It may be too big, but if you have a good 21" monitor, the 24" monitor isn't necessarilly providing more real estate. I've got an old Sony e540, and I use it at 1920x1440 @85hz. The desktop isn't much larger than a 24", but it is larger (and it could go higher, albeit at refresh rates too low for my eyes). For people who work with photos, AFAIK, the color space of LCDs is much smaller than a CRT (some Eizo displays not withstanding).
I can't handle anything more than 1600x1200 on 21/22" CRTs - remember, the viewable area is actually 20", the same as a 20" LCD which runs 1600x1200. Obviously, others disagree and I won't pretend to have great eye sight, so 1920x1200 with a larger surface area definitely gets my vote. Or 2560x1600 with an enormous surface area. :)
Noooo! There is nothing wrong with a 100" display. LCD makers need to start making them now, (actually I think there are already some about this size but the resolution is wack) 7680x4800 (=WHUXGA) - sounds fine to me!
I am very familiar with most aspects of computers but I do not understand anything about new monitors or TVs. I've tried searching online but I can't find something simple to read that covers everything I could possibly want to know. Differences exactly between monitors, resolutions, comparisons to using a 1080p TV, etc. Maybe I'm just really dumb but I guess you can't learn without asking the dumb questions.
Could you confirm that the 30incher has a built in scaler that is responsible for scaling up HDCP content (1280x800 via single link DVI) to the panel's native res? The reason I ask is because I've seen some confusing info on HDCP content on 30inch monitor's. For example this discussion http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/1/1004359647...">of the HP LP3065 30inch LCDbrings up some conflicting info. It's mentioned that HP told the editor the display supports HDCP over dual-link dvi but another post says even if the monitor supports it no current graphics cards do. My problem with that was how would the HP monitor display single link HDCP content given that it doesn't have a scaler. Perhaps you could shed some light on the situation?
Unfortunately, I don't have a Blu-ray or HD-DVD drive at present, so I can't test HDCP. However, if you connect a single-link DVI cable you will end up with 1280x800 resolution, and I can definitely say that the monitor scales 1280x800 to fill the entire display. I see no reason why it wouldn't scale HDCP content. AFAIK all LCDs have built-in scalers; some of them simply have a way to disable it in the OSD.
Yeah I imagine you're right about the dell being able to scale the HDCP content to full screen. Was just wandering given that the review of the http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2078203...">HP LP3065 specifically states that it doesn't have a video processor and also suggests neither does the dell 3007. Also the editor spoke to HP after I brought up the issue of HDCP only being supported via single-link DVI which I got from this site http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=288...">Few paragraphs down and they told him the monitor DOES support HDCP over dual-link. So it would appear that not all lcd's have scalers which is the source of my confusion.
I have experienced the input lag. I had an Acer 24", I think it was the 2416WD. The lag was very noticible when playing UT2004. My brother's 19" Hyundai and my crt had no such problem. Maybe you could find someone on your staff who does notice the lag to report on this aspect.
How 'bout doing a shootoff between the Dell displays and the Apple Cinema Diplays?
The Mac guys at work want ACDs because they're "better" than the Dells. And naturally, I want to save money by buying Dells. Any benchmarks to support either argument would be great!
I have read many comparisons when I worked in Germany 2 years ago – while not perfect, the ACDs consistently were voted the best by the editors of a (neutral) major PC tech magazine (named "c't"), although they always remarked that they were substantially more expensive. Apple does seem to make a good product.
I saw a side by side test of a 23" ACD beside the $5000 color calibrated EIZO CG221 at the CeBIT '05. The ACD was obviously not comparable at less than half the price, but you really had to look closely to see the differences.
My brother has the 1080P Westinghouse TV and I must say the pc looks stunning on it at 1920x1080. I would really like to see a comparison between the Dell 24" and the WH 37". The WH allows you to do PIP with TV and Computer and swap it back and forth. This is a great feature. I was checking out Sony LCDs and I don't believe they support PIP and the new Sharps do now have rbg inputs. So plese, a WH 37" review?
Thanks anandtech for a Comparison like this
However, for some people like me who want an "All In One" TV/PC monitor which been looking for 2 years now. Recently, there are companies start making 32" 1080p TV. I really would like to see how these TVs compare to PC monitors and some lower resolution
TVs such as 1366 x 768. Lastly, what are the best viewing distance for those TVs as PC monitors
These monitors have a builtin power transformer that is noisy. I had to return my 3007wfp (tried two) because of the noise. If you are working in a silent environment I suggest you buy something else...
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=d5286df8...">Many others have reported the same problem, so it's not just me.
Try running Titan Quest, kill some enemies and hit the alt key to see what they have laying on the ground after death while you are moving/walking - I bet you can't read what those items are because of the blur with any PVA. You must stop to ID them.
