MVA-based screens.

I don't know any more then MVA stands for Multi-Domain
Vertical Alignment. Why would this be crap?

 

[CityK]

Can you tell this from the chart?

Unfortunately not.

The link to TCO was posted on ARS by a resourceful member. I think his own words are rather fitting:

Blue Apple[/url]]Of course, being made by X does not mean it can't use a panel by Y

Still, the TCO resource goes a long way in helping to determine monitor orgin. At the very least, it certainly is an effective method of determining where Dell branded monitors come from.

CK

 

[CityK]

Why would this be crap?

Aaaghhkk! 'Caue if it ain't Scottish, its crap!

 

[CityK]

Behold! The 2001FP in all its glory:

Very large picture of very large LCD: Dell 2001FP

http://docs.us.dell.com/docs/monitors/2001fp/en/front.htm

More pictures can be found in its
user guide.

CK

Edit: Picture edited into URL. -H

 

[CityK]

Ooops. That gif turned out to be a little large

 

[Buck]

Ooops. That gif turned out to be a little large

That's an understatement. Maybe one of the mods can fix it?

 

[CityK]

Bah! Modem users be damned! j/k'ing.

When I had r-clicked on the pic on the Dell page to get the image link, the properties said it was only something like 450x450. Oh well, lesson learned.

 

[CougTek]

I don't know any more then MVA stands for Multi-Domain
Vertical Alignment. Why would this be crap?

Several reasons :

• Colors turn to red when you view the screen from a certain angle.
  
  Viewing angles, while being supposed to be wider with this technology, are often poorer than traditional panels.
  
  Ditto with contrast. All the MVA-based LCD I've seen couldn't maintain darker tones dark when you upped the luminosity of the screen, resulting in lower contrast ratio.
  
  Most Viewsonic LCDs are using MVA panels and I've never seen oneof their LCD with a better-than-average image quality, although their price would suggest otherwise.
  
  Reviews I've read confirmed my impression about them.

 

[Buck]

Thanks for your input and explanation Coug.

 

[CougTek]

Anand has a review of the new Dell display.

 

[Buck]

Anand has a review of the new Dell display.

Nice review, thanks for the tip Coug.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

And for those too lazy to read the anand review, they like it, better than the Samsung 192T.

We are very pleased to pronounce the 2001FP our new big LCD champion over the Samsung 191T and 192T.

 

[Jan Kivar]

And for those too lazy to read the anand review, they like it, better than the Samsung 192T.

We are very pleased to pronounce the 2001FP our new big LCD champion over the Samsung 191T and 192T.

Which makes me wonder, as one is 1280x1024 and the other 1600x1200. Like comparing a 21" CRT to a 19" CRT.

... And I'd like to have one of those. Only $899? Add a 15% off -coupon and... But only in US... :evil: [Luckily my Nokia is still going strong...]

Cheers,

Jan