I just saw the new Dell 2001FP at a friend's place. Very nice. A definite improvement over the 2000FP. I wonder if it is the same panel as the HP in this article. They have very similar specs.

A Short bit to add in...

My understanding is, the lower Response time monitors are almost always going to have more banding, if only because they sacrifice 'accuracy' of the pixel color reproduction in exchange for switching speed.

Just a thought.

I enjoy this kind of review--thanks, it's exactly the type of hardware review I find very useful and interesting. I have a feeling I'll be sticking with dot-matrix and aperture-grille CRTs for a good while yet, at least at home...;) Where LCDs strike me as incredibly useful and utilitarian is in office environments, though, where the chief software fare is spreadsheets and WP's. The power, heat, and size advantages over CRTs make them ideal for corporate environments, seems to me. But for the wide variety of software I use at home, LCD's aren't even close to my current CRTs in terms of raw capability--and the price is still pretty bad for what you get, I think. And the ghosting, regardless of comparative degree even down to 16ms response, has always been completely unacceptable to me, as is the fixed pixel resolution and the types of scaling necessarily employed for lower resolutions.

Couple of general comments about the presentation:

* I've noticed in retail stores that generally these LCD's are displayed with two "size" measurements. The primary and advertised size generally includes the monitor bezel, and the "viewable screen area" size statistic of course excludes the monitor bezel. I'm wondering which of those sizes fits the monitors you reviewed as to the sizes reported for them.

Also, RGB CRTs typically measure screen area diagonally, and of course the important number there excludes the bezel. I don't know myself, and I'm wondering if you know whether the "viewable screen area" statistics supplied by the manufacturers of these LCDs are measured diagonally as with CRTs, or whether it's something else--such as a horizontal measurement. In line with this, I'm also wondering about the screen borders you reported for all of them. I'm curious as to how that works with these monitors since they are all fixed at specific pixel resolutions.

Take the 1600x1200 HP you looked at. If there is a border around the viewable screen area, is that border simply simply dead space (which would have the effect of making the viewable screen area smaller than advertised), or is it comprised of pixels which should comprise the fixed resolution of 1600x1200 (which is even more problematic since in that case with the border visible your 1600x1200 LCD isn't actually displaying that pixel resolution)? Any insight you may have there would be appreciated...;)

*You used a tool that I like and have found useful for years--the Nokia Monitor Test. However, it wasn't clear to me how you actually used it here. The software is a calibration program, and is designed to allow the user to throw up the patterns it offers and use the OSD controls of his monitor to bring contrast, brightness, color, and lots of other things into adjustment so that the test patterns display properly (or, as close to properly as is possible for the monitor being calibrated.)

In reading your report you made no mention of adjusting each monitor by the use of its OSD to attempt to display the test patterns in proper color, black, and contrast balance. The way the article reads is that you simply set the monitors to their default OSD settings, threw up the test patterns, and recorded what you saw. I don't know if that's what you actually did, of course, but that's how it reads, and that would be an improper use of the Nokia calibration program and defeat its purpose, really. I also wonder as to what difficulties might be presented in calibrating these monitors using the Nokia program (or a similar program) if the DVI connection is used, since you noted that with the DVI connection employed some of these monitors lose some of their OSD configuration utlity.

At home I use Monitor Test to calibrate color and black level, contrast, and etc. for my Sony 20" CRT by setting my videocard to its color defaults for 2d and 3d, and then using the Nokia software I use the monitor's OSD controls to adjust everything so that all the black levels display on the color bar screen, and all of the color gradients are visible on the main color bar screen as well. The result is that I always have perfect color/black balance from my display, regardless of whether I'm running a 3d game or a piece of 2D software, watching a DVD, etc. It really wasn't clear from the article that you're using the Nokia software in that way, at least in this case.

*I found your comments about LCD banding particularly intriguing. It was I thought interesting that you noted that the HP 20," while offering the lowest pixel response time and least ghosting, was also a bit dimmer and less bright than some of the other monitors with brighter displays, more ghosting, and higher pixel response times. Your observation makes me wonder if it may be a characteristic of current LCD technology that pixel response time and brightness/contrast are linked, so that an adjustment of one affects the other. Thanks for the insight!

Okay these reviews were all nice and everything but why oh why did you guys not say *one* word about if these LCD panels were any good for gaming? You list UT2K3 and BF1942 in your test methodology but you don't say a single word about how these LCDs performed in those games!!! For shame! I appriciate the reviews but they tell me nothing that I need to know before buying an LCD. My primary concerns when looking at a LCD display are:

1. Price
2. Ghosting performance (sure it says 12ms or 16ms or 25ms but what is it really like when using it)
3. Color reproduction (this relates to games as dark games will be hard to play if the LCD cant distinguish between subtle dark shades of colors)
4. DVI input
5. Asthetics (does it have a honking big bezel? does its stand suck?)
6. DVD Playback performance

Additionally I am curious to know about:

Dead pixel policies
Power usage ratings
Builtin USB hub?
Does it rotate/pivot?
Warranty
When the hell the damn LCD is available to buy (This is mostly a nitpick with THG as in the past some of their LCD reviews are of units that arent evean for sale in the US! Arrrgh!)

Awesome review. If only I had money to blow!!

After reading the review, I'm drooling the most over the Eizo. I'm lucky and have a 19" CRT, too, so I could use that one for gaming (to avoid the ghosting) and the Eizo for everything else.

