Dell 2407WFP and 3007WFP LCD Comparison
by Jarred Walton on March 2, 2007 11:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Closing Thoughts
The two Dell LCDs that we looked at today have been out for at least a year now, but it's good to see that they still stack up well against newer offerings. Anyone who purchased a Dell 2407WFP or 3007WFP when they first became available should still be happy with the LCD today. We certainly aren't finished with our LCD reviews, so it's far too early to declare a best overall LCD, but we can still make some basic judgments.
As we've said in the past, for most people looking at purchasing a new LCD price is likely to be an overriding consideration. We haven't looked at any less expensive models so far, but we will get to those soon enough. If you're looking for a good-quality 24" LCD, the Dell and Gateway offerings are nearly equal, both in performance as well as price. The Gateway display is brighter and it offers two component inputs, while the Dell LCDs come with integrated flash memory readers and a three-year standard warranty. At the same price, we currently have to give the Dell 2407WFP the nod over the Gateway FPD2485W, because the Dell LCD produces better overall colors. However, prices fluctuate quite frequently and the Gateway LCD is a pretty close second.
Users willing to spend a bit more money on an LCD can still be very pleased with a Dell 3007WFP, but there's more competition coming out in the 30" market and we will hopefully be looking at some of those offerings in the near future. The current price of $1350 might seem pretty high, but when you consider that the 3007WFP used to cost $2200 it's not that bad. Prices definitely begin to scale exponentially with larger LCDs -- a 24" LCD typically costs almost twice as much as a 22" LCD, and the 30" LCDs are twice the price of a 24" LCD -- but at least you can be fairly certain that an investment in a high-quality display will last you many years. The minimalist approach to inputs and display controls on the 3007WFP are a drawback, but more importantly the fact that HDCP support is only available in single-link DVI mode may be a serious concern for anyone that wants to watch protected content.
The good news is that so far none of the HDCP videos that we've seen are enabling the Image Constraint Token, so for now you should be able to get full quality video whether you have an HDCP LCD, non-HDCP LCD, or even an older analog display. The only thing that appears to be required right now for viewing HDCP content on a computer is a graphics card that supports HDCP. Hopefully, that doesn't change, and given that the encryption algorithms have already been cracked for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD it seems that further locking down content will primarily hurt legitimate users. If you want a large LCD that will primarily be used for viewing videos, a better choice than a 30" computer display is to simply go out and get one of the various LCD HDTVs. 37" and 42" 1080p models can be had for less than the price of the 3007WFP; they may not be better for computer work, but for games and viewing movies the flexibility of a 1080p HDTV is arguably better.
We've always been proponents of large displays, so it's a little odd to actually have to ask the question: is it possible to have a desktop display that's too big? In the extreme, the answer is obviously yes: a 100" display sitting on your desk is more than impractical. What about the 30" LCDs like the Dell 3007WFP -- are they too large? Some people will probably feel they are. A 24" widescreen display looks almost puny in comparison and you will need to make sure you have a workspace that can accommodate the large display. While we would say that some people would be put off by the size of the display, however, in general use it really is a sight to behold.
Users that are looking for more screen real estate might be better off purchasing a couple 24" displays instead, as the final price ends up roughly the same but you get more screen area. Spending $1400 or more on your display is a lot of money, but if it will improve productivity it could be a worthwhile investment. People that do a lot of multitasking as well as content creation could certainly find a use for 30" displays, and some people might even go so far as to run two of them. If you are primarily interested in a large display for Windows desktop use, we have very few complaints about the Dell 2407WFP or 3007WFP.
The two Dell LCDs that we looked at today have been out for at least a year now, but it's good to see that they still stack up well against newer offerings. Anyone who purchased a Dell 2407WFP or 3007WFP when they first became available should still be happy with the LCD today. We certainly aren't finished with our LCD reviews, so it's far too early to declare a best overall LCD, but we can still make some basic judgments.
