Dell 2707WFP: Looking for the Middle Ground of Large LCDs
by Jarred Walton on April 4, 2007 10:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Closing Thoughts
A 27" LCD is definitely an interesting option for people who want something larger than a 24" model but prefer to stick with single-link DVI connections. If that sounds like the type of LCD you're after, the Dell 2707WFP is definitely a viable option. Of course, there really aren't many other alternatives right now. Anyone looking for more modern styling from the LCD is also likely to be pleased with Dell's new offering and it certainly makes a case for being the coolest looking LCD on the market right now.
Unfortunately, the overall good quality and attractive appearance don't come cheap, as the Dell 2707WFP is currently selling for $1169 on Dell's web site (with the "normal" price being $1299). At the current price, it falls almost exactly halfway between the price of most 24" LCDs and the Dell/HP 30" LCDs. It's also halfway between those two in terms of size, so perhaps the price is fitting. Considering that Dell has frequent display sales, potential buyers might want to keep an eye on things and wait for a larger sale to come around, although when/if that will occur on the 2707WFP is anyone's guess.
Perhaps we're just being a bit spoiled, as it was only 18 months back that we were paying nearly as much for a 24" LCD. However, while we might consider the 2707WFP at its currently reduced price, the regular $1300 would definitely be more than we are willing to pay. At that price, we would be more inclined to spend a bit more for the 30" 3007WFPHC or some other LCD - or else just get a couple 24" LCDs.
The other difficulty is that the current price point also competes against HDTVs that typically include even more input options (multiple component and DVI inputs, for example) as well as speakers, HDMI, and CableCARD support. You can get 1080p 37" LCD HDTVs starting at $1000, or 42" models starting at $1200. We can't say for certain whether the quality and other aspects of such displays are able to match what the 2707WFP offers, but for the same price they are definitely tempting. They may not be better strictly as computer displays, but at the same time we would expect them to surpass the 27" Dell when it comes to other uses like viewing TV, movies, or hooking up multiple peripherals.
The 2707WFP ends up being a very good LCD for most uses, but with a price and features that make it a tough sell. It seems like the most likely buyers at present are going to be businesses or users looking for a display with a cutting edge appearance. Dell delivers on the looks and the features, but for imaging professionals, HTPC types, or those with limited funds we would take a closer look at other options.
A 27" LCD is definitely an interesting option for people who want something larger than a 24" model but prefer to stick with single-link DVI connections. If that sounds like the type of LCD you're after, the Dell 2707WFP is definitely a viable option. Of course, there really aren't many other alternatives right now. Anyone looking for more modern styling from the LCD is also likely to be pleased with Dell's new offering and it certainly makes a case for being the coolest looking LCD on the market right now.
Unfortunately, the overall good quality and attractive appearance don't come cheap, as the Dell 2707WFP is currently selling for $1169 on Dell's web site (with the "normal" price being $1299). At the current price, it falls almost exactly halfway between the price of most 24" LCDs and the Dell/HP 30" LCDs. It's also halfway between those two in terms of size, so perhaps the price is fitting. Considering that Dell has frequent display sales, potential buyers might want to keep an eye on things and wait for a larger sale to come around, although when/if that will occur on the 2707WFP is anyone's guess.
Perhaps we're just being a bit spoiled, as it was only 18 months back that we were paying nearly as much for a 24" LCD. However, while we might consider the 2707WFP at its currently reduced price, the regular $1300 would definitely be more than we are willing to pay. At that price, we would be more inclined to spend a bit more for the 30" 3007WFPHC or some other LCD - or else just get a couple 24" LCDs.
The other difficulty is that the current price point also competes against HDTVs that typically include even more input options (multiple component and DVI inputs, for example) as well as speakers, HDMI, and CableCARD support. You can get 1080p 37" LCD HDTVs starting at $1000, or 42" models starting at $1200. We can't say for certain whether the quality and other aspects of such displays are able to match what the 2707WFP offers, but for the same price they are definitely tempting. They may not be better strictly as computer displays, but at the same time we would expect them to surpass the 27" Dell when it comes to other uses like viewing TV, movies, or hooking up multiple peripherals.
