Dell 3007WFP: Appearance and Design

The 3007WFP is almost a direct clone of the 2407WFP, at least in terms of the outward appearance. It's basically the big brother -- and we definitely mean BIG! Most users already think that a 24" LCD is pretty large, but the 2407WFP is absolutely dwarfed by the 3007WFP.

Click to enlarge

Other than the change in size, most of our commentary about the 2407WFP applies to the 3007WFP. It's attractive and it comes with a base stand that allows a reasonable amount of travel (about four inches).

Click to enlarge

You get tilt, swivel, and height adjustment courtesy of the base stand. If you prefer, you can also remove the base stand and use a standard 100mm VESA wall mount. Unlike the 2407WFP, there's no ability to rotate the display. Considering the size of the panel, that is to be expected -- you would need a base stand with about six inches of vertical travel to even be able to accommodate the increased height of portrait mode.

Click to enlarge

The rear of the display is relatively nondescript, but all of the connection ports are facing downwards so they aren't immediately visible.

Click to enlarge

As far as input ports go, as mentioned earlier only a single DVI port is present and the display requires a dual-link capable graphics card in order to run at its native 2560x1600 resolution. The 3007WFP can still function as a USB hub, and the USB input as well as two USB ports are located on the back of the display. Besides the main power connection, a power socket for an optional speaker bar is once again present.

Click to enlarge

Like the 2405FPW and 2407WFP, the left side provides two additional USB ports along with a flash memory reader. The same flash memory types as the 2407WFP are supported via the 9-in-2 reader.

Describing the On-Screen Display for the 3007WFP is extremely simple: there is no OSD! At the bottom of the display are three buttons: power, increase brightness, and decrease brightness. There are 20 levels of backlight intensity, but there's no immediate indication of your current setting. This is definitely taking minimalism to an extreme, and while many of the other features usually present in an OSD are unnecessary considering there is only one video input available, we really would have liked to see at least a few more options.

Speaking of options, we would also really like to see more video input choices. Granted, no analog signals are going to be capable of driving 2560x1600 resolution without experiencing signal degradation, but the 3007WFP does a good job at scaling non-native resolutions so it still should have been possible to include a VGA connection as well as component inputs and simply limit the maximum resolution with those connections to 1920x1200. We would also really like to be able to run single-link DVI at resolutions above 1280x800.

As it stands, the 3007WFP is intended pretty much only for use with a computer. Considering a 30" LCD is larger than a lot of people's televisions, it seems a shame to limit the versatility of the display.

30 Inch vs. 24 Inch

Having used both of these LCDs for a while, we felt it might be useful to provide our impressions of the experience. We used 21" CRTs for a long time, but the upgrade to a 24" LCD still broght noticeably more screen area. Personally, I held out switching to LCDs due to concerns about refresh rates and pixel response times, but when I finally upgraded to a 24" LCD (the 2405FPW), I was extremely pleased with the result. Some people still have complaints about LCDs versus CRTs, but overall we feel the benefits far outweigh the negatives and all of us are more than happy using LCDs on a daily basis.

If a 24" LCD feels pretty large compared to a 21" CRT (despite the fact that it weighs about one third as much), a 30" LCD is absolutely huge. Provided your eyesight is good enough, you almost feel the need to sit back several feet further away from the computer. Of course, the native resolution is such that icons and text are actually slightly smaller than what they would be on a 24" LCD, and if you end up sitting close to the screen like most people a 30" LCD can almost feel too big.

Another potential problem with such large LCDs is that they can require a ton of graphics power in order to run games at their native resolution. A single fast graphics card like a Radeon X1900 XT is generally sufficient for running most modern games at 1920x1200, but until the launch of the GeForce 8800 series it simply wasn't practical to play most games at 2560x1600 without dual GPUs. Even if you've got the graphics horsepower, configuring some games to run at the native resolution can be a pain, although thankfully this is getting better with time.

24" LCDs are pretty expensive still, and 30" LCDs are even more so, so before going out and spending a lot of money on a large LCD you will definitely want to try one out in person. Provided you have the hardware, using a 30" LCD is a really enjoyable experience for gaming and multitasking, at least from our perspective. Not everyone feels that way, however, and considering the price we feel that the 22"-26" LCDs are currently the sweet spot. You could purchase two 24" LCDs for the price of a 30" LCD right now, and there are also plenty of desks where it simply isn't practical to try and use a 30" display. If you've got the money and desk space, however, a 30" LCD definitely won't disappoint -- it just might take a little time to get used to having such a huge monitor.

Dell 2407WFP: Appearance and Design Subjective Evaluation
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • 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...">
  • Sooung - Sunday, March 4, 2007 - link

    The 3007WFP does have an OSD, its just software based and has to be downloaded.">
  • Sooung - Monday, March 5, 2007 - link

    Screen shot here:">
  • 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">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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now