Features and Specifications

As a brief overview of some of the display features and specifications, we again refer back to our earlier Gateway FPD2485W review. How important the individual specifications are is up for debate, and what matters to one person may not matter at all to someone else. We will cover that aspect of the displays in a moment, but first here are the manufacturer specifications.

Dell 2407WFP Specifications
Video Inputs Analog (VGA)
Digital (DVI with HDCP support)
Panel Type LCD Active Matrix TFT S-PVA
Pixel Pitch 0.270mm
Colors 16.7 million
Brightness 450 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Response Time 16ms TrTf
6ms (GTG)
Viewable Size 24" diagonal
Resolution 1920x1200
Viewing Angle 178 vertical/horizontal
Power Consumption 57W typical
110W max
Power Savings 2W
Power Supply Built-in
Screen Treatment Antiglare with hard-coating 3H
Height-Adjustable Yes
Tilt Yes
Rotation Yes
Auto-Rotation Yes
Swivel Yes
VESA Wall Mounting 100mmx100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 22.04"x15.27"x7.68" (lowered)
22.04"x23.02"x7.68" (raised)
Weight w/ Stand 18.3 lbs
Dimensions w/o Base (WxHxD) 22.04"x14.35"x3.25"
Weight w/o Stand 14.3 lbs
Additional Features (4) USB 2.0 (USB connection to PC required)
9-in-2 flash reader (CF/SD/MS/SM/MMC)
Audio Optional Full-length Speaker Bar
(Integrated power connection to main panel)
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)

Dell 3007WFP Specifications
Video Inputs DVI-D Dual-Link HDCP
Compatible with Single-Link DVI for 1280x800 with HDCP
Panel Type LCD Active Matrix TFT S-IPS
Pixel Pitch 0.250mm
Colors 16.7 million
Brightness 400 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 700:1
Response Time 14ms TrTf
11ms (GTG)
Viewable Size 30" diagonal
Resolution 2560x1600
Viewing Angle 178 vertical/horizontal
Power Consumption 147W typical
177W max
Power Savings 3W
Power Supply Built-in
Screen Treatment Antiglare with hard-coating 3H
Height-Adjustable Yes
Tilt Yes
Rotation No
Auto-Rotation N/A
Swivel Yes
VESA Wall Mounting 100mmx100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 27.16"x18.49"x7.87" (lowered)
27.16"x22.00"x7.87" (raised)
Weight w/ Stand 35 lbs
Dimensions w/o Base (WxHxD) 27.16"x17.70"x2.93"
Weight w/o Stand 25 lbs
Additional Features (4) USB 2.0 (USB connection to PC required)
9-in-2 flash reader (CF/SD/MS/SM/MMC)
Audio Optional Full-length Speaker Bar
(Integrated power connection to main panel)
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)

Many of the specifications are nearly identical, which isn't too surprising given that both of the displays are made by the same company. The major difference of course is that the 3007WFP is larger; the viewable diagonal is 25% greater which works out to 56% more screen area. The 3007WFP also comes with a higher resolution (2560x1600 compared to 1920x1200), which means it has 77% more pixels. That also means the individual pixel dot pitch is going to be slightly smaller on the 3007WFP, resulting in a generally clearer picture.

The larger size of the 3007WFP doesn't come without drawbacks, unfortunately. First, bigger isn't always better, and there are definitely people out there that feel a 30" LCD is going to be too big sitting on their desk. Perhaps a bigger drawback is that the 3007WFP is extremely limited when it comes to video inputs: you get a single DVI-D connection and that's it! The DVI port is designed for use with dual-link the DVI devices, as dual-link is necessary in order to support the native 2560x1600 resolution. Single-link DVI support is also available, but while single-link DVI is technically capable of supporting a 1920x1200 resolution the 3007WFP only supports a maximum 1280x800 resolution when using single-link DVI.