The 2707WFP ends up being a very good LCD for most uses, but with a price and features that make it a tough sell. It seems like the most likely buyers at present are going to be businesses or users looking for a display with a cutting edge appearance. Dell delivers on the looks and the features, but for imaging professionals, HTPC types, or those with limited funds we would take a closer look at other options.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
darklight0tr - Monday, April 9, 2007 - link
On Page 4 it says that Screen Scaling doesn't work when using DVI, but that is incorrect. I have the 2707WFP, and the Screen Scaling menu isn't enabled in DVI UNTIL you switch the screen resolution to one that doesn't use the 16:10 aspect, such as 1600x1200.It confused me at first, but I guess it doesn't make sense to enable that menu if you are already running the monitor at 1920x1200.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - link
My screen scaling menu is definitely disabled with a DVI connection. I've tried several resolutions (1680x1050 and 1600x1200 for sure) and it never became adjustable. That said, the LCD is revision A00, and I know on the 2407WFP this was apparently something they addressed in a later revision of the firmware; perhaps they will do the same again. I felt this OSD was a step back relative to the latest 2407WFP firmware options, which is odd as it should be essentially the same menu. If they "fixed" something with Rev. A03 on the 24" model, why "unfix" it for A00 of the 27"? Oh well... I just report on what I have. :)Amuro - Saturday, April 14, 2007 - link
Did you use a Nvidia 8 series video card for the review? There are scaling issues with Forceware drivers later than 97.XX that forces adapter scaling at all times. If you try to change the scaling to something else in the Nvidia control panel, it will automatically go back to adapter scaling after you click Apply. The scaling menu on the LCD is disabled because the video card automatically streches everything to 19200 X 1200. I have a Rev A00 2707 WFP and I'm able to use monitor scaling before loading into Windows, and also ablo to do 1:1 scaling when using it with my PS3 at 10806P via DVI.AnnonymousCoward - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link
The article said "Furthermore, while nearly everyone will agree that running your LCD at its native resolution is the best solution, gaming on a 30" LCD at 2560x1600 requires some serious graphics horsepower." Well, there is a second native res that requires much less horsepower: 1280x800.I'm not sure how accurate your pixel pitch chart is, because if you go to tvcalculator.com, the results are different. Use that site to compare a 30", 16:10, 2560x1600 versus a 27", 16:10, 1920x1200 --> 10126/7030 is 1.44x pixel density on the 30". Using your pitch numbers (to convert distance per pixel to pixels per distance): 1/.250mm = 4pixels/mm, 1/.303mm = 3.3pixels/mm. 4/3.3 = 1.21x pixel density on the 30". I'd trust the physical size per resolution before I'd trust some published pixel pitch numbers.
btw, if you're comparing CRTs on the site, don't forget to subtract an inch since LCDs go by the viewable inches.
JarredWalton - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link
The table is composed of approximate values. The main point was that various sizes and resolutions will have a larger/smaller pixel pitch. So if you find a 19" 1280x1024 to be "good" and 17" to be "too small", you might like a pixel pitch similar to that of the 19". The HDTV values in particular could be way off, since I couldn't find any reasonable sources.AnnonymousCoward - Friday, April 6, 2007 - link
Yeah...and does pixel pitch mean the distance between the center point of each pixel? If so, and if the size of pixels vary per screen, then the pitch isn't the complete information since the gap between pixels probably also varies.The tvcalculator.com was useful for me before I bought a 30". I had a 21" CRT at my disposal, and it turns out that the pixel density is nearly identical at 1600x1200 to the 30" at 2560x1600.
TA152H - Thursday, April 5, 2007 - link
Jarrod,Do you guys have any intentions of reviewing Eizo monitors sometime in the future? I'm not knocking the inferior stuff like Dell, Viewsonic, etc..., and I do understand that the masses buy this stuff in masses and the price makes them much more accessible. But, it wouldn't hurt to review the top quality stuff either, even if most people can't afford it. After all, you guys review $1000 processors, and high end graphics stuff. It's like a car magazine reviewing a Porsche. Most of it's readers can't afford it, but it still makes for interesting reading. We might end up with a Volkswagen (or Dell, or Viewsonic, etc...), but it does get readers. Since they sell so few monitors, I'm guessing they would love the exposure and you wouldn't have too hard of a time getting one. It can't hurt to ask. I have bought Nanao/Eizo until they stopped making CRTs, and they were much better than the other rubbish sold (and twice as expensive :P), and I think a review would be informative and open a few eyes (no pun intended).