I'm very picky and notice blur 100% of the time even with he fastest LCD's like LCD20WMGX2 and Viewsonics 922 but the PVA's inside the Dell and GW are the slowest tech out and it's not right to tell people they wont notice when most will. Forum thread complaints bear this out.
Noticing motion blur is one thing; being bothered by it will vary by individual. You mentioned Titan's Quest... I played that for over 100 hours without ever being bothered by motion blur. Are the item names clearly readable while running around? Not necessarily, but I can make them out well enough, and the names are secondary to the attributes, so I always ended up checking out items in my inventory.
As for that video link... if my picture of a picture was a bad representation of what it's like using a display in person - and I feel it is, even with a decent SLR and a tripod - a handheld camcorder floating around recording a display is ten times worse. Are we supposed to be judging the quality of the display output or the quality of the camcorder and its ability to record LCD screen content? Or maybe the ability of the cameraman to give a reasonable representation of the LCD content? Because it seems to me that it's focused *much* more on the latter two than on the LCD itself. You can see the camera adjusting brightness/contrast on the fly depending on how much light its getting.
Basically, I agree that motion blur can bother people. It doesn't bother me... at all. What I see when playing games just blends together into relatively smooth gameplay, and a delay of a few hundredths of a second is short enough that my old and decrepit eyes don't care. That's why I repeatedly recommend people try out a display in person, because what you get via a review online or in a magazine is a poor substitute for hands on experience. As I state on page 5:
"Most of us don't have a problem with the slight image smearing that occurs on these LCDs, and the camera actually makes it look a lot worse than what we experience in person -- we may have simply captured two frames for all we know -- but this is something that will vary by individual. If you know you are bothered by image smearing, try out a display in person to see if it's suitable for your needs."
I have no idea how you guys can't see the color shifting in those PVA's. Every PVA I have tried has had it 1905, 2405 Gateway 24 & 21 etc Color Shifing so bad, viewing straight on, one eye can actualky see something different than the other eye (because the eyes are at different angles) it gave me a headache.
Viewing angles on all PVA's suck thats just a fact that other people don't notice will never change my mind compared to an IPS or CRT it's night and day difference.
PVA viewing angles are worse than some of the alternatives, but really how often do you *not* view the display head on? I seriously doubt that I'm ever more than 20 degrees away from a direct frontal view, and probable within 10 degrees in most cases. If that's not how you work with your PC, then other panels might be preferable. I've just never had any real concerns with viewing angles on the 24" LCDs I've tried. Laptop LCDs on the other hand... some of those are absolutely terrible, to the point where moving your head 6" can make the display almost illegible. That too is getting better, thankfully.
I view them straight on and they eyes see something different in each due to gamma/color shift. Look, even IPS isnt 178 degrees (or 90:P) like they advertise and starts to fade get shifty at around 35-45 degrees off center but PVA is literally about 5-10 - that's enough on a widescreen to be well over 5-10 degrees at the horizontal edges. Vertical color shift is evident raising my head only about 6" from about 20" away which is the difference between sitting up the chair vs. leaning back, a common position shift for a person using thier PC all day. Horizontal color shift is everywhere from 2-3 ft away. Every PVA panel has exhibited this problem and I know I'm sensitive to it as many don't notice but OTOH many do. TN lappy? don't get me started I just spent two miserable weeks in hotel with one.
My future laptop reviews are going to be running these sort of color tests and such as well. Of the few laptops I've tried so far, only the ASUS G2P was "good" in my opinion. Most others are a case of "I think I can live with it...." The problem is that unlike desktop LCDs, laptop LCDs frequently aren't bright enough. They focus more on conserving battery life, and while that might be good when they're unplugged, I'd just as soon forget about battery life when plugged in if it gives a better quality display result.
The idea of getting 7 more inches for $400 less by going the route of a 37" HDTV 1080p is more appealing to me. That would be big screen gaming and spreadsheet work that would be awesome! I think it would be great if AT did a comparison between those two monitors just because they have such a different approach.
I would like to see how the 37" 1920x1080 resolution looks compared to the Dell 3007 native resolution. One complaint I have is that the text gets smaller when the monitor gets bigger due to the extreme resolution for the Dell. The text should stay the same or get a little bigger when going to such a big screen in my opinion.
For an extra $100, I can get a 37" 1080p HDTV with a digital tuner which would be cool to switch to an HDTV broadcast on the fly.
I find it weird the 3007-HC (high color) isn't mentioned, as it's been announced and some people have been able to order it over the phone. It's the 3007 but with a little bit faster response time and better color reproduction (92% of the gamut vs 70-some% on the older 3007).
