Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW 20" Widescreen LCD


Recommended Posts

Actually Windows longhorn will be better on a widescreen monitor..

The sidebar in longhorn is perfect for widescreen's.

So if you want something for the future go with the widescreen and if you want something thats better for CURRENT gaming go with the 2001.

I'm going with the 2005 because the only 2 games that I play are Vice City and CS:S which both support 1680x1050 :)

584978088[/snapback]

dude you misread me....im switching from the 2001 to the 2005...cuz yes, i agree with you...you liek read the total opposite of what i meant

Just a note...

If your game doesn't support widescreen, you can always set the monitor to just run 1280x1024 and put black bars on the side if you don't want to try to scale it. The monitor has settings to stretch different resolutions (http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/2005FPW/English/setup.htm#Using%20the%20OSD):

*1:1: Turns off Scaling feature and displays an image size based on the input resolution.

*Fill: Image size up-scaled to fill the entire screen, image maybe distorted or elongated due to non-proportional scaling of height and width.

*Aspect: Increases Vertical image size to fit screen and adjusts Horizontal size to maintain proportional image.

And, some games also handle 1400x1050, which would have even less black bars. Luckily a lot of games do support wide screens, check out http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/ if you are curious (pimpshiznid also linked to this prior).

Edited by Cyrana

The thing I have noticed is that TV's where always 4:3.

Then we got 16:9 And everyone was slating them etc. Now, 90% Of TV Programs (Including Sky Etc) are recorded and broadcasted in Widescreen format.

These days, every new TV is Widescreen.

I think this is the way PC Monitors will go.

One thing though, 4:3 Compared to 16:9.

To appreaciate the size, you need atleast aprox. an extra 2 inches for a Widescreen display compared to a 4:3 format TV.

So for instance.

If you have a 17 Inch 4:3 you will need a 19 Inch 16:9 otherwise it will look smaller then the 17 Inch 4:3

Thats my opinion anyway.

well, either way, im going to love this monitor

btw....FINALLY!!!!ive been on hold probably 7 hours with them the past few days...they have kiled my phone twice while waiting for them

i talked to about 17 total people in the past two days...

BUT FINALLY

im getting it, scheduled delivery is set to next thursday, the 2nd....hopefully i can post some pics of it when it gets in..cant wait for this baby

it still cost me 600, but hey, its a damn good price...this IS a longhorn influenced monitor, and damn, im getting one :)

its nice to be back into the semi-current computer situation :D

just yesterday i fealt like my **** was obsolete

Refresh rates don't really apply to an LCD.

I just know that at the 12 to 16ms response time on this monitor you can easily do 60fps. You also turn vsync on when using an LCD usually.

The response time on this monitor (12ms grey to grey, 16ms black to black), is quite good btw.

What is the refresh rate at native resolution?

584985430[/snapback]

Ordered yesterdya with coupons with overnight shipping for $630, and it already shipped. IF today wasn't thanskiving it would have arrived today (HAHA!!). It's arriving tomorrow, and I probably won't be here, argh, it will freeze to death outside of my door!

-ELmo :angry: :angry: :angry:

Ordered yesterdya with coupons with overnight shipping for $630, and it already shipped. IF today wasn't thanskiving it would have arrived today (HAHA!!). It's arriving tomorrow, and I probably won't be here, argh, it will freeze to death outside of my door!

hey elmalloc, what coupons did you use, i keep finding expired ones! I want to get this a soon as possible, maybe i can pick it up from dell (live in austin). thanks!

Well, there is no refresh rate per se on an LCD display, though. Although in Windows, you can usually choose 60 or 75hz on a panel. Maybe that 60 and 75hz correlates to the ms response time in some way, I'm not sure. :) I know my good lcd runs at 75, and this laptop is at 60. But, neither one of them looks anything like my 22" CRT does at those rates (60 is HORRIBLE, and 75 even flickers like mad...85 or 100 is much better to me).