Also, are you guys done reviewing CRTs? I finally bought an LCD about four months ago because I kept reading how much better they were. Not only did I hate it, but I almost hit my cat with it (by accident) when I threw it out the window. I know they take some getting used to, but they have so many compromises compared to CRTs that I had to destroy it (NewEgg won't take them back). I'm not alone in this either, although I think a minority. Still, some reviews of the new Samsung monitors would be nice, and maybe the aforementioned Eizos are decent enough LCD monitors that they don't have to factor in flight attributes in the design, for when someone throws them out the window. It's a pity too, they weigh so little and take up so little desk space in comparison. I just can't stand the poor quality of the display. Why do they make them so bright anyway? Even turned down they can be really tough to look at.
Also, if you do review CRTs, you might want to skip Viewsonic. They've managed to combine the worst of both worlds; their CRTs have dead pixels. I have no idea how this is possible, but they managed to do it and not only the one I bought. It's apparently a common problem. I have to give them credit for having the talent to create such a thing though, I didn't even know it was possible. Probably the shadow mask isn't transparent in that spot? I have no idea, really.
TA152H - Thursday, April 5, 2007 - link
Hmmm, I just went to Samsung's web site and I don't even see their CRTs listed anymore. So maybe CRTs are finally dead, unless you want dead pixels. Oh brother, what a choice.JarredWalton - Thursday, April 5, 2007 - link
I think we are generally at the point now where CRTs truly are dead in terms of reviewing units. If I had a good late-model CRT available for comparison purposes, I would have included it in the test results already. Unfortunately, the best CRT that I had (note the use of past tense) was a 19" NEC (FE-991SB). I honestly don't even want to bother with CRTs anymore. LCDs certainly aren't perfect, but I will take the sharp image quality (no need to stretch/rotate/center your image like you have to do with CRTs) and the smaller size any day given a choice between CRT and LCD.I realize there are still CRT holdouts, and I do miss the higher refresh rates that CRTs offered, but hopefully we will see improvements in that area of LCDs in the not-too-distant future. If you already have a good CRT, you can probably continue to use that for a while longer. If on the other hand you are looking to go out and purchase a new display, I doubt many people would be interested in the current CRT offerings.
TA152H - Thursday, April 5, 2007 - link
Actually, I did some research after I wrote that and Viewsonic, Phillips and CTX are still making them.Do you actually prefer the image on an LCD? I can't imagine anyone does, but I suppose some people do. It is probably your poor vision (no offense), because I could see the each pixel very clearly on my LCD and it's just not as lush a picture (incidentally, my vision sucks too, but only long distance. Short distance I see all too well). Also, the viewing angles aren't quite right. The top looks lighter than the bottom, for example, unless you move your head up. It's altogether an extremely flawed technology, and it hasn't really gotten much better in 20 years. In know the numbers look better, but the old ThinkPads I had at IBM didn't look that much worse than these monitors, and in 20 years they should have. I'm not saying if you put them side to side you couldn't tell the difference, you probably could, and they are a lot bigger now, but they aren't nearly as improved as I have seen spoken about. For that matter, neither are CRTs. My old Princeton Ultrasync had a fantastic picture, but it was only 12 inch.
The most painful part of chucking the LCD was the footprint and weight. CRTs are awful in terms of creating heat too. In the summer, I want to chuck them out the window, but perversely their weight saves them from this form of destruction. (Even the illustrious dead pixel Viewsonic was discarded in a dump, although kicked and sledgehammered, rather than chucked out the window). The image quality is so hard to ignore though. For a TV, where size matters a lot and you generally watch from a distance, I think LCDs are great. But, being able to see each pixel and the terrible brightness, the poor viewing angles, the terrible ghosting, the weird bright green pixel that won't take no for an answer, and poor color saturation leave me cold. But, the handwriting is on the wall, although you'll probably have one company make CRTs for a long, long time, because even if 5% of the people can't stand LCDs, it's still a huge market. I think the number is higher than that too. Luckily, the Trinitron is dead. Another really badly flawed technology that people bought a lot of. How could people stand those lines or the asymmetric nature of the Trinitron? I never understood it. I'm equally baffled now by LCDs. Incidentally, the one I tossed was a ViewSonic VG2230wm. It was talked about well, but it was a huge disappointment compared to a CRT.