That brings us to perhaps the biggest flaw of the 3007WFP: HDCP support. While the LCD does include HDCP support, HDCP was unfortunately not created to work with dual-link DVI. If you want to use the 3007WFP to view HDCP protected content, you may find yourself forced to use a single-link DVI connection, which means you would only be able to run the display at one fourth of its native resolution. That's a pretty serious flaw, at least for those users who are interested in HDCP content. Considering the price, anyone interested in a large HTPC setup would probably be better served by a 37" or 42" 1080p HDTV -- not something you would really want sitting on top of a desk, but great for viewing movies.

The 2407WFP also features HDCP support, but the lower native resolution and use of single-link DVI avoid most of the problems associated with its larger sibling. The 24" display also includes far more connection options: DVI, VGA, S-Video, component, and composite inputs are all present. In terms of features, the only difference between the new 2407WFP and the older 2405FPW is the inclusion of HDCP support. Specifications on the 2407WFP are also somewhat improved and the appearance has been changed slightly, but otherwise there's not a huge difference between the old and new 24" Dell LCDs.

One of the good things about Dell's high-end LCDs is that they 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 same 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.

Index Dell 2407WFP: Appearance and Design
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • mongo lloyd - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link

    As for the .303mm pixel pitch, keep in mind that a 19" 4:3 1280x1024 screen that I would wager is the most common LCD in use right now is like .295mm and I never heard anyone complaining about the 19" displays...

    Well, you've heard one now. Out of ALL LCDs (minus the IBM T221, since that one is... a bit... special), the only panels I could ever begin to consider (and that's ignoring all the other faults with LCDs -- CRTs still beat them, and probably always will, if you ask me (at least as long as they use DVI with crappy refresh)) are the 30" 2560x1600 and 20.1" 1600x1200 monitors. I consider 1600x1200 on a good 19" CRT to be the optimal resolution, and the dot pitch on pretty much all LCDs are pitiful in comparison -- and the dot pitch is even more important on LCDs since the pixels are square and thus very sharp.

    Also, you probably meant 5:4, not 4:3.
  • exdeath - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link

    I love my F500R 21" .22mm AGP @ 1600x1200 CRT.

    But when it dies... there is no getting a replacement.

    I have dual 1905FP Dell 19" LCDs at work, 1280x1024 5:4 .295 pitch and its quite sharp. They seem to be the standard by which I judge other LCDs by since that is what I am used to staring at all day. The higher pitch doesn't bother me at all.

    In fact, being a graphics programmer and having a close up eye for pixel perfect detail, I tend to prefer images with sharp square pixels.
  • kmmatney - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link

    They do make laptop screens that are 15.4" and 1920 x 1200 resolution, which is a pretty amazing pixel pitch. So LCD dektop monitors are easily capable of better pixel pitch, there must just not be a market for them yet.

    Everytime I try 1600 x 1200 on a 19" CRT, it looks like crap, and I;'ve tried quite a few CRTs.
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, March 3, 2007 - link

    Funny thing is, I go the other way. Laptop LCDs tend to have text that gets a bit difficult for me to read now. Oh, I can do it, but even 17" 1920x1200 displays are a bit tiny text/icons. I don't think I'd like a 15.4" 19x12 LCD. To each their own, of course.

    As for the rest, I fully agree that 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT looks pretty lousy - too small again, and I *love* the perfectly square pixels of LCDs. 20" (viewable) CRTs are required for proper 16x12 resolution, in my opinion. Refresh rates are definitely the one issue I have with LCDs - running CRTs at 100 Hz made it so I wouldn't notice shearing due to vsync, and you can't do that with LCDs. To counter that, though, all the pincushion, stretch, rotate, etc. necessary to get a CRT to properly fill the screen always irritated me. Heck, I'd even take an analog connection LCD over CRTs!
  • exdeath - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link

    "Its a 27" compromise between the wider range of capabilities of the 30" and the smaller size of the 24" "

    Oops that should have been "limited range of capabilities of the 30"
  • JarredWalton - Friday, March 2, 2007 - link

    I haven't used a 2707WFP yet, but I will see if I can get one sent for review.

    Take care,
    Jarred Walton
  • 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.

  • 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now