The Dell 3007WFP - Dell brings the 30-inch LCD love
By Peter Rojas 
posted December 3rd 2005 10:25AM
posted December 3rd 2005 10:25AM
There's no official announcement yet, but apparently Dell is going to roll out a massive 30-inch LCD monitor to
compete with Apple's lust-inducing 30-inch Cinema Display. The 3007WFP is said to have a a resolution of 2560 x 1600
(that's WQXGA, baby!), a 14ms response time, 400cd/m2 brightness, 700:1 contrast ratio, support for HDCP, and a
built-in 4-port USB hub and 9-in-1 multimedia card reader. No price, but it should hit North America on December 21st,
which means you'll have to choose between buying Christmas presents for your loved ones or buying yourself one sweet
LCD panel.
[Thanks, Happy Hopping]
I am SO ditching my 2405FPW and buying this the moment a deal appears for this monitor!
49, that would be agreat answer for 37 except for that last part where he says if it's reasonably priced. I understand Apple was first, but it was and still is a out of most people's price range. Dell has a history of offering great monitors at a vastly discouinted price, even on their 24inch monitors. But I do understand where you are coming from.
50, what content will be in 1080p? The only thing that will be in 1080p on a regular basis in the next five years will be Blueray or HD-DVD. Content providers (cable or sattelite) compress the heck out of what little HD content there is now because they want to offer the most channels possible. In the end, it's a question of bandwidth, the providers are not going to drop 4 channels analog(example) to provide one 1080p channel (even though I could think of four channnels I would sacrifice for a good constant stream).
Personally, I am waiting for a WHUXGA display (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHUXGA). Also, I am waiting for the several thousand dollars I would need to buy it.
I'm wondering what response time, contrast and and color changes we can expect for the 2407FP. I would imagine they would be significantly better than the 3007WFP - the questions is how they differ from the 2405FP as I might consider getting one before the end of the year unless the 2407 is going to be better - I'm not that concerned about the HDCP as I'll use it mostly for gaming.
Thanks
Holy Sweet Mary Mother of G...Ooops, wrong site.
God-Damn! Now I need to start looking for a bigger desk as well :)
I bought a 2405FPW a few weeks ago when it was on sale, and I absolutely love it. 1920x1200 is so much nicer to look at then the 1024x768 on my 12" Powerbook's built-in screen, and it is a very well-designed and reasonably nice-looking monitor. I'm perfectly happy to have bought a monitor without HDCP support, since I have no desire to support the spread of DRM plague.
Niiiiice. I want!
#50, you mean like one of these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221
That screen makes me drool!! How come Dell has been releasing huge LCD panels lately? Seems like other companies are still staying with the 19" and 20" panels.
@Tarif: it's in the friggin' article! 14 ms.
In response to #41,
Forgive me for not acknowledging and bowing to the oh-so-masterful Apple, and it's ever so wondrous display...
Firstly, I never heard about it until this article, secondly, the Dell kicks it's ass in performance, thirdly, Dell "WILL" be cheaper than Apple's, because Apple always charges alot extra just for it's name, fourthly, I HATE Apple, and wouldn't buy a product of theirs if my life depended on it. ...They'd probably SUE me for looking at non-Apple approved images/video on it. (Don't tag me as a Microsoft zealot, I HATE them too ...as well as Sony!)
Another thing... Don't act like Apple INVENTED the 30" WQXGA LCD piece of glass... All large panel LCD substrates are made by one of 4 manufacturers for the rest of the world. ("Usually" Sharp, Seiko-Epson, Samsung, and LG-Philips)
It's all about the response time for me... I noticed the newer 21" Gateways are 8ms gtg, and of course, my ideal monitor would be 24-30" with an under 10ms response time... I agree with boe that I might wait to check out the 2407FP, praying that the response time is sub-8ms... I've been saving up either way, so I could buy a 3007WFP and two 2407FPs to go with it. w00t!