When we can get one for comparison we'll see how it fares; right now Dell still seems to be shipping more of the "old" revision, and in testing we didn't have any complaints about the quality of the colors (once calibrated). We are trying to get other LCDs to compare with the current Dell offerings, though, so stay tuned....
Is Dell actually committed to keeping the 3007 an IPS panel? After the shenanigans that was the launch of the 2007, I'm afraid they'll jump ship to PVA/MVA as soon as they can, while all the reviews still reference the IPS panel.
There are rumors that the new HC panel revision is going to switch to a different type of panel, but for now they're still IPS as far as we're aware. Hopefully they stay that way, but if they change and quality drops, we'll do our best to cover the situation.
The HC is still IPS and even better this time covering 93% of adobe color gamet vs 72% past model and it's more overdriven making it faster. Inputs are still lame with DVI only.
Right now only corp customers can get the HC.
There is a non technical review floating around the net with nice pics..hot hardware I think.
As nice as these monitors are, it seems to be that no one is really releasing any new 4:3 or 5:4 monitors anymore. Everything is widescreen. Sure, I think it's great when you're watching movies, but that's why I have a widescreen TV.
I primarily use my PC for office work and games, neither of which really lend themselves to widescreen very well. Maybe a lot of newer games are coming out with widescreen support, but a good number don't offer it, at least officially.
Maybe I'm just a minority now, since every company seems to be focusing on it. Anyone else with similar opinions?
I definitely prefer WS displays, even outside of gaming. The ability to easily put two full pages of text next to each other is nice, and it's one of the reasons I don't find portrait mode on larger WS LCDs to be useful. I just wish more games were properly (i.e. natively with proper aspect ratio) supporting widescreen modes. On smaller displays, however, I'm not as big a fan of WS - I'd prefer a 19/20" standard AR over a 19/20" WS display. Basically, if you can't get at least 1680x1050 I'd just as soon stick with a normal AR.
Personally, I think it would be good to include power usage of LCD monitors you're testing. I know you guys have the equipment already, and this is one of a few reasons why people use LCD vs CRT. Is this information in the article aready ? IF so, I missed it . . .
Lower power consumption with LCDs is mostly a myth nowadays when you're moving up to the bigger and/or brighter monitors. As you can see with the specs here, both these monitors eat as much as (in the case of the 24") and more power than (in the case of the 30") a 21-22" CRT (most commonly ~125 W). The few business-oriented CRTs that are still available usually draw around 75-85 W, which many LCDs do as well.
So that "benefit with LCD monitors" is also questionable...
It's listed on the specs tables, although those are manufacturer figures. They're generally accurate, however, with a pure white output using more power than a black output. I'll see about adding a quick test of min/max/avg power use on future reviews, though - thanks for the suggestion.
Its a 27" compromise between the wider range of capabilities of the 30" and the smaller size of the 24"
Single link 1920x1200 with a built in scaler (and thus multiple inputs) but larger than the 24". 1920x1200 is also more manageable for gaming, as even with 8800 SLI some games just can't run fast and smooth enough at 2560x1600.
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... I think breaking the .3xx barrier is more of a psychological effect of seeing a "3" in the dot pitch spec more than anyone being truly disturbed by perceived graininess. Also, the 37" and 42" screens people love for their HDTVs are like .85mm pitch...
Anyone, could you maybe update later with the 2707WFP as well? I'm considering getting one, and the metal and glass trim would go well with my ATC111 and glass desk :)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have two questions. In the Gateway review you mentioned the Gateway did a good job of showing 16:9 movies with the black bars and that the Gateway did 1:1 very well. You also mentioned that you heard the Dell maybe didn't do it as well. So the first question is: did you try this in your test? I just bought the Gateway and like it (I opened the box last night, hours before you posted this review), but I plan on using it to watch DVD's while I work out, as well as using it as my main monitor.
The second question is does the Dell have auto-rotate software like Gateway's EzTune? I was told by a Dell rep that it doesn't and that you have to manually change the video drivers. I like to use rotate when working on a website. I can often fit an entire site up and down when rotated. At most I have to scroll very little.
Oh well, looks like I may have to beg BestBuy to take the FPD2485W back and head up to Costco for the Dell if the Dell does DVD's as well. Of course then the Dell would be a little more as I didn't pay tax or shipping for the Gateway (thanks, NH!) but would have to pay tax for the Dell (arghh to you, MA) making the $5 list price favor of the Dell become a $28.70 favor for the Gateway. I paid $679.99 for the Gateway, the Dell becomes $707.70 with tax.
