The 20" LCD Shootout: Dell versus Apple
by Kristopher Kubicki on April 27, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Subjective Analysis
For this portion of the benchmark, we will pit the Dell UltraSharp 2005FP and Apple Cinema 20" display against monitors that we have looked at recently. This is a subjective test that relies on our overall experience with the monitor after several hours of casual and thorough use. We also use test patterns and guidelines from the VESA FPDM 2.0 to rate each unit as fairly as possible.Generally, here is how we rate a category:
5 - Outstanding; we have not seen anything to date that could rival our impression of this monitor's performance.
4 - Good, but room for improvement. There are units on the market that perform better.
3 - Average; this monitor performs well enough to maintain the status quo, but does not excel.
2 - Improvement needed; this monitor performs poorly in performance of this category.
1 - Unacceptable; this product does not pass even basic performance requirements.
| DisplayMate / CheckScreen / VESA FPDM 2.0 | ||||||||
| Dell 2005FPW | Apple Cinema 20" | Samsung 193P | ViewSonic Q190MB | Dell 2001FP | ||||
| Intensity Range Check | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | |||
| Black Level Adjustment | 4.5 | 4.5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | |||
| Wide Angle Viewing | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |||
| Defocusing, Blooming, Halos | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
| Screen Uniformity and Color Purity | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | |||
| Dark Screen Glare Test | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4.5 | |||
| Primary Colors | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Color Scales | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||
| 16 Color Intensity Levels | 4 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | |||
| Screen Regulation | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
| Streaking, Ghosting* | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||
| *Note: the streaking/ghosting mentioned in this portion of the analysis refers to streaking and ghosting interference, not as a byproduct of poor response time. | ||||||||
Notes From the Lab
It is slightly unfair for us to give either 20" display only a rating of 4 for motion blur, but given some of the interesting technologies that we have seen in development over the last six months, we are fairly confident that single digit response times will start making more of a difference and, in fact, give that elite core of enthusiasts more reason to contemplate LCD over CRT. Both displays scored a 5 on streaking and ghosting, although this is slightly unfair as well, since we are not counting the score of the analog connector. Over analog, we had fair results on the Dell 2005FPW, although we could certainly notice artifacts when playing a game like World of Warcraft on higher resolutions. Apple does not have an analog signal.Apple deserves a slightly lower rating on the intensity range than Dell for the difference in contrast ratios. The 2005FPW began to wash out at very high intensities, but our Apple Cinema 20" washed out at low intensities as well. Measuring how far these intensities were from the extremes, we found the Dell to be just slightly ahead of the Apple with this respect.
Another Special Note about Gaming
Gaming on the Dell 2005FPW and the Apple 20" Cinema display was really a treat. We are bombarded by "low" response time LCDs constantly, so we feel the need to always put a little bit of a warning in each display review. Attempting to quantify response times subjectively for everybody is a dangerous practice - comments like "16ms response time is fast enough for anyone" are just opinions and therefore, we don't actively preach them. We recently took a look at the Dell 1905FP, which uses a 20ms 8-bit PVA panel, and we were on the threshold of experiencing little to no motion blur. With training, we can spot what to look for between two LCDs when comparing them head to head, and when we compared the Dell 2005FPW to the Dell 1905FP, it became very clear that these displays used different display modes and different response times. It may just be our personal opinion that the Dell 2005FPW (and Apple Cinema 20") display produced a crisper display during fast motion gaming, but we should be able to infer that from some of the other things that we know about LCDs as well. Traditionally, all Super IPS displays perform "faster" than their PVA or MVA counterparts - particularly on gray-to-gray transient times.Another critical note for gamers interested in these displays is the aspect ratio. 1680x1050 is not a very common aspect ratio (16:10). We can watch unscaled 720p inside a window on either display, or scaled 720p with black bars across the bottom of our screen, but it isn't native. Very few games support 1680x1050 as a resolution (with the exception Half Life 2 and Far Cry), so no matter what you play, you will be playing on a scaled signal. Scaled signals degrade play quality as one pixel becomes stretched or compressed to account for the screen size. Dell has an ace up their sleeve with the ability to unscale the signal and have it display as it truly should in native form in the center of the screen (the Dell 2001FP also did this). Apple's Cinema display does not have the circuitry to do this. Several games support a 1600x900 resolution, which on the Dell 2005FPW, only leaves a few pixels along each side uncropped.