It's all about the response time for me... I noticed the newer 21" Gateways are 8ms gtg, and of course, my ideal monitor would be 24-30" with an under 10ms response time... I agree with boe that I might wait to check out the 2407FP, praying that the response time is sub-8ms... I've been saving up either way, so I could buy a 3007WFP and two 2407FPs to go with it. w00t!
#61, you're right Apple didn't make the glass, neither did Dell. I recall a 2003FPW comparing it to the 20" Cinema Display and finding the identical same screen used in both.
HOWEVER, the circitry in both was completely different, and the color cast on the Dell was off significantly.
So if true color makes any real difference to you (i.e. you're a good photographer or work with video), then the Apple is likely worth the price difference, otherwise gamers and basic surfers should stick with the Dell.
And since I have both the Apple and Dell 20" on my desk, I can vouch for the fact that there's a huge difference between one and the other.
Reply #64, give me a break! The Apple monitor's colour is way off as well. Most if not all monitors are substantially off. The only way to get proper colour on these monitors is with a legitimate hardware/software colour meter. Bottom line features/performance/price/design are what's important. I must include design because although most people might not appreciate Apple's technology they certainly have a great marketing company pushing wonderful industrial design.
D W, I remember that article (it was on anandtech) and you're significantly exaggerating the difference. As to why you have both on your desk is another question. You could've bought a 2405fpw for less, and it does look significantly better than the 2005fpw. I would have at least bought two of the same for uniformity.
Two 20" must be nice, but for those who haven't tried either monitor, I will say that the 1920x1200 on the 24" feels significantly less cramped than the 1680x1050 on the 20".
SCIENCE AND NATURE 101:
For anyone who does not know this...
The human eye cannot perceive noticable interruptions in refresh rates higher than 65Hz.
SO - anything higher than that is just pickiness based on an advertised number.
Movie theatres run at a mere 30Hz (Frames per second (FPS)). When't the last time your eyes hurt or bled coming from a movie???
I bet no-one even knows what (whatever)ms means.
Apple's display is 16ms (milliseconds or 0.016 seconds), which means it takes 0.016 seconds to draw the screen. THIS translates to 62Hz (Hertz). (Think of this also as FRAMES PER SECOND FPS) The calculation is: 1 (devided by) 0.016 seconds, will give you 62Hz.
Dell's display refreshes at 72Hz (14ms). This is more comfortable for the human eye. Anything faster IS better, but still a waste of money, and can't even be appreciated by the eye.
You can believe all the specs you want, but you can't fight nature! Don't get caught in the manufacturer's costly "Mine's-better-than-yours" numbers game.
8ms sounds real cool, but 125Hz just is NOT noticeable at all by the human eye.
Just like in Audio, the human ear can't hear distortion less than about 3%-4%, but people still will pay THOUSANDS more for a stereo because it has 0.00000000001% Total Harmonic Distortion.
It's your money people, spend it however you want. I just won't pay LOTS (especially THOUSANDS) more for un-noticeable gain.
The Dell monitor will be the monitor of choice for PC users, regardless of price. The Apple monitor has limited control of color adjustments from the PC (it's in the software). It's almost impossible to color correct an Apple monitor on the PC. Dell, on the other hand, will have controls that a PC user can adjust and correct. It will be far better for professionals.
Been waitin' for this guy.
to #67 "SmartITGuy"
First you state
The human eye cannot perceive noticable interruptions in refresh rates higher than 65Hz. SO - anything higher than that is just pickiness based on an advertised number.
Then later say
Dell's display refreshes at 72Hz (14ms). This is more comfortable for the human eye.
How can it be more comfortable if you cant perceive it?
You also said
Movie theatres run at a mere 30Hz (Frames per second (FPS)). When't the last time your eyes hurt or bled coming from a movie???
How about every fricken time they do a pan!!! You must have a poor set of eyes or something.