Dell locks the scaling to what your drivers specify if you use DVI. ATI doesn't allow 1:1 scaling as far as I know, but they do allow a centered 1:1 image (i.e. black bars). NVIDIA has better options for changing scaling, although I have encountered bugs in the past with their 1:1 scaled option. The Gateway does have controls more like the old 2405FPW (where you could set scaling via the monitor rather than in drivers), but the colors aren't as good overall. In terms of DVD playback, neither display is really good (i.e. less than 3 delta E), and I don't know that subjectively I can see a big difference between the Dell and GW when watching videos. You can always disable DirectDraw to get the color profile applied (it disables overlay)... heh.
Oh, I forgot to say, I don't think there's an auto-rotate software with the Dell. Also, I'm not sure EZtune handles the auto-rotate - I thought it was a function of the drivers, but I could be wrong. I'll have to test it later... right now I need sleep! ;)
Thanks for the quick reply. I had a Gateway 21" before getting the 24" and can attest to the EzTune doing the auto-rotate. It's a very nice feature. Not a deal-breaker type of thing, but it's nice. When I consider the effort it will take to return the Gateway to get the Dell I start to think it probably ain't worth it, the effort, that is.
The 2407WFP REV A04 does 1:1 scaling. It looks like Jarred got an A03 or earlier for the review. I saw the 1:1 scaling option greyed out in the OSD but didn't see it directly mentioned in the review anywhere.
Jarred, you gotta include this kind of stuff in your reviews! Its what panel buyers want to know. Also was the 3007 the HC version or standard?
Otherwise nice review; the difference between the 2407 and the FPD2485W is spot-on with my own observations from using both first hand. The one test I felt was flawed was comparing the 2405 and 2407 for input lag. A better test imo would've been testing the 2407 to the FPD2485W or even a 2ms TN or S-IPS. IIRC the 2405 had input lag problems as well, so any lag wouldn't really show when comparing the two.
I'll see about taking a shot of the FPD2485W vs. 2407WFP for input lag - again, I've never had any issue, but maybe I'm just getting too old and my eyes are slow? :)
The LCD I have is revision A01, so some things have apparently changed. Sort of interesting, as I have only had the LCD for a few months... I would have expected something made more recently. I guess Dell hasn't made a point of pushing newer revisions, which isn't too surprising. The 3007 is the standard version as far as I can tell - wouldn't the new HC be a separate model, or are they simply phasing out the older IPS model and moving to a TN or whatever version instead?
I didn't think it would be that big of a deal either, but after having used both, it is slightly noticeable. Part of it might be psychological, but there's some pretty convincing tests out there that show the input lag can be pretty severe. Similar to your test, they had side-by-side screens where ammo counters were off by 1-2 rounds, objects were in different positions, and other anomalies.
Wow A01, surprised it didn't exhibit more serious banding problems. Maybe it was a refurb? The A01 and A02 were supposed to exhibit banding problems similar to the Gateway. But ya Dell is horrible with their panel lottery; if they shipped you guys a panel gratis it was probably a refurb or recycled panel. Makes a lot of sense shipping an old panel to a well-known review site!
The HC is being treated as a new revision afaik. Its been in Asian markets since the new year and has only become available in the US recently to select customers. I think it will eventually just replace the older versions in the channel when it reaches widespread availability. I'm also pretty sure its still IPS, it just increases brightness/contrast since that was the biggest knock on the 3007 apparently.
quote: the difference between the 2407 and the FPD2485W is spot-on with my own observations from using both first hand.
So you too would recommend the Dell over the Gateway? If so, would you say like Jarred that the difference is minimal or would you say it's more than minimal?
Forgot that it changed recently... not that it really makes a difference. Dell's text still says they're #1, but I've modified the text to reflect the current status of them being just behind HP.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
Back to Article
nilepez - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
It may be too big, but if you have a good 21" monitor, the 24" monitor isn't necessarilly providing more real estate. I've got an old Sony e540, and I use it at 1920x1440 @85hz. The desktop isn't much larger than a 24", but it is larger (and it could go higher, albeit at refresh rates too low for my eyes). For people who work with photos, AFAIK, the color space of LCDs is much smaller than a CRT (some Eizo displays not withstanding).JarredWalton - Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - link
I can't handle anything more than 1600x1200 on 21/22" CRTs - remember, the viewable area is actually 20", the same as a 20" LCD which runs 1600x1200. Obviously, others disagree and I won't pretend to have great eye sight, so 1920x1200 with a larger surface area definitely gets my vote. Or 2560x1600 with an enormous surface area. :)timbotim - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
Noooo! There is nothing wrong with a 100" display. LCD makers need to start making them now, (actually I think there are already some about this size but the resolution is wack) 7680x4800 (=WHUXGA) - sounds fine to me!strikeback03 - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
Building a viewing room and buying a good projector is probably less expensive.Xenoid - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
I am very familiar with most aspects of computers but I do not understand anything about new monitors or TVs. I've tried searching online but I can't find something simple to read that covers everything I could possibly want to know. Differences exactly between monitors, resolutions, comparisons to using a 1080p TV, etc. Maybe I'm just really dumb but I guess you can't learn without asking the dumb questions.timbotim - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
This is as good a place to start as any...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
Sooung - Sunday, March 4, 2007 - link
The 3007WFP does have an OSD, its just software based and has to be downloaded.http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/download...">http://support.dell.com/support/downloa...nt=1&...