Or I could buy a bunch of new parts and turn this computer into a real gaming beast instead for $927.

Looks like I'll be lovin' my CRTs for awhile longer.

Again, excellent job! That must have taken a long time to do.

Personally, and unless things change a whole bunch, I'm going to ignore any offerings by HP from now on.

The 16ms response time and relative lack of ghosting is impressive, but Carly's RIAA/MPAA cow-tow and promise to integrate DRM into every device it sells has left me sour on HP...

Nice review Diss. IMO, being the cheapskate that I am, give me TWO really nice 19 inch CRT's for way below the cost of one nice panel anyday. Also, I really would like a GOOD "first person shooter" player to tell me that they can play on a panel. I have tried it (on a nice viewsonic) and there is no way I could be competitive like I am with a CRT. Both sniping and "running and gunning" felt way to sluggish on the panel.

OTOH, for an office env. where "sexiness" is good, panels are cool.

Hey Gerryg,

I have a 2000FP at home and love this sucker to death. Nice monitor, has Analog, DVI and S-video abilites along with picture in picture. Even though the 2001FP (the replacement model to the 2000FP) as a 16ms access time, the 2000FP is a sharper (clearer) unit. If I'm not mistaken, its actually a rebadged BenQ 20.1" monitor which garnished so many awards for the past two years.

You won't find it on Dell's site as they've discontinued selling them late last year.

-E

I LOVE my Samsung 181T... but you can't buy them anymore and I want dual monitor and refuse to use an 18+" lcd with analog input, so I"m going back to 19" high end CRT's for the time being. When I can get 2 20" LCD's with DVI for $1000 total, and a dual DVI consumer gameing card, I'll bite.

guess you didn't like my comment about not liking the ads on the side of the article? I didn't know TR deleted posts. :( Oh boy.

Ah. I guess someone marked my post as stupid. LOL.

Seriously they are annoying though.

viewsonic vp201s (20.1in 16ms res) vp201b (20ms)

any clue as to who makes the panels for these? i've got the s and it's just about perfect. im thinking the 20in hp might be the same panel maker.

Excellent review. Maybe you can do one that includes the Dell UltraSharp 2001FP...20.1", 16ms response time.

Thanks

Nicely done review, Diss.

No LCD is going to tear me away from my Hitachi CM823FB.

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Hitachi_CM823F_511B__Black_/4505-3175_...

Not yet, anyway.

I went from a 19" CRT (Iiyama) to a 19" AG Neovo F-419 TFT in December.

Best decision ever. My office is cooler, I have a tonne more desk space, the display is so much crisper, and the price was quite reasonable too. DVI is so much crisper, and most of my work is desktop related (but I've not had any problems with games either). I really want to get another, when ATI come out with a DUAL DVI output card.

For comparison with the review:

AG Neovo F-419
Brightness: 300cd/m2 (Typical)
Contrast Ratio: 700:1 (Typical)
Viewing Angle (H/V): 170o / 170o (Minimum)
Display Resolution: SXGA 1280 x 1024
Input Signal: Analog, Digital (DVI-D)
Response Time: 15ms / 10ms (Typical)
Net Dimension: 422 x 410x 220mm
Consumption: <80W (On) <3W (Stand-by) <3W (Off)
Life Time: 50,000hrs (Typical)
Bezel: 19.6mm
http://www.neovouk.com/products/F-419.htm

I'm happy with it, but I haven't looked at other monitors so I can't really compare. The only issue I have with it is that the method for switching between the outputs is not a single button press, but via the OSD.

Why oh why can't you buy (relatively) small LCD monitors with high resolutions? You can get hires (1400x1050, 1600x1200) 15" displays in notebooks, but for some stupid reason you can't even buy a 17" monitor with more than 1280x1024.

What's up with that?

Yeh. I'm still amazed LCDs are so popular. I wouldn't get one for anything but text and simple vector graphics. Photo editing, tv viewing and gaming? No thanks.

Yeah, I came away liking the Eizo too.
Nicely done.

Hmm, review seems lacking in a lot of popular models. And a shame more 16ms or 20ms response panels wern't included (even though 16ms screens normally have to do a another colour lookup).

So none of the monitors tested came with any dead pixels?

Are you sure you didn't get hand picked ones; or did you buy them all retail yourself?

Having had a dead SUB pixel on a monitor, I know how annoying it can be... one bright green pixel right in the middle of the screen.

If an LCD maker with good distribution (e.g. LG, Samsung) stepped up and started offering a guarantee of 0 pixel defects and 0 subpixel defects, they'd have my business... the fact that none have basically tells me that the customer isn't important to them :-|

Why is the LG omitted in the comparison, or in the list of invitation? After all, they're the 2nd largest desktop/notebook LCD manufacturer next to Samsung. And of course, Sharp being missing in this comparo is unfortunate. They're the top LCD TV manufacturer.

Also, I would have to nitpick about the review lacking any sort of quality test photos. Take a look at this page, for example: http://www.displaybank.com/monitor/product/lcd_review.php?r_id=1002...

I don't expect TR to do the actual brightness/contrast gauging (the first six photos), but at least the other stuff could've been possible, IMO. I hope this is taken into consideration next time there's a big roundup. :)

Oustanding review Geoff. Nice mix of sizes and screen ratios.
Also, thanks for skipping the 14" & 15" stuff.
I think those speak for themselves.
I would have liked to see a Sharp model or two included, but great review regardless.