This argument happens far too often, when are you people going to get it through your head that the question how many frames per second can the eye see motion? is completely different than how many frames per second does it take to make motion fluid? For the first question, studies have shown some people can perceive motion beyond 120Hz.
to #67 "SmartITGuy" again
oh yeah I almost forgot, you are also wrong in your explanation of ms. ms is not the displays refresh... it the measurement of the pixels response time. ie; the average time required for the liquid crystal cell to go from inactive to active and then back to inactive. Refresh is how many times per second the computer or monitor changes the cells state.
Yea, smart guy, you can't just take the number the company propones for latency and turn that number into a hz measurement and expect to get a useful measurement. It doesn't work that way
As far as the Apple defender, I read that review too, and I am pretty sure they said the dell had significantly better image quality. I certainly remember them castigating the monitor's connection system to the pc which used a single thick cord to contain all the connecters (firewire, usb, video). Not only that, but it is hardwired to the back of the panel, so if anything happens to it (pins break off or something), you need to send the entire monitor to Apple for service. Real Smart!!!
Movies are shown at 60fps, not 30.
And your eye CAN perceive past the 65 hz limit. I remember having read this in a couple of places, but although your eye might now be able to "show" your brain each and every frame, it DOES tell your brain that it's fast and you perceive it as being generally smoother despite not seeing every frame. I'm probably saying it badly, but I do know that's generally how it works.
Sorry but it's well known fact that movies shot on film are shown at 24fps.
To post 67. You CAN tell the difference between a 16ms monitor and a 8ms monitor. Ever played high fps games? Plus, at 60 Hz, I get a headache and my eyes strain. I don't understand why you have to sound so bitter in your post. Weirdo.
btw... someone wrote about upgrading from a x850xt. yeah... u need to upgrade that... not going to do it. the max resolution on the vid card doesn't cut it. u'd need to upgrade to x1800xl or xt. such an expensive investment. pretty not worth it in my opinion. i'd say, way a couple yrs =P
Apple 30"ers are most likely LG panels and the first Dells may be LG also instead of Samsung, (according to Samsung anyway)
As far as referesh rates, on a crt I really notuice even a difference from 85 to 100 rates. On any LCD, I can't notice above 60.
Doesn't someone want to leak the price yet? ;)
@Steve.
I wanted to clear something after poster #76 misinformed regarding the X850XT. The X850XT will indeed power the 30" display from Dell or Apple. Actually, an X850XT with dual DVI will do just fine. I currently have an X850XTPE running a desktop resolution of 3,840 x 1200.
Not to mention; you can order a G5 and a 30" display from Apple and they will reccomend the X850XT.
SIGH... Now you got me started... :)
Who let in all the F'ing lawyers???
Yes, I should NOT have 'generalized' FPS as meaning refresh rates in Hz. TV is 30FPS shown on a screen being refreshed at 60 times a second (Hz). That's different from theatre which is REALLY 30FPS and therefore 30Hz. (no redraw required or done. ...at least not until digital streaming theatres are here)
#70 & #71 I can see you have nothing better to do than nit-pick, so fine, I'll respond.
Your 'peripheral' vision can notice flicker at 60-65Hz, but looking straight on, no. At 70+Hz that peripheral vision flicker is gone, so YES, 72Hz is more comfortable to the eye ...If you look at the screen through the corner of your eye. (What loser does that anyways?)
...Do you NOT watch TV anymore 'cause the refresh rate hurts too much to watch? Maybe YOUR eyes are bad!
Don't get me wrong, if I could buy a screen that'll do 1000"MHz" refresh rate for no more cost than 72Hz, I'd buy it, but I won't pay more for something the human body can't perceive.
And I'm not going to argue the cinema/theatre point because even if you read the comments there is conflicting statements on the FPS.
For all who have nothing better to do than chastise and nit-pick my technical explanations,
Time to bone up on your science and math...
Anything measured in ms "CAN" LEGALLY be rated or measured in Hertz! Check with your lawyer, science or math teacher. Go ahead, I'll wait...!
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is measuring one single event (like your pixel or LCD cell from off-to on to off) or many, redraws of that same pixel many times. Same crap, really! Look up PERIOD, and FREQUENCY in a dictionary/encyclopedia/science-book. One is directly related to the other.