Sooung - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
Screen shot here:http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/3007...">http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/s...3007WFP/...
Renoir - Sunday, March 4, 2007 - link
Could you confirm that the 30incher has a built in scaler that is responsible for scaling up HDCP content (1280x800 via single link DVI) to the panel's native res? The reason I ask is because I've seen some confusing info on HDCP content on 30inch monitor's. For example this discussion http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/1/1004359647...">of the HP LP3065 30inch LCDbrings up some conflicting info. It's mentioned that HP told the editor the display supports HDCP over dual-link dvi but another post says even if the monitor supports it no current graphics cards do. My problem with that was how would the HP monitor display single link HDCP content given that it doesn't have a scaler. Perhaps you could shed some light on the situation?JarredWalton - Sunday, March 4, 2007 - link
Unfortunately, I don't have a Blu-ray or HD-DVD drive at present, so I can't test HDCP. However, if you connect a single-link DVI cable you will end up with 1280x800 resolution, and I can definitely say that the monitor scales 1280x800 to fill the entire display. I see no reason why it wouldn't scale HDCP content. AFAIK all LCDs have built-in scalers; some of them simply have a way to disable it in the OSD.Renoir - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link
Yeah I imagine you're right about the dell being able to scale the HDCP content to full screen. Was just wandering given that the review of the http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2078203...">HP LP3065 specifically states that it doesn't have a video processor and also suggests neither does the dell 3007. Also the editor spoke to HP after I brought up the issue of HDCP only being supported via single-link DVI which I got from this site http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=288...">Few paragraphs down and they told him the monitor DOES support HDCP over dual-link. So it would appear that not all lcd's have scalers which is the source of my confusion.TheUsual - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
I have experienced the input lag. I had an Acer 24", I think it was the 2416WD. The lag was very noticible when playing UT2004. My brother's 19" Hyundai and my crt had no such problem. Maybe you could find someone on your staff who does notice the lag to report on this aspect.musicalfruit - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
How 'bout doing a shootoff between the Dell displays and the Apple Cinema Diplays?The Mac guys at work want ACDs because they're "better" than the Dells. And naturally, I want to save money by buying Dells. Any benchmarks to support either argument would be great!
JarredWalton - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
I actually asked for a review sample from Apple a while ago; they declined. I'd like to see if they are any better myself!aixkan - Thursday, March 15, 2007 - link
I have read many comparisons when I worked in Germany 2 years ago – while not perfect, the ACDs consistently were voted the best by the editors of a (neutral) major PC tech magazine (named "c't"), although they always remarked that they were substantially more expensive. Apple does seem to make a good product.I saw a side by side test of a 23" ACD beside the $5000 color calibrated EIZO CG221 at the CeBIT '05. The ACD was obviously not comparable at less than half the price, but you really had to look closely to see the differences.
TheUsual - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
My brother has the 1080P Westinghouse TV and I must say the pc looks stunning on it at 1920x1080. I would really like to see a comparison between the Dell 24" and the WH 37". The WH allows you to do PIP with TV and Computer and swap it back and forth. This is a great feature. I was checking out Sony LCDs and I don't believe they support PIP and the new Sharps do now have rbg inputs. So plese, a WH 37" review?orion23 - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
Yeah...Loving the new Anandtech with some cool reviews....
I should get my 24-inch Dell LCD by Tuesday / Wednesday of next week, which will replace a Dell 20.1 Inch LCD. Let's see how it does!
asusk7v001 - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
Thanks anandtech for a Comparison like thisHowever, for some people like me who want an "All In One" TV/PC monitor which been looking for 2 years now. Recently, there are companies start making 32" 1080p TV. I really would like to see how these TVs compare to PC monitors and some lower resolution
TVs such as 1366 x 768. Lastly, what are the best viewing distance for those TVs as PC monitors
Thanks
hwac
qwerty3788 - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
These monitors have a builtin power transformer that is noisy. I had to return my 3007wfp (tried two) because of the noise. If you are working in a silent environment I suggest you buy something else...http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=d5286df8...">Many others have reported the same problem, so it's not just me.
Zebo - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Another issue I have is when you say motion is fine with these and no one will notice. I think everyone will notice this:http://www.veoh.com/videos/v270495J23AR3RZ">http://www.veoh.com/videos/v270495J23AR3RZBetter yet: In your testing..