As we've said in the past, for most people looking at purchasing a new LCD price is likely to be an overriding consideration. We haven't looked at any less expensive models so far, but we will get to those soon enough. If you're looking for a good-quality 24" LCD, the Dell and Gateway offerings are nearly equal, both in performance as well as price. The Gateway display is brighter and it offers two component inputs, while the Dell LCDs come with integrated flash memory readers and a three-year standard warranty. At the same price, we currently have to give the Dell 2407WFP the nod over the Gateway FPD2485W, because the Dell LCD produces better overall colors. However, prices fluctuate quite frequently and the Gateway LCD is a pretty close second.
Users willing to spend a bit more money on an LCD can still be very pleased with a Dell 3007WFP, but there's more competition coming out in the 30" market and we will hopefully be looking at some of those offerings in the near future. The current price of $1350 might seem pretty high, but when you consider that the 3007WFP used to cost $2200 it's not that bad. Prices definitely begin to scale exponentially with larger LCDs -- a 24" LCD typically costs almost twice as much as a 22" LCD, and the 30" LCDs are twice the price of a 24" LCD -- but at least you can be fairly certain that an investment in a high-quality display will last you many years. The minimalist approach to inputs and display controls on the 3007WFP are a drawback, but more importantly the fact that HDCP support is only available in single-link DVI mode may be a serious concern for anyone that wants to watch protected content.
The good news is that so far none of the HDCP videos that we've seen are enabling the Image Constraint Token, so for now you should be able to get full quality video whether you have an HDCP LCD, non-HDCP LCD, or even an older analog display. The only thing that appears to be required right now for viewing HDCP content on a computer is a graphics card that supports HDCP. Hopefully, that doesn't change, and given that the encryption algorithms have already been cracked for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD it seems that further locking down content will primarily hurt legitimate users. If you want a large LCD that will primarily be used for viewing videos, a better choice than a 30" computer display is to simply go out and get one of the various LCD HDTVs. 37" and 42" 1080p models can be had for less than the price of the 3007WFP; they may not be better for computer work, but for games and viewing movies the flexibility of a 1080p HDTV is arguably better.
We've always been proponents of large displays, so it's a little odd to actually have to ask the question: is it possible to have a desktop display that's too big? In the extreme, the answer is obviously yes: a 100" display sitting on your desk is more than impractical. What about the 30" LCDs like the Dell 3007WFP -- are they too large? Some people will probably feel they are. A 24" widescreen display looks almost puny in comparison and you will need to make sure you have a workspace that can accommodate the large display. While we would say that some people would be put off by the size of the display, however, in general use it really is a sight to behold.
Users that are looking for more screen real estate might be better off purchasing a couple 24" displays instead, as the final price ends up roughly the same but you get more screen area. Spending $1400 or more on your display is a lot of money, but if it will improve productivity it could be a worthwhile investment. People that do a lot of multitasking as well as content creation could certainly find a use for 30" displays, and some people might even go so far as to run two of them. If you are primarily interested in a large display for Windows desktop use, we have very few complaints about the Dell 2407WFP or 3007WFP.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
mongo lloyd - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
As for the .303mm pixel pitch, keep in mind that a 19" 4:3 1280x1024 screen that I would wager is the most common LCD in use right now is like .295mm and I never heard anyone complaining about the 19" displays...Well, you've heard one now. Out of ALL LCDs (minus the IBM T221, since that one is... a bit... special), the only panels I could ever begin to consider (and that's ignoring all the other faults with LCDs -- CRTs still beat them, and probably always will, if you ask me (at least as long as they use DVI with crappy refresh)) are the 30" 2560x1600 and 20.1" 1600x1200 monitors. I consider 1600x1200 on a good 19" CRT to be the optimal resolution, and the dot pitch on pretty much all LCDs are pitiful in comparison -- and the dot pitch is even more important on LCDs since the pixels are square and thus very sharp.
Also, you probably meant 5:4, not 4:3.
exdeath - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
I love my F500R 21" .22mm AGP @ 1600x1200 CRT.But when it dies... there is no getting a replacement.
