Features and Specifications

As usual, we refer back to our earlier Gateway FPD2485W review for a brief glossary of terms we use in our display reviews. In theory, higher values in many of these areas indicate a better LCD panel, but marketing definitely influences the importance of many of the scores. We will see how the Dell 2707WFP rates in actual testing in a moment, but let's start with the manufacturer's specifications.

Dell 2407WFP Specifications
Video Inputs Analog (VGA)
DVI with HDCP support
Panel Type LCD Active Matrix TFT S-PVA
Pixel Pitch 0.303mm
Colors 16.7 million
Brightness 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1 (typical)
Response Time 16ms TrTf
6ms (GTG)
Viewable Size 27" diagonal
Resolution 1920x1200
Viewing Angle 178 vertical/horizontal
Power Consumption 95W typical
Power Savings 2W
Power Supply Built-in
Screen Treatment Ultrasharp
Height-Adjustable Yes - 3.5 inches
Tilt Yes - 30 degrees back/-5 degrees forward
Rotation No
Auto-Rotation N/A
Swivel Yes - 45 degrees left/right
VESA Wall Mounting 100mmx100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 24.96"x17.39"x9.57" (lowered)
24.96"x20.97"x9.57" (raised)
Weight w/ Stand 27.5 lbs
Dimensions w/o Base (WxHxD) 24.96"x16.23"x3.27"
Weight w/o Stand 17.5 lbs
Additional Features (4) USB 2.0 (USB connection to PC required)
9-in-2 flash reader (CF/SD/MS/SM/MMC)
Audio Optional Dell AS501
Limited Warranty 3 year parts/labor warranty standard
4 and 5 year warranty optional
Advanced Exchange policy
Pixel Defect Policy 6 or more total stuck pixels
3 or more clustered (one inch circle)
Panel Revision A00

The only other 27" 1920x1200 LCD we are currently aware of is the Samsung 275T, which was announced at CES 2007 but is not yet available. Another similar LCD that should be out in the relatively near future is the Viewsonic VX2835wm, which boasts a 28" screen size. While Dell could not officially confirm or deny this, all indications are that the 2707WFP uses a Samsung panel.

Most of the specifications are similar to what we expect to see in any of the best large LCDs. The response time, contrast ratio, and maximum brightness are all similar to the HP LP3065 and the Dell 3007WFPHC. Like both of those LCDs, the 2707WFP also uses a new CCFL (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Light) that improves the color gamut to 92% of the NTSC standard (versus 72% for the older CCFL). In theory, that should result in more vibrant and accurate colors, although in practice we found it relatively difficult to discern the difference. Imaging professionals might feel otherwise, of course.

The remaining options are nearly identical to the 24" 2407WFP. You get VGA, DVI, S-Video, composite, and component inputs; you can easily switch between the various inputs at the press of a button on the front of the display. You also get the standard flash memory reader and four extra USB ports that are present on all of Dell's larger LCDs. One feature that does get cut - most likely due to the larger panel size - is the rotate functionality that many 24" LCDs have.

On the surface, then, we basically have the Dell 2407WFP with a slightly larger panel and a new backlight that improves the color gamut. Alternately, we have the 3007WFPHC with more inputs, a smaller panel, and a lower native resolution. From a purely functional standpoint, either of those might be an accurate description. However, Dell has updated the design and styling quite a bit relative to their other xx07 LCD models.

We have previously covered Dell's warranty and support options, and nothing has changed in the past six weeks. Dell's high-end LCDs all come with a standard three-year warranty, including Dell's Advanced Exchange service. If at any point it becomes necessary for Dell to replace your LCD during the warranty period, they will ship out the replacement monitor to you. You can then unpack the new monitor, place your old monitor into the box, and ship it back to Dell. For a moderate fee you can also extend your warranty to four or five years. The pixel defect policy is also pretty reasonable, as we were informed by a support technician that they will replace an LCD if you have six or more dead pixels or three or more clustered together. All told, the display warranty policy is about as good as you can expect.

Index Appearance and Design


View All Comments

  • darklight0tr - Monday, April 09, 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. :) Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, April 06, 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 06, 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. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, April 06, 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 05, 2007 - link


    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 05, 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. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, April 05, 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 05, 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now