Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW 20" Widescreen LCD


Recommended Posts

Btw, a great resolution to run at if you can't run the game in widescreen is 1400x1050. You'll just have small bars on the sides and nothing on top or bottom. Might have to edit a game's files for it (sometimes), but it works pretty well in the odd case where you can't run 1680x1050 in the game for whatever reason.

After reading this topic for weeks now, I order mine because my old CRT whats to see old manitu soon.

Well one box, everything stored in there, nothing what was impressive yet.

After I put it on my table, I reallly realized how big a CRT could be and how much space I now have left on my table - this is just amazing!

The first difference is, you have so much space on the desktop, it is like "I don't know what to put there and there...and there!"

First I had to try and because I am really addicted to it at the moment: World of Warcraft. I moved all the sliders in den Options of the game and the driver dialog to maximum.

What I saw, was just :woot: Absolutly!

It is like sitting in the cinema in the first row, right in front the screen, but with the differents, it is not only big, but sharp und colorfull aswell. Amazing.

Because I use Photoshop often, I didn't try that on this screen yet and I have to try and see Half-Life 2 and some mods like DoD.

Never want to switch to something that is smaller than this lovely piece of technic :D

After reading this topic for weeks now, I order mine because my old CRT whats to see old manitu soon.

Well one box, everything stored in there, nothing what was impressive yet.

After I put it on my table, I reallly realized how big a CRT could be and how much space I now have left on my table - this is just amazing!

The first difference is, you have so much space on the desktop, it is like "I don't know what to put there and there...and there!"

First I had to try and because I am really addicted to it at the moment: World of Warcraft. I moved all the sliders in den Options of the game and the driver dialog to maximum.

What I saw, was just :woot: Absolutly!

It is like sitting in the cinema in the first row, right in front the screen, but with the differents, it is not only big, but sharp und colorfull aswell. Amazing.

Because I use Photoshop often, I didn't try that on this screen yet and I have to try and see Half-Life 2 and some mods like DoD.

Never want to switch to something that is smaller than this lovely piece of technic :D

586003784[/snapback]

Heh cool :D Mine is being delivered today between 5pm and 9pm! (its 1:50pm now) argh wish it would hurry up. :p

Tomorrow between 5pm and 9pm for my delivery.... it'll be sitting next to a 19" Viewsonic that now gets to become my second monitor!

Mate got his last week though and I went to see it on Saturday. Within 15 minutes of getting there and gaming, vid watching + other tests, I'd bought the fella online. Can't wait to get my hands on it....

I have a question about the 2005fpw's scaling settings.

The monitor has 3 scaling options: 1:1, Fill, and Aspect.

According to Dell's product support website for the 2005fpw

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/moni...ing%20the%20OSD

The aspect ratio setting "Increases Vertical image size to fit screen and adjusts Horizontal size to maintain proportional image."

The 2005fpw isn't truly Widescreen - its native aspect ratio is 16:10, not 16:9. Therefore, what happens when I input a 16:9 signal (such as 1280x720) using the Aspect scaling setting? If the image is stretched vertically to fit the screen, how can the 2005fpw adjust the horizontal size to maintain a proportional image? Does the 2005fpw simply cut off the left and right edges of the image, sacrificing more than 10% of the picture?

Of course, intuition would suggest that when a 16:9 signal is sent to a 2005fpw, the monitor should increase the horizontal image size to fit the screen, while adjusting the vertical size to maintain a proportional image (assuming scaling is set to Aspect). Dell's product documentation, however, contradicts this assessment.

I'm considering the 2005fpw, in part, because I want a monitor that can display a 720p High Definition signal (from VGA or DVI, of course) with a widescreen aspect ratio. The other 2 scaling options are undesirable, as 1:1 results in black bars covering nearly half of the monitor's area, and Fill results in a distorted, softened picture. Typical LCD monitors with a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio provide too small a picture when set to maintain a widescreen aspect ratio of a 720p signal.