I have dual 1905FP Dell 19" LCDs at work, 1280x1024 5:4 .295 pitch and its quite sharp. They seem to be the standard by which I judge other LCDs by since that is what I am used to staring at all day. The higher pitch doesn't bother me at all.
In fact, being a graphics programmer and having a close up eye for pixel perfect detail, I tend to prefer images with sharp square pixels.
kmmatney - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
They do make laptop screens that are 15.4" and 1920 x 1200 resolution, which is a pretty amazing pixel pitch. So LCD dektop monitors are easily capable of better pixel pitch, there must just not be a market for them yet.Everytime I try 1600 x 1200 on a 19" CRT, it looks like crap, and I;'ve tried quite a few CRTs.
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
Funny thing is, I go the other way. Laptop LCDs tend to have text that gets a bit difficult for me to read now. Oh, I can do it, but even 17" 1920x1200 displays are a bit tiny text/icons. I don't think I'd like a 15.4" 19x12 LCD. To each their own, of course.As for the rest, I fully agree that 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT looks pretty lousy - too small again, and I *love* the perfectly square pixels of LCDs. 20" (viewable) CRTs are required for proper 16x12 resolution, in my opinion. Refresh rates are definitely the one issue I have with LCDs - running CRTs at 100 Hz made it so I wouldn't notice shearing due to vsync, and you can't do that with LCDs. To counter that, though, all the pincushion, stretch, rotate, etc. necessary to get a CRT to properly fill the screen always irritated me. Heck, I'd even take an analog connection LCD over CRTs!
exdeath - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
"Its a 27" compromise between the wider range of capabilities of the 30" and the smaller size of the 24" "Oops that should have been "limited range of capabilities of the 30"
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I haven't used a 2707WFP yet, but I will see if I can get one sent for review.Take care,
Jarred Walton
Editor
AnandTech.com
lash - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
First of all, thank you for the review. Does anyone know if this monitor suffer from input lag, like most of the 24" models ? Would it be hard to include a input lag test of the monitors reviewed ? Personally I think of it as a big problem when playing fps or online.Resh - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Thanks for the review, particularly the section on colour accuracy where you use objective measurement in the form of a colorimeter. Thanks!However, I note that I can't find the calibration targets you used. For example, when I calibrate my display, I'm targetting about 80 - 120 cd/m2 (depends on display type; brighter for LCD) for brightness, gamma 2.2, and a colour temp of 6500K or D65. This is important as it affects, particularly on LCDs, the display's ability to render colour accurately. For example, my Dell 2407FPW can perform with the level of accuracy that the review describes, but only when its brightness is allow to rise close to 300 cd/m2. While this is great for colour accuracy, it isn't very good for screen to print matching as the screen is far too bright for the print to match. Also, that kind of brightness is retina-searing!
In my case, my HP CRT is capable of astonishing accuracy at 80 cd/m2 -- the brightest it can go. If I screen match and make the drop the 2407FPW to that level, suddenly it isn't so accurate -- acceptable, but no match for the HP.
So it would be great if you could calibrate and profile to targets that are relevant for photographers and also make your targets known. Failing that, at least let us know what your targets were and how the eventual profile compared. For example, I asked ColorEyes Display to target 80 cd/m2 on my 2407FPW and the eventual result was 74 cd/m2.
Thanks!
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I used the default (6500K 2.2 gamma), but I'll have to check on the white point value. Obviously, post-calibration it was still very bright (see page 6), so I may need to run calibrations for a lower white point. The Dell's can manage that, but the Gateway is sort of up a creek, since it couldn't get lower than 356 cd/m2 by adjusting the brightness. With contrast set lower, it might be able to get below 200 cd/m2, but probably not while providing any reasonable amount of accuracy. Sorry to say that I don't do anything with print, so that aspect of testing just didn't occur to me.strikeback03 - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
I bought the Gateway over the weekend. It can go much lower than 356 cd/m^2 if you go to User color and lower the color channels all by the same amount. They ship set to 100, I lowered them all to 60 or so, which allowed me to set brightness to 120cd/m^2.I have some interesting calibration results, I'll post them in the Gateway comments when I get home from work.