Oh well. :)

Apparently, on my lcd monitor, 60hz is too low

584987204[/snapback]

Changing the refresh rate on your lcd does nothing. It is only a number that exists to make them compatible with your videocard. The pixels on an lcd are either on or off. They don't refresh like crts do. That is one of the reasons for them being so much better for your eyes :).

i would think that the refresh rate does in fact apply on LCDs... if it redraws the screen faster, you should get more "frames" .. that is, when you move your mouse it might appear smoother...

but i have no idea, that's a guess. i know when i've moved my CRT from 85hz to 100hz the mouse movement has seemed smoother ;)

i would think that the refresh rate does in fact apply on LCDs... if it redraws the screen faster, you should get more "frames" .. that is, when you move your mouse it might appear smoother...

but i have no idea, that's a guess. i know when i've moved my CRT from 85hz to 100hz the mouse movement has seemed smoother ;)

584989894[/snapback]

nah, an LCD does not "redraw" the screen hence the refresh rate does not apply as was already mentioned. an LCD screen does not have a phosphor screen and electron gun that scans and draws the picture.

LCD's do however have an analogous specification, as already mentioned, the response rate. the response rate measures how long it takes for a liquid crystal to change polarity.

so while a 60hz refresh rate means a CRT screen redraws the picture 60 times a second, it means nothing in the LCD world. a 13ms response rate just means it takes 13 milliseconds for the liquid crystal to be on-off. now how that translates to performance is a whole new topic.

summary: changing the refresh rate when using an LCD does nothing. whatever changes you suspect are phantom improvements aka wishful thinking.

reloaded2003 could u possibly take a digicam pic of the 2005 in 1280x768, non-streched mode. im thinking of gettin a 2005 and most of my old games have 1280x768 which is almost 16:10 believe. i would like to see how much of the display will be black bars in that resolution. also have u tried to hook up a ps2 or xbox with the s-video?

nah, an LCD does not "redraw" the screen hence the refresh rate does not apply as was already mentioned. an LCD screen does not have a phosphor screen and electron gun that scans and draws the picture.

...

so while a 60hz refresh rate means a CRT screen redraws the picture 60 times a second, it means nothing in the LCD world.

...

summary: changing the refresh rate when using an LCD does nothing. whatever changes you suspect are phantom improvements aka wishful thinking.

584990191[/snapback]

LCDs still deal with an entire frame. they don't have to redraw the screen all the time like with CRTs but they still accept the image from the graphics card as an entire frame, one by one.

the refresh rate determines how often these frames are sent from the graphics card to the monitor. if the frames are sent more frequently, there is a possibility that the LCD will display more frames per second.

i don't have anything to test this on yet but that's how i see it. of course, whether or not the change would be noticeable or not is another matter entirely.

reloaded2003 could u possibly take a digicam pic of the 2005 in 1280x768, non-streched mode. im thinking of gettin a 2005 and most of my old games have 1280x768 which is almost 16:10 believe. i would like to see how much of the display will be black bars in that resolution. also have u tried to hook up a ps2 or xbox with the s-video?

584993187[/snapback]

should have my monitor tomorrow...will post pics...and ill try to do that one resolution for you Roos....

LCDs still deal with an entire frame. they don't have to redraw the screen all the time like with CRTs but they still accept the image from the graphics card as an entire frame, one by one.

the refresh rate determines how often these frames are sent from the graphics card to the monitor. if the frames are sent more frequently, there is a possibility that the LCD will display more frames per second.

i don't have anything to test this on yet but that's how i see it. of course, whether or not the change would be noticeable or not is another matter entirely.

584999201[/snapback]

A CRT uses an electron gun that fires radioactive waves at a screen covered in a phosphorous element which in turn excites that element and causes it to glow. Because of this the only way to cover the entire screen is to fire the electron gun in waves on the horizontal and vertical axis, this in turn causes the flickering the human eye is capable of seeing at frequencies in the typical range of 75 Hz or lower.