Try running Titan Quest, kill some enemies and hit the alt key to see what they have laying on the ground after death while you are moving/walking - I bet you can't read what those items are because of the blur with any PVA. You must stop to ID them.
I'm very picky and notice blur 100% of the time even with he fastest LCD's like LCD20WMGX2 and Viewsonics 922 but the PVA's inside the Dell and GW are the slowest tech out and it's not right to tell people they wont notice when most will. Forum thread complaints bear this out.
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Noticing motion blur is one thing; being bothered by it will vary by individual. You mentioned Titan's Quest... I played that for over 100 hours without ever being bothered by motion blur. Are the item names clearly readable while running around? Not necessarily, but I can make them out well enough, and the names are secondary to the attributes, so I always ended up checking out items in my inventory.As for that video link... if my picture of a picture was a bad representation of what it's like using a display in person - and I feel it is, even with a decent SLR and a tripod - a handheld camcorder floating around recording a display is ten times worse. Are we supposed to be judging the quality of the display output or the quality of the camcorder and its ability to record LCD screen content? Or maybe the ability of the cameraman to give a reasonable representation of the LCD content? Because it seems to me that it's focused *much* more on the latter two than on the LCD itself. You can see the camera adjusting brightness/contrast on the fly depending on how much light its getting.
Basically, I agree that motion blur can bother people. It doesn't bother me... at all. What I see when playing games just blends together into relatively smooth gameplay, and a delay of a few hundredths of a second is short enough that my old and decrepit eyes don't care. That's why I repeatedly recommend people try out a display in person, because what you get via a review online or in a magazine is a poor substitute for hands on experience. As I state on page 5:
"Most of us don't have a problem with the slight image smearing that occurs on these LCDs, and the camera actually makes it look a lot worse than what we experience in person -- we may have simply captured two frames for all we know -- but this is something that will vary by individual. If you know you are bothered by image smearing, try out a display in person to see if it's suitable for your needs."
Zebo - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I have no idea how you guys can't see the color shifting in those PVA's. Every PVA I have tried has had it 1905, 2405 Gateway 24 & 21 etc Color Shifing so bad, viewing straight on, one eye can actualky see something different than the other eye (because the eyes are at different angles) it gave me a headache.Viewing angles on all PVA's suck thats just a fact that other people don't notice will never change my mind compared to an IPS or CRT it's night and day difference.
Heres a good shot of what I mean
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/9021/dell2007wf...">http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/9021/dell2007wf...
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
PVA viewing angles are worse than some of the alternatives, but really how often do you *not* view the display head on? I seriously doubt that I'm ever more than 20 degrees away from a direct frontal view, and probable within 10 degrees in most cases. If that's not how you work with your PC, then other panels might be preferable. I've just never had any real concerns with viewing angles on the 24" LCDs I've tried. Laptop LCDs on the other hand... some of those are absolutely terrible, to the point where moving your head 6" can make the display almost illegible. That too is getting better, thankfully.Zebo - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
I view them straight on and they eyes see something different in each due to gamma/color shift. Look, even IPS isnt 178 degrees (or 90:P) like they advertise and starts to fade get shifty at around 35-45 degrees off center but PVA is literally about 5-10 - that's enough on a widescreen to be well over 5-10 degrees at the horizontal edges. Vertical color shift is evident raising my head only about 6" from about 20" away which is the difference between sitting up the chair vs. leaning back, a common position shift for a person using thier PC all day. Horizontal color shift is everywhere from 2-3 ft away. Every PVA panel has exhibited this problem and I know I'm sensitive to it as many don't notice but OTOH many do. TN lappy? don't get me started I just spent two miserable weeks in hotel with one.JarredWalton - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
My future laptop reviews are going to be running these sort of color tests and such as well. Of the few laptops I've tried so far, only the ASUS G2P was "good" in my opinion. Most others are a case of "I think I can live with it...." The problem is that unlike desktop LCDs, laptop LCDs frequently aren't bright enough. They focus more on conserving battery life, and while that might be good when they're unplugged, I'd just as soon forget about battery life when plugged in if it gives a better quality display result.timmiser - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
The idea of getting 7 more inches for $400 less by going the route of a 37" HDTV 1080p is more appealing to me. That would be big screen gaming and spreadsheet work that would be awesome! I think it would be great if AT did a comparison between those two monitors just because they have such a different approach.I would like to see how the 37" 1920x1080 resolution looks compared to the Dell 3007 native resolution. One complaint I have is that the text gets smaller when the monitor gets bigger due to the extreme resolution for the Dell. The text should stay the same or get a little bigger when going to such a big screen in my opinion.
