Dell v. Samsung

[BusterStacks]

both are 1600 x 1200

[AcesFull]

The Dell 2001fp also tilts to portrait mode as well. I have two dell 2001fp and I often put both into portrait mode at 768x1024 (I think those are the resolutions). This works nicely to have two tables on each monitor in the longer vertical view (i.e. portrait mode instead of the "normal" landscape mode). In this size resolution you can have two tables make maximum use of the screen size. You have two tables on top of each other and about one inch left over at the bottom of the second table.

Notice that you have a very very small piece of the poker table missing (i.e. chopped off) on the sides. But this is a very minor thing. Only 32 pixels. You might not see like the last two letters of the players name in seat three. But all cards, actions, chair, everything is visible.

I have a ATI 9600 se graphics card which allows dual monitors and the drivers support the portrait mode option.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
The Dell 2001fp also tilts to portrait mode as well. I have two dell 2001fp and I often put both into portrait mode at 768x1024 (I think those are the resolutions). This works nicely to have two tables on each monitor in the longer vertical view (i.e. portrait mode instead of the "normal" landscape mode). In this size resolution you can have two tables make maximum use of the screen size. You have two tables on top of each other and about one inch left over at the bottom of the second table.

Notice that you have a very very small piece of the poker table missing (i.e. chopped off) on the sides. But this is a very minor thing. Only 32 pixels. You might not see like the last two letters of the players name in seat three. But all cards, actions, chair, everything is visible.

I have a ATI 9600 se graphics card which allows dual monitors and the drivers support the portrait mode option.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude you put your 2001fp in 1024x768? gross.

[Saborion]

I have the Samsung monitor. Without having used the Dell, I'm quite sure I'd prefer that one. Not unsatisfied with my Samsung, not at all. Just that the Dell do have way faster response time, and I think those extra ms will make a difference.

[Yeknom58]

For DVD's the ms response time is very important. You will definitely get some ghosting and that can be super annoying.

Value wise you can't really beat the dell in my opinion.

[Terry]

When I was researching monitors two complaints seemed very common for the Dell; dead pixels and screen door effect. The Samsung suffers from neither.

Response time is not a “magic number” that overrides all other considerations. Serious players of first person shooter games on very high end computers don’t use flat panel monitors because the response time of a CRT is much faster than any LCD screen.

I don’t know about watching DVDs on it, but I play games like Civilization, Railroad Tycoon 3, and Final Fantasy XI on my Samsung 213T – it is awesome – and I have never seen a ghost.

[Losing all]

I've never seen the dell, so I can't compare, but I will tell you the Samsung is great. I bought it 8 months ago and after lots of hours it's still 100%. I don't know what ghosting is, but I don't think I've seen any.

[david050173]

The samsung is slightly slower but its colours are better and the monitor is slightly brighter. For nongaming/video usage I think a better monitor. However it is a ~950 dollars while you can pick up the 2001fp for 629.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
The samsung is slightly slower but its colours are better and the monitor is slightly brighter. For nongaming/video usage I think a better monitor. However it is a ~950 dollars while you can pick up the 2001fp for 629.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own one Dell and one Samsung and agree with this assessment. I feel like for 'normal' types of usage the Samsung has an ever-so-slightly better appearance. I don't play PC games though so I can offer no comment about what others are saying.

Either way, I am very happy with both monitors, and imagine you would be too. If you can get the Samsung at no more than $100 than the Dell, I'd do that. Otherwise, probably go with the Dell.

[AcesFull]

BusterStacks,

No, not 1024x768. I say 768x1024 in Portrait mode (tilting the screen the long way). It's the best way to play two tables on one dell 2001fp monitor. By best, I mean making each table as big as possible with no overlap.