I'm hoping Dell's product documentation is inaccurate, and I would appreciate any knowledge 2005fpw owners can offer about how the monitor handles a 16:9 picture when set to maintain Aspect ratio.

I have a question about the 2005fpw's scaling settings.

The monitor has 3 scaling options: 1:1, Fill, and Aspect.

According to Dell's product support website for the 2005fpw

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/moni...ing%20the%20OSD

The aspect ratio setting "Increases Vertical image size to fit screen and adjusts Horizontal size to maintain proportional image."

The 2005fpw isn't truly Widescreen - its native aspect ratio is 16:10, not 16:9.  Therefore, what happens when I input a 16:9 signal (such as 1280x720) using the Aspect scaling setting?  If the image is stretched vertically to fit the screen, how can the 2005fpw adjust the horizontal size to maintain a proportional image?  Does the 2005fpw simply cut off the left and right edges of the image, sacrificing more than 10% of the picture?

Of course, intuition would suggest that when a 16:9 signal is sent to a 2005fpw, the monitor should increase the horizontal image size to fit the screen, while adjusting the vertical size to maintain a proportional image (assuming scaling is set to Aspect).  Dell's product documentation, however, contradicts this assessment.

I'm considering the 2005fpw, in part, because I want a monitor that can display a 720p High Definition signal (from VGA or DVI, of course) with a widescreen aspect ratio.  The other 2 scaling options are undesirable, as 1:1 results in black bars covering nearly half of the monitor's area, and Fill results in a distorted, softened picture.  Typical LCD monitors with a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio provide too small a picture when set to maintain a widescreen aspect ratio of a 720p signal.

I'm hoping Dell's product documentation is inaccurate, and I would appreciate any knowledge 2005fpw owners can offer about how the monitor handles a 16:9 picture when set to maintain Aspect ratio.

586028365[/snapback]

aspect keeps the aspect ratio in check, so if youre playing Xbox360 with 720p, it will basically stretch the image until it hits the sides of the screens (while maintaining the aspect ratio of course), and there will be black bars on the top and bottom.

Fill means it will fill up the WHOLE screen, it will stretch it as much as it needs to, both horizontally and vertically, this will result in a distorted image. If youre doing 720p it means the picture will be elongated to strech to the top and bottom of the screen.

1:1 means youre getting exactly 1280x720 pixels, which means a much smaller black box than 1680x1050 native resolution.

I have a question about the 2005fpw's scaling settings.

The monitor has 3 scaling options: 1:1, Fill, and Aspect.

etc etc

586028365[/snapback]

Aspect = stretched with black bars to maintain aspect ratio

There's nothing contradictory, it stretches the image until either the sides or the top/bottom hit the edge of the screen, anything not filled in has black bars.

Any ratio wider than 16:10 (e.g. 16:9) has black bars on the top and bottom, any ratio narrower (e.g. 4:3) will have black bars on the sides.

Just got mine for $430 USD Shipped.

I don't know what to think of it. It's sexy for sure, but.... i don't know if it's big enough?

I just sold my 19" BenQ 937s for this, and that was a BEAUTIFUL monitor. I'm not sure if I should feel down for doing that or not. The 19" looked a lot bigger. The Dell has higher resolution, so it looks very slick, but then again, the BenQ wasn't all that bad either.

I've only had it for a couple of hours, maybe I'll get used to it and fall more in love with it once I start playing around more.

Now... someone link me to a good website where you can get nice widescreen desktop wallpapers.

Thanks

:ninja:

Aww, my 17" CRT just died... I was expecting to get a 2005FPW after I move house, but I guess that isn't happening... I go to the Dell site and it seems to be that the 2005FPW have 16ms response time. I read somewhere in this thread where something like "Grey on grey has 12ms reponse time, black on black has 16ms response time" what is that supposed to mean? Will I be able to pick on up from Dell in Australia with 12ms?