For an extra $100, I can get a 37" 1080p HDTV with a digital tuner which would be cool to switch to an HDTV broadcast on the fly.
Deusfaux - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I find it weird the 3007-HC (high color) isn't mentioned, as it's been announced and some people have been able to order it over the phone. It's the 3007 but with a little bit faster response time and better color reproduction (92% of the gamut vs 70-some% on the older 3007).JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
When we can get one for comparison we'll see how it fares; right now Dell still seems to be shipping more of the "old" revision, and in testing we didn't have any complaints about the quality of the colors (once calibrated). We are trying to get other LCDs to compare with the current Dell offerings, though, so stay tuned....ViRGE - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Is Dell actually committed to keeping the 3007 an IPS panel? After the shenanigans that was the launch of the 2007, I'm afraid they'll jump ship to PVA/MVA as soon as they can, while all the reviews still reference the IPS panel.JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
There are rumors that the new HC panel revision is going to switch to a different type of panel, but for now they're still IPS as far as we're aware. Hopefully they stay that way, but if they change and quality drops, we'll do our best to cover the situation.Zebo - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
The HC is still IPS and even better this time covering 93% of adobe color gamet vs 72% past model and it's more overdriven making it faster. Inputs are still lame with DVI only.Right now only corp customers can get the HC.
There is a non technical review floating around the net with nice pics..hot hardware I think.
acivick - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
As nice as these monitors are, it seems to be that no one is really releasing any new 4:3 or 5:4 monitors anymore. Everything is widescreen. Sure, I think it's great when you're watching movies, but that's why I have a widescreen TV.I primarily use my PC for office work and games, neither of which really lend themselves to widescreen very well. Maybe a lot of newer games are coming out with widescreen support, but a good number don't offer it, at least officially.
Maybe I'm just a minority now, since every company seems to be focusing on it. Anyone else with similar opinions?
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I definitely prefer WS displays, even outside of gaming. The ability to easily put two full pages of text next to each other is nice, and it's one of the reasons I don't find portrait mode on larger WS LCDs to be useful. I just wish more games were properly (i.e. natively with proper aspect ratio) supporting widescreen modes. On smaller displays, however, I'm not as big a fan of WS - I'd prefer a 19/20" standard AR over a 19/20" WS display. Basically, if you can't get at least 1680x1050 I'd just as soon stick with a normal AR.yyrkoon - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Personally, I think it would be good to include power usage of LCD monitors you're testing. I know you guys have the equipment already, and this is one of a few reasons why people use LCD vs CRT. Is this information in the article aready ? IF so, I missed it . . .mongo lloyd - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
Lower power consumption with LCDs is mostly a myth nowadays when you're moving up to the bigger and/or brighter monitors. As you can see with the specs here, both these monitors eat as much as (in the case of the 24") and more power than (in the case of the 30") a 21-22" CRT (most commonly ~125 W). The few business-oriented CRTs that are still available usually draw around 75-85 W, which many LCDs do as well.So that "benefit with LCD monitors" is also questionable...
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
It's listed on the specs tables, although those are manufacturer figures. They're generally accurate, however, with a pure white output using more power than a black output. I'll see about adding a quick test of min/max/avg power use on future reviews, though - thanks for the suggestion.tmok2007 - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Sorry, the 3007WFP is selling for $1,350. Where can I find a 37" or 42" 1080p LCD TV for less than this?timmiser - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
The Westinghouse 37" model is available at Newegg for $999.JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Check Google/Froogle: Westinghouse makes a 1080p 42" that starts at around $1300, and the 37" is slightly less IIRC.exdeath - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Could we add the 2707WFP in there?Its a 27" compromise between the wider range of capabilities of the 30" and the smaller size of the 24"
Single link 1920x1200 with a built in scaler (and thus multiple inputs) but larger than the 24". 1920x1200 is also more manageable for gaming, as even with 8800 SLI some games just can't run fast and smooth enough at 2560x1600.
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... I think breaking the .3xx barrier is more of a psychological effect of seeing a "3" in the dot pitch spec more than anyone being truly disturbed by perceived graininess. Also, the 37" and 42" screens people love for their HDTVs are like .85mm pitch...
Anyone, could you maybe update later with the 2707WFP as well? I'm considering getting one, and the metal and glass trim would go well with my ATC111 and glass desk :)
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.
Resh - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link
Thanks Jarred!I wouldn't expect you to print and assess accuracy, but if you could do a photo-specific calibration and test for future reviews, that would be great.
Thanks again and keep up the good work!
