Gizmodo
If you want glorious picture out of your PC, get ready to shell out some bucks because this is it. The Dell 3007WFP has a higher resolution than HD and there is a good chance it may even be bigger than most of your TVs—at least in my place it would be the biggest.
This thing is a behemoth. Thirty inches of pure pleasure—or pain, if you are a gamer—will be delivered at a 2,560 x 1,600 resolution with a 700:1 contrast ratio and 11ms response time. Get out the checkbook, this mammoth will run well over 2.5 G's, yo.
Review: Dell 3007WFP 30in TFT Monitor [Personal Computer World]
Comments
It is awesome!!
ohh.. dang it.. i'm in love! hehe..... might have to just get another 24" instead, 2.5G's is too much for a 30" LCD though...
Apple did it two years ago. Better.
BWGunner, Are aware that Apple and Dell have a tendency to use the same model of LCD panels?
So it's like, High Definition High Definition TV
Screw apple. Just because they use PC chips now dosnt mean you can compare them to anything else. Hahaha..
As for the Apple comment, where's your evidence for 'better'? The Dell claims a faster refresh time, though there's not much in it. To be honest, I suspect it's exactly the same panel; according to the article, the main difference is that this one's cheaper. (The price given is a UK one, meaning that the US price will be lower.) Agreed that this is not exactly an incredible innovation though...
While I don't think much of their PCs, Dell have been producing high quality monitors for a little while now, and from what I have seen, the high end models tend to outperform their Apple equivelants in group tests. Not to mention that they are far cheaper too. With an 11ms response time this one definately looks like it would blow the competition away for video playback. As for gaming, you better have one hell of a system to back this thing up. I still want it though.
The US price is 2199, and given Dell's habits, I'm sure you can get it for less (coupons, etc.) It's been available on Dell's small business site for a month or two.
Just so you guys don't get all crazy about the 11ms response times you really need to look at the response "curve." Most LCD manufacturers give you the "best" time but that is generally only for ONE point (the black to white I think.) They don't tell you anything about the gray to gray or black-gray, white-gray, etc. A super-duper response time, say 8ms, doesn't really matter if a monitor spends a majority of its "curve" at 40ms just to drop down to 8ms for the black-white. The company is going to claim "we have an 8ms monitor!" but the reality is the monitor sucks. Look at the whole curve and see how "flat" the curve is and what it's response times are across the board...not just the lowest time. That being said, Dell "usually" makes VERY good monitors. Their 19" digital LCD (1907FP, which I was fortunate enough to recently acquire) is an outstanding moonitor. "Typical" 8ms response time and they never get much above 15ms I think except for some "extreme" conditions. Just be careful when you hear some super low response time.
@ninjamurf: Good info.
The 30" Cinema Display is $700 less with the same size and resolution, but not as fast, with a claimed "typical" response of 16 ms.
Even at 24 fps, the human flicker fusion threshold is considered to be 16 Hz. With progressive scan and 60 Hz refresh rates, what is the extra $700 really buying you?
Even with the monitor you probably can't afford, you're still going to get fragged by 14 year olds who have way more time to play than you. By the way, Sally from purchasing called and she can't get Vista to print again so quit screwing around on Gizmodo and go see if you can take care of it.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?