Yes, the ms measurement in LCD's is referring to the transistion between off-on-off of a single cel, it is true for the WHOLE SCREEN! Since every pixel is addressed in parallel, EVERY pixel in the screen responds in that same (ms) 'period'. (Or else it would take MINUTES to redraw the screen).
I use 2048x1536 @ 62Hz each and every single day, (I don't wear any corrective glasses) and I'll bet my eyesight is better than any of you who insist that anything less than 100Hz is garbage.
I can't argue the motion video being better or worse at 60hz or not, my home computer plays GTA San Andreas just fine at 1024x768 at 80Hz with no eye-bleeding.
What I CAN argue is that the human eye/brain actually has a sampling rate or (refresh rate if you will). It is around 60-70Hz (in "MOST" humans). If it was faster or if the 'shutter' was constantly open, you would perceive EVERY moving thing on this planet as one big blur.
Theatres/TV works because the human brain can fill in information gaps missed by the eye. If your eyes hurt when watching these things, then perhaps your brain is having difficulty filling in the gaps.
Also - try turning your brightness and contrast down to less than half, and turn the room lights down. I bet it's the electron beam burning holes in your retinas that is hurting. (Also doubles the life span of your CRT monitor, and the E/L backlighting on LCDs).
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/brand/3007wfp?c=u
Has anyone heard of dell launching a faster version of 24" lcd monitor?
Has anyone heard about the launch of a faster version of the 24" lcd monitor?
I'm betting this will require a video card with dual-link DVI capability, just like the Apple 30" Cinema.
Unfortunately none of Apple's support HDCP yet...So they aren't future proof...I may need to add this to my Quad G5...Unless Apple can update their 30 by MacWorld...
Great! now when will it be in the UK? Im gonna get one, oh dear, need to upgrade my graphics card which means upgrading my board, RAM and Processor too.....bugger!!!!
82.12 Release Highlights:
* Adds support for GeForce 6800 GS AGP.
* Adds support for Dell 3007WFP panel. :)
* Mixed vendor support for NVIDIA SLI.
* TV-Out/HD-out support for NVIDIA SLI.
* Added support for VSync on Direct3D games when running NVIDIA SLI.
* Performance enhancements for dual-core CPUs.
* PureVideo high definition MPEG-2 de-interlacing support.
* Usability enhancements when connecting to an HDTV.
* Microsoft DirectX 9.0c and OpenGL 2.0 support
* For a full list of fixed and known issues please view the Release Notes.
ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/8...nxp_english.exe
So any update on the price? It's the 23rd and I don't see it listed on dell.com.
Here's one. Why dont you just get an ATI graphics card and use the S-Video or regular Vidio connecter to use your TV as your Computer screen. Me I am useing a 52" Plasma screen as my monitor.
I have the dell 24" and two 19" monitors and they are awsome,
The 24" is actually a brighter and more vibrant then the 19's I had to put the brightness at 1/2 percent
because it was so bright..
The ati card is the only way to go for the 2D desktop is clearer. I have both a ATI 1800xt and a nividia 7800gt and the ati looks clearer.
I will be getting this 30" and do away with my 3 monitor setup two 19's" one left-side and one right-side and the 24 in the center.
For three monitors I use the ati x1800 pci express card for 2 monitors and a ati pci 9550 128 for the third monitor leaving one extra vga for a fourth monitor..
Where is this monitor? anybody know? NOt on website...and im in the mood to spend some money. Was just about to pull the trigger on the 30 inch apple display when I caught wind of this dell. anybody know when it will be out?
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/brand/3007wfp?c=u
$2200 - ouch! best quote over ph was $2111 shipped. Hoped for better deal.
revise that:
best USA price I got from a rep now was $2000 shipped and no tax. Probelm is Canada sells at $2000 with a one yr. warranty. US ONLY sells with a 3 yr. warranty for $200 more. Dell USA said they can't sell as a one yr. warranty in the states.