BPB - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I have two questions. In the Gateway review you mentioned the Gateway did a good job of showing 16:9 movies with the black bars and that the Gateway did 1:1 very well. You also mentioned that you heard the Dell maybe didn't do it as well. So the first question is: did you try this in your test? I just bought the Gateway and like it (I opened the box last night, hours before you posted this review), but I plan on using it to watch DVD's while I work out, as well as using it as my main monitor.The second question is does the Dell have auto-rotate software like Gateway's EzTune? I was told by a Dell rep that it doesn't and that you have to manually change the video drivers. I like to use rotate when working on a website. I can often fit an entire site up and down when rotated. At most I have to scroll very little.
Oh well, looks like I may have to beg BestBuy to take the FPD2485W back and head up to Costco for the Dell if the Dell does DVD's as well. Of course then the Dell would be a little more as I didn't pay tax or shipping for the Gateway (thanks, NH!) but would have to pay tax for the Dell (arghh to you, MA) making the $5 list price favor of the Dell become a $28.70 favor for the Gateway. I paid $679.99 for the Gateway, the Dell becomes $707.70 with tax.
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Dell locks the scaling to what your drivers specify if you use DVI. ATI doesn't allow 1:1 scaling as far as I know, but they do allow a centered 1:1 image (i.e. black bars). NVIDIA has better options for changing scaling, although I have encountered bugs in the past with their 1:1 scaled option. The Gateway does have controls more like the old 2405FPW (where you could set scaling via the monitor rather than in drivers), but the colors aren't as good overall. In terms of DVD playback, neither display is really good (i.e. less than 3 delta E), and I don't know that subjectively I can see a big difference between the Dell and GW when watching videos. You can always disable DirectDraw to get the color profile applied (it disables overlay)... heh.JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Oh, I forgot to say, I don't think there's an auto-rotate software with the Dell. Also, I'm not sure EZtune handles the auto-rotate - I thought it was a function of the drivers, but I could be wrong. I'll have to test it later... right now I need sleep! ;)BPB - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Thanks for the quick reply. I had a Gateway 21" before getting the 24" and can attest to the EzTune doing the auto-rotate. It's a very nice feature. Not a deal-breaker type of thing, but it's nice. When I consider the effort it will take to return the Gateway to get the Dell I start to think it probably ain't worth it, the effort, that is.chizow - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
The 2407WFP REV A04 does 1:1 scaling. It looks like Jarred got an A03 or earlier for the review. I saw the 1:1 scaling option greyed out in the OSD but didn't see it directly mentioned in the review anywhere.Jarred, you gotta include this kind of stuff in your reviews! Its what panel buyers want to know. Also was the 3007 the HC version or standard?
Otherwise nice review; the difference between the 2407 and the FPD2485W is spot-on with my own observations from using both first hand. The one test I felt was flawed was comparing the 2405 and 2407 for input lag. A better test imo would've been testing the 2407 to the FPD2485W or even a 2ms TN or S-IPS. IIRC the 2405 had input lag problems as well, so any lag wouldn't really show when comparing the two.
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I'll see about taking a shot of the FPD2485W vs. 2407WFP for input lag - again, I've never had any issue, but maybe I'm just getting too old and my eyes are slow? :)The LCD I have is revision A01, so some things have apparently changed. Sort of interesting, as I have only had the LCD for a few months... I would have expected something made more recently. I guess Dell hasn't made a point of pushing newer revisions, which isn't too surprising. The 3007 is the standard version as far as I can tell - wouldn't the new HC be a separate model, or are they simply phasing out the older IPS model and moving to a TN or whatever version instead?
chizow - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I didn't think it would be that big of a deal either, but after having used both, it is slightly noticeable. Part of it might be psychological, but there's some pretty convincing tests out there that show the input lag can be pretty severe. Similar to your test, they had side-by-side screens where ammo counters were off by 1-2 rounds, objects were in different positions, and other anomalies.Wow A01, surprised it didn't exhibit more serious banding problems. Maybe it was a refurb? The A01 and A02 were supposed to exhibit banding problems similar to the Gateway. But ya Dell is horrible with their panel lottery; if they shipped you guys a panel gratis it was probably a refurb or recycled panel. Makes a lot of sense shipping an old panel to a well-known review site!
The HC is being treated as a new revision afaik. Its been in Asian markets since the new year and has only become available in the US recently to select customers. I think it will eventually just replace the older versions in the channel when it reaches widespread availability. I'm also pretty sure its still IPS, it just increases brightness/contrast since that was the biggest knock on the 3007 apparently.
BPB - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
I just saw your reply in the forums. Thanks!BPB - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
So you too would recommend the Dell over the Gateway? If so, would you say like Jarred that the difference is minimal or would you say it's more than minimal?HaZaRd2K6 - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Not anymore. I believe that title now belongs to Hewlett-Packard, does it not?
JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link
Forgot that it changed recently... not that it really makes a difference. Dell's text still says they're #1, but I've modified the text to reflect the current status of them being just behind HP.