An LCD works by using pixels individually controlled through electronics, these pixels are either on or off. Unlike a CRT, LCDs do not have to refresh the image unless the image changes and even when it does only the pixels that change get changed, not all the pixels on the entire screen. Therefore the refresh rate does not apply to an LCD in any way shape or form. Instead, LCDs have response times which account for the time in which it takes a single pixel to change it's color.

i said in my post they don't have to redraw the entire screen at once, i understand how LCDs (as a general technology) work...

is the graphics card sending more frames per second to the monitor at 75hz than at 60hz? if so, does it just repeat certain frames at 75hz, or is it possible that each of those additional frames are different?

for example, if at 60hz it sends 60 individual frames to the monitor every second, i'm assuming it would send 75 individual frames to the monitor every second at 75hz... and if you have 15 more frames per second, some of those could be different (depending upon the answers to my above questions) and therefore require the monitor to change more times per second...

Edited by ike
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • AMD RX 9070 GRE AI, Blender benchmarks vs 9070 XT, 7800XT, Nvidia RTX 5070, 4070 by Sayan Sen Earlier this week, we shared the first part of our review of AMD's new RX 9070 GRE. It was about the gaming performance of the GPU, and we gave it an 8 out of 10. As a follow-up, similar to how we did with the 9070 XT and non-XT, we are doing a dedicated productivity review for the RX 9070 GRE as well, where we compare it against the 9070 XT, 9070, 7800 XT, as well as Nvidia's 5070 and 4070. This will include AI, rendering, compute, and more benchmarks. AI performance, especially, is a very important metric in today's world, and AMD also promised big improvements thanks to its underlying architectural improvements. We will be pitching it against the data we already have for the RX 9070, and RX 9070 XT, but also the Nvidia 5070 FE, MSI GeForce RTX 4070 VENTUS 2X 12G, and Gigabyte Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G as they are in a similar price class, but also because we do not have a comparable 5060 Ti card lying around here that we can compare it against. Before we get underway, this is a collaboration between Sayan Sen and Steven Parker, who lent me his test bed. Also, there was no editorial input from AMD. First up, the specs of the RX 9070, 9070 XT, and 9070 GRE, which were given to us by AMD: Radeon RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 Radeon RX 9070 XT Boost Clock: Game Clock: up to 2.79GHz up to 2.20GHz up to 2.52GHz up to 2.07GHz up to 2.97GHz up to 2.40GHz Stream Processors 3,072 (48 CU) 3,584 (56 CU) 4,096 (64 CU) Ray Accelerator 48 56 64 AI Accelerator 96 112 128 ROPs 96 128 Texture Mapping Units 192 224 256 Memory 12 GB GDDR6, 18Gbps Clock, 192-bit Bus 432 GB/s 16 GB GDDR6, 20Gbps Clock, 256-bit Bus Effective Memory Bandwidth: 640 GB/s Infinity Cache 48 MB (3rd Gen) 64 MB (3rd Gen) Card Bus PCI-E 5.0 X16 Output 2x HDMI 2.1b 2x DisplayPort 2.1a Power consumption 220W 304W Recommended PSU 650W 750W Slot width 2x 3x Price (SEP) $549 $599 As you can see from the specs above, it is less than the standard RX 9070 in every way that counts, except for slightly higher Boost and Game clock speed. Design Moving on, the RX 9070 GRE we were given is an XFX Swift triple-fan, dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors. At 30cm (self-measured), it will fit in most systems easily. There is no RGB either. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE by XFX from all angles. Test system Our test system consists of the following: Lian Li O11 Dynamic Mini V2 Flow (Amazon|Newegg) ASUS Z890 ProArt Creator WiFi (Amazon|Newegg) Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (Amazon|Newegg) Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet - 44x37 (Amazon|Newegg) 2x 16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB (7200 MT/s in XMP) (Amazon|Newegg) Sabrent Rocket4 Plus 2TB SSD (Amazon) Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8246) AMD shared a press driver based on the recently released Adrenaline 26.5.2 that we were required to use. We now move on to our benchmarks. First up, we have Geekbench AI running on ONNX. For some reason, the 9070 GRE does exceptionally well here in both half-precision (FP16) and single-precision (FP32). It manages to beat the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 non-XT, and is only behind the 9070 XT. Since Geekbench runs in short bursts instead of continuously hammering the graphics card, it seems the GRE's faster boost clocks are helping here. Next up, we move to the UL Procyon AI test suite, starting with the image generation benchmark. We chose the Stable Diffusion XL FP16 test since it is the most intense workload available on Procyon. The Nvidia cards do very well here, as even the 4070 out-muscles AMD's best fairy easily. The positive thing about the GRE is that it gets quite close to the 9070 non-XT in this test; this indicates that the VRAM does not play a very big role here, as SD XL relies on float16 (FP16). So this is something to keep in mind again. If you wish to work with float32 AI workloads, graphics cards with larger than 12 GB buffers would likely emerge as victors. Regardless, the gains are still massive on AMD's 9000 series compared to the 7000 series. Following image generation, we move to the text generation benchmark. This is one test where the 9070 GRE struggled, quite a lot. It seems that the 12 GB VRAM and lower memory bandwidth of the new Radeon 9070 GRE are hurting it quite a bit; the split is massive, especially in a test like Llama2, which packs 13 billion parameters. As such, in all the tests, the 9070 GRE is the slowest of the lot. Next, we tried Blender, and here the AMD GPUs were beaten by Nvidia. Rendering is something the Green team has always had a lead over the Red side, and it has not changed so far. On the positive side, though, the 9070 GRE shows significantly better results than the 7800 XT, which means AMD is on the right path. Catching up to Nvidia, though, will require a lot more effort. And we hope HIP and ROCm can keep improving. Wrapping up AI testing, we measured OpenCL throughput in the Geekbench compute benchmark. The RX 9070 GRE alongside the 9070 did not fare well here at all, even falling behind the 7800 XT. Interestingly, even the RTX 5070 could not beat the 4070 on OpenCL, so perhaps this suggests that OpenCL optimization may not have been a priority for either AMD or Nvidia in the modern era. Conclusion We reached the end of our productivity performance review of the 9070 GRE, and we have to say it's a mixed bag. Unlike the 9070 and 9070 XT, the GRE excels in some areas while losing ground fairly easily in others. Similar to how it happened in gaming, any time the card's memory subsystem gets hammered, it tends to fall behind the others. This was the case with text generation, wherein we saw the VRAM sometimes hit its maximum available 12 GB of usage with larger model sizes. So what do we make of the RX 9070 as a productivity hardware? It can certainly be used, but you have to know it has its limitations. For those looking for a GPU that can deal with more, AMD recently unveiled the Radeon AI PRO R9700, which is essentially a 32 GB refresh of the 9070 XT with some additional workstation-based optimizations. On a similar note, the new Ryzen AI Halo platform is something you can consider if you want to set up a local AI processing station. Considering everything, we rate AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GRE a 7.5 out of 10 for its productivity performance. Price is less of a factor for those looking at productivity cases compared to those considering the GPU for gaming, and as such, we felt it did quite decently on many occasions and can be handy if you need a 12 GB GPU and, for some reason, don't want to get Nvidia. Purchase links: RX 9070 / XT / GRE (Amazon US) As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Does anyone here know if these updates are integrated into the UUP dump isos?
    • Motrix Next 3.9.4 by Razvan Serea Motrix Next is a modern, open-source cross-platform download manager built as the official next-generation successor to the original Motrix project. It has been completely rewritten using Tauri 2, Vue 3, TypeScript, and Rust, while still relying on the powerful Aria2 download engine for high-speed multi-protocol transfers. The app supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, BitTorrent, ED2K and magnet links, offering advanced features like multi-connection acceleration, task scheduling, bandwidth control, and batch download management. With a significantly reduced install size (around 20MB), it focuses on being lightweight, fast, and resource-efficient compared to