Which 20+" LCD monitor?

[heartsurgeon]

dell 2000fp

i plan to buy another one...

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: chorner
how are the LCD's when it comes to switching resolution? are they like your standard CRT, where the picture takes up the full screen; or does the picture just take up lets say 1024x768 and leave a black border around the outside of the picture?

If a lower than "native" resolution is selected it can either be shown with black bars or can be stretched to fill by the graphics card (via drivers or application) or display depending on each's options. 1024x768 on a 20" 1600x1200 would be the equivalent of a 13" viewable monitor. Even 1280x960 would only be 16" so you prolly would not want to do that much with such a display but I guess it would be good for gaming if your CPU/VPU could not manage the high res. But then as someone mentioned, AA could be disabled at such a high res so it would help balance out performance-wise.

-
Actually, some games do not support any resolution though. I am thinking of Sudden Strike and the like where the max is 1024x768. That would suck to have to choose between 13" or craptastic scaling.

 

[FearoftheNight]

dell 2001 fp!!!

 

[chorner]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: chorner
how are the LCD's when it comes to switching resolution? are they like your standard CRT, where the picture takes up the full screen; or does the picture just take up lets say 1024x768 and leave a black border around the outside of the picture?

If a lower than "native" resolution is selected it can either be shown with black bars or can be stretched to fill by the graphics card (via drivers or application) or display depending on each's options. 1024x768 on a 20" 1600x1200 would be the equivalent of a 13" viewable monitor. Even 1280x960 would only be 16" so you prolly would not want to do that much with such a display but I guess it would be good for gaming if your CPU/VPU could not manage the high res. But then as someone mentioned, AA could be disabled at such a high res so it would help balance out performance-wise.

-
Actually, some games do not support any resolution though. I am thinking of Sudden Strike and the like where the max is 1024x768. That would suck to have to choose between 13" or craptastic scaling.

Ok, so you're saying then, it stretches ... but does it stretch like for instance : how a 1024x768 wallpaper looks at a 1600x1200 res (loses definition, and becomes a little blocky) or :: how on 1024x768 resolution on a 19"+ monitor, the output (whatever you're viewing) is not stretched nor blocky, but you can definitly pick out the 'dot pitch' of the monitor?

If it 'stretches' like what you would experience with wallpaper, thats got to suck ... but if switching resolutions on an LCD is exactly like how it would work on a CRT then thats fine I was just under the impression that if you wanted to switch from the native res on an LCD it would leave a black border (which would really stink) or that the picture would be blocky because of having exactly 1600x1200 'paintable' pixels, vs. a CRT with just a dot pitch and a 'gun' projecting the image outwards.

I run all my games at 1280x1024, but need 1600x1200 min for design purposes. Perhaps when I buy an LCD I'll have to upgrade to the best vid. card out there

 

[Auric]

The quality of the scaling depends on the hardware that is doing it (VPU or display) but obviously it will degrade compared to the original. So yeah, you are best getting the peppiest viddy card available to always run at 1600x1200. The equivalent 16" at 1280x960 would not be bad as it is the same as a 17" CRT afterall, but it would be an awful waste of a 20" viewable display.

 

[Auric]

Another problem that arises if you use a non-native resolution and disable scaling is that some games use fixed low resolutions like 800x600 for menus and load screens and such so a 20" display may have a menu that is rendered unreadable at 10". So that's another reason to go for a 1600x1200 and always run it at that with scaling enabled. On a 17" where scaling is disabled to run at 1280x960 for the correct 4:3 AR, the same low res menu may likewise be only 10.6"

 

[TourGuide]

The Samsung that you're debating there is $1199 at Best Buy right now and it has a $100 rebate bringing your final total to ~$1100. I just bought one and I love it (using DVI). Not ONE dead pixel!! At this point I would never go back to CRT, ever. There IS a tradeoff with fast paced FPS games, but that is of less concern to me. This also depends on the game and the resolution you're playing. UT2003 has problems with smearing at 1280x1024, but at 800x600 it isn't noticable. The COD demo is great at 1024x768, haven't tried others. This smearing/ghosting or whatever you want to call it I think depends on two things (my opinion here). First, the ability of your vid card to feed the info to your screen, and the refresh rate at which your panel can redraw the screen. My Ti seems to chug at the upper resolutions, but this is to be expected as I have an older card. With my Ti4600The sharpness of text simply cannot be matched by any CRT that I've seen and I've owned many high end models.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim
Definetly go with the Dell 2001fp when it comes out in about a month. It's 20 inches, 1600x1200 resolution, and 16 ms response time. It will probobly be around $900.

The only ntelligent choice. I hope the review is posted soon.

 

[TourGuide]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim
Definetly go with the Dell 2001fp when it comes out in about a month. It's 20 inches, 1600x1200 resolution, and 16 ms response time. It will probobly be around $900.

The only ntelligent choice. I hope the review is posted soon.

There are trade-offs with this. Color depth will be one, and price will be another. This will be the first monitor of it's kind at that size and there is NO WAY it'll be going for the bargain price of $900. I would guess, they'll bring it in somewhere in the $1200-$1500 range. The specs look nice, but I can't get past the price premium it'll command.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: TourGuide

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim
Definetly go with the Dell 2001fp when it comes out in about a month. It's 20 inches, 1600x1200 resolution, and 16 ms response time. It will probobly be around $900.

The only ntelligent choice. I hope the review is posted soon.

There are trade-offs with this. Color depth will be one, and price will be another. This will be the first monitor of it's kind at that size and there is NO WAY it'll be going for the bargain price of $900. I would guess, they'll bring it in somewhere in the $1200-$1500 range. The specs look nice, but I can't get past the price premium it'll command.

Kristopher Kubicki stated that it will be $899 from Dell. It is also supposed to have a 24-bit panel.

 

[TourGuide]

Kristopher Kubicki stated that it will be $899 from Dell. It is also supposed to have a 24-bit panel.

Where did Kristopher Kubicki say this? Link please?

About the 24 bit business, if that were the case I'd think they would be PROMOTING that as an important spec. They are not, so I am skeptical. Also, I believe the $899 price is the premium you'll pay to upgrade to this monitor when you purchase a Dell system. Most likely this won't be sold with lower end boxes by Dell either. The 2000fp just received a nice $100 price increase recently and is currently going for $1099. I hardly think a monitor with a lower spec will command a price premium. That makes no sense.

In any case, all questions will be answered when it is listed as a stand alone product on Dell's site.