Thanks

I just received mine a few weeks ago, May 05 Rev02 w/ no dead/stuck pixels or backlight issues so I was very happy. However, I have recently noticed another problem that I haven't seen anyone else have: I get scrolling lines on the left side of the monitor about 2 inches long and moving from top to bottomthat appear to be "behind" the screen. They seem almost like interference or AC hum bars but I'm almost sure they are not. I have tried 2 seperate battery backups, an AC line noise filter, two different power supplies, three different video cards, a completely different computer, and a $100 Monster DVI cable. The problem only appears when using the DVI connection when connected to either my X850XT or 6800GT, but DOES NOT appear when connected through DVI to my GeForce Ti 4600. When connected through the D-Sub cable the problem dissapears completely, which seems very odd to me. I have tried everything I can think of, but does anyone have any more ideas? I've had the monitor for 2 weeks so I'll try for a replacement, but I like this one so hopefully I can fix the problem somehow. Are there any tweaks for vertical or horizontal refresh rates perhaps? I cannot for the life of me figure out what is going on...

Aww, my 17" CRT just died... I was expecting to get a 2005FPW after I move house, but I guess that isn't happening... I go to the Dell site and it seems to be that the 2005FPW have 16ms response time. I read somewhere in this thread where something like "Grey on grey has 12ms reponse time, black on black has 16ms response time" what is that supposed to mean? Will I be able to pick on up from Dell in Australia with 12ms?

Thanks

586033934[/snapback]

What the quoted response times there mean are that for a single pixel to go from black - fully off, to colour, and back to black again it takes 16ms. Durning normal use tho most pixels are not going fully off and on again, more like from a grey halftone shade to colour and back to keep up with whats being displayed.

They just give you that extra grey to grey of 12ms stats as some manfactures only quote that one trying to make their pannel sound better. There is only one version of the 2005FPW and that has a true 16ms response time.

I've had mine since Janurary this year and have found it amazing in everything I have tried with it. Not a bad word to say about it.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Nick

Thanks, Nick, for that response, it certainly cleared everything up for me. haha

So, there's no problems with ghosting or anything?

586034807[/snapback]

No problems mate, glad to be of help.

Certainly no ghosting, that I've seen. I have got 1 dead pixel, stuck on grey, but it's just on the top edge of the task bar about 2inches in from the bottom left - so I never see it. I know I could send it back, and may well do if any more occur, but for now it's fine without any hassle.

Got for it, you know you want one :yes:

Nick

No problems mate, glad to be of help.

Certainly no ghosting, that I've seen. I have got 1 dead pixel, stuck on grey, but it's just on the top edge of the task bar about 2inches in from the bottom left - so I never see it. I know I could send it back, and may well do if any more occur, but for now it's fine without any hassle.

Got for it, you know you want one  :yes:

Nick

586037170[/snapback]

no ghosting that you can see if you're just playing normal speed games. Load up Half Life or any other game and move the mouse REAL fast, you'll see ghosting. But then again, not often do you move that mouse THAT fast to notice it. can't wait for battle field 2 to come out. that will tell tails

No problems mate, glad to be of help.

Certainly no ghosting, that I've seen. I have got 1 dead pixel, stuck on grey, but it's just on the top edge of the task bar about 2inches in from the bottom left - so I never see it. I know I could send it back, and may well do if any more occur, but for now it's fine without any hassle.

Got for it, you know you want one  :yes:

Nick

586037170[/snapback]

Sweet, I am going for one. This old CRT is so damn blurry. Thanks for the info :D

I have got 1 dead pixel, stuck on grey, but it's just on the top edge of the task bar about 2inches in from the bottom left - so I never see it.

I know I could send it back, [...]

586037170[/snapback]

I was wondering: can you really send the monitor back 'cause of one faulty pixel? First time I hear that.

I was wondering: can you really send the monitor back 'cause of one faulty pixel? First time I hear that.

586051091[/snapback]

just say you are unsatisfied with the monitor. under dell's "total satisfaction policy" they must take it back.

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!