traditional Electron-based download tools. Designed for Windows, macOS, and Linux, Motrix Next delivers a clean, modern UI inspired by Material Design 3 principles, with smooth animations and a minimal workflow. It improves usability through better download organization, system tray integration, and enhanced torrent handling including selective file downloads and tracker management. Motrix Next features: Multi-protocol downloads — HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, Magnet, .torrent, ED2K, and Metalink tasks BitTorrent — Selective file download, DHT, peer exchange, encryption controls, metadata caching, GeoIP peer flags, and tracker probing Browser extension integration — Embedded Extension API with independent authentication, download confirmation, smart auto-submit, filename hints, referer/cookie forwarding, and real-time controls (Chrome Web Store · Edge Add-ons) Safe filename handling — Content-Disposition, RFC 2047, non-UTF-8, percent-encoded, and extensionless URL resolution with path traversal sanitization Download organization — Favorite and recent folders, optional file-type categorization, stale-record cleanup, and completed history backed by SQLite Concurrent downloads — Independent controls for active tasks, HTTP connections per server, segments per file, and BT peer limits Speed control — Global and per-task upload/download limits with day-of-week and time-of-day scheduling System integration — Tray operation, optional tray speed display, macOS Dock badge/progress, protocol handlers for magnet://, thunder://, and motrixnext:// Lightweight mode — Destroys the WebView on minimize-to-tray while Rust keeps the engine, task monitor, notifications, history, and extension routing alive Notifications and power options — Native task start/complete/failure notifications, keep-awake during downloads, and optional shutdown after completion Network controls — Scoped proxy support for downloads, app updates, and tracker updates, plus system proxy detection Auto-update channels — Stable, Beta, and Latest Across Channels policies with separate download and install phases Diagnostics — Structured logs, exportable diagnostic ZIPs, database integrity checks, automatic DB rebuild, and Linux GPU rendering fallback Personalization — Light/dark/system theme, 10 color schemes, 26 languages, and first-launch system language detection Motrix Next 3.9.4 changelog: Motrix Next 3.9.4 promotes the 3.9.4 beta cycle to stable. This release refreshes bundled engine binaries, improves task detail readability and copy actions, expands link handling for magnet and ED2K workflows, polishes responsive navigation and text wrapping, updates browser extension documentation, and refines network preference controls. New Features Task Detail copy actions — Added copyable values for task metadata and reusable render functions for long text fields. Magnet and ED2K lifecycle support — Added task lifecycle handling for magnet and ED2K links. History cleanup for deleted tasks — Deleted tasks can now remove matching history records. User-Agent management — Added user-agent management and improved related network preference controls. Browser extension documentation — Added the Firefox Add-ons link for the Motrix Next extension. Improvements Engine binaries — Updated bundled binaries for supported architectures. Task Detail readability — Long task names, URLs, tracker values, and copyable metadata now render more clearly. Deletion messaging — Refined localized task deletion text for clarity and consistency. Text wrapping — Improved URI input wrapping and task name multiline display. Navigation layout — Improved sub-navigation responsiveness. Disk allocation default — Changed the default file allocation method to trunc. Proxy controls — Improved proxy button styling in network preferences. Download: Motrix Next 64-bit | ARM64 | macOS ~20.0 MB (Open Source) Links: Website | macOS / Linux | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NVIDIA officially supports Ubuntu, as linked above with the GeForce NOW Hands on I did in collaboration with Paul Hill.
    • TO be clear I am not running linux today, however I keep thinking about it. And I want to make sure there are minimal obstacles if I decide to make that switch in the coming months.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      244
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      66
    5. 5
      +Edouard
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!