If you don't mind the slight scaling issues, widescreen games become incredibly immersive. Unreal Tournament 2004 and World of Warcraft are two of our favorite games of all time, and both include widescreen display modes (16:9). As a not-so-odd coincidence, we have noticed that most cross platform (PC-Mac) games usually support widescreen formats.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
graphicsgal - Friday, April 28, 2006 - link
Our ad agency is trying to decide which of these monitors to purchase for our print staff. Is there any info on any differences in printed pieces?tmanXX - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - link
Does anyone know what revisions of the 2005FPW to stay away from?Thanx!
jchor - Thursday, April 6, 2006 - link
Did anybody figure out the power saving mode problem?cybrsamurai - Thursday, May 26, 2005 - link
I have purchased four 2005FPWs with out a single dead pixel or problem. I even dropped one right on its corner from about 4 feet up still works fine. Dont be afraid embrace the good cheap monitor.yacoub - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link
Dell make good LCDs if you discount all the people who have had to return them for backlight issues and/or dead pixels. I'll stick with Sony after owning one that has not a single stuck or dead pixel and just a slightly brighter bottom backlight. Let me know when Dell ups the quality enough that I can be certain to get one without dead pixels (or let me know when they start selling these panels at b&m stores so I can return it right away if it has issues).Ranger8P - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
Did you guys have the model A01 or the model A02? I didn't see that mentioned in the article. I recently bought a 2005 and it has the same manufacturing date as the one in your review. It's an A01pucerian - Saturday, May 21, 2005 - link
great place to get high resolution widescreen wallpapers for these monitors is InterfaceLIFT
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/resolutions.php...
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/resolutions.php...
LorenAmelang - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link
Great Review - Thank You!A couple of user comments asked about the S-Video & Composite video performance - here's the scoop:
Before I ordered my 2005FPW, I tried to find out how it handled widescreen 16:9 vs. conventional 4:3 aspect ratios for the video inputs. I found no clue. But since video was not my main concern, I ordered it anyway - how bad could it be?
Now I can tell you. It is unbelievably disastrous. It doesn't do any form of video correctly. First, it completely ignores the (anamorphic) widescreen control signals from my DV camera and DVD recorder. All video is mangled in the same way.
Its manual aspect ratio choices are "Fill" which warps either 4:3 or 16:9 video to the full 16:10 screen format, or "1:1" and "Aspect" which warp all video to a different wrong aspect. This is not 4:3 (1.33 : 1), nor is it 16:9 (1.78 : 1), nor even 16:10 (1.60 : 1). It is 1.50 : 1, which is what you get if you take 4:3 standard 720x480 DV video and display the non-square video pixels as square display pixels.
Of course you can't tell this by measuring the image boundary, because the video image is severely cropped (overscanned), particularly in the horizontal direction. In terms of a 640 pixel wide image, about 42 pixels are cut off each side. In "Fill" mode, a 4:3 picture is even more distorted than the 16:10 ratio would suggest. If you choose "Aspect" to get somewhat closer to 4:3, you end up with black bars along those edges in place of the missing 1/8th of your video, but what you do see is still too wide.
When you use the picture-in-picture feature, you don't get the "1:1" and "Aspect" choices. All video is stretched to fill the 16:10 screen area of each of the available PiP or PbP sizes.
Why would Dell bother to add the hardware for S-Video and composite video inputs, and get the software so wrong? I suspect the hardware was borrowed from a 4:3 (1600x1200) monitor, where the "Fill" choice would at least display conventional video more-or-less properly.
But why the neglect of the rectangular video pixels versus square computer pixels issue? Can anyone with a Dell 2001FP 4:3 display enlighten us as to whether it has "1:1" and "Aspect" choices, and whether they produce too wide a picture when fed 4:3 video?
So what does the video look like, other than distorted? Very bright and colorful, and fast, but when stretched to fill most of the screen it is blocky. The scaling algorithm is nowhere near as good as that in my (original) Apple Studio Display, or in a Sony WEGA (DRC) TV.
Oh well, the 2005FPW is a beautiful computer monitor. And my tablet's Intel Graphics adapter (82830M), which gave no hint of supporting 1680x1050 before the monitor was here, suddenly made that resolution available when the 2005FPW was connected. (Windows didn't show it, but the Intel control panel did.)
One more thing... If you buy a Dell monitor alone, without a Dell CPU on the same invoice, you do not get a Dell "System Tag". Without a system tag, you can not access any of Dell's online support or chat support options. You simply do not exist.
The telephone support people will talk to you if you give them a serial number or order number, but there is no support department dedicated to displays. I ended up being transferred to the Dell TV support people, and spent literally hours on the phone. Even sent them photos of test patterns to illustrate the aspect problems. I'm not sure I was even able to make them understand, let alone solve the problem.
Best to just forget the 2005FPW has those S-Video and analog video inputs. Unless you have a thing for short, fat people...
Loren
stevlevin - Saturday, May 14, 2005 - link
Excellent review! It's way over my non-tech head, but I surely appreciate that these are both great monitors.Here's my problem. I bought the Dell 2005 and found with a DVI interface that it is so bright that it hurts my eyes, as #9 comment said. Apparently the contrast control is disabled with DVI, and the range of brightness control is very limited - extremely bright to very bright. I had to return it just on that basis.
When I went to the Apple store, it appeared to me that the 20" Cinema display may have a greater range of brightness. Have others had this problem or found a solution? Am I missing something that might have allowed me to lower the brightness or adjust the contrast of the Dell monitor?
Thanks for all comments.
wrack - Thursday, May 5, 2005 - link
So can I assume that any graphics card of ATI like, 9800, X300, X600, X700, X800 will support the resolution in question.