DailyTech - Dell 2007WFP, 2007FP Details Leaked Early

Submit News

Hardware Dell 2007WFP, 2007FP Details Leaked Early
Kristopher Kubicki (Blog) - March 10, 2006 3:01 AM

58 comment(s) - last by KristopherKubi.. on Mar 16 at 6:30 PM

The 2007WFP, featured above, uses a wide aspect ratio

Gentlemen, start your wallets

Scott writes to tell us that Dell's product support page for the UltraSharp 2007WFP and 2007FP accidentally showed up a day or two early. The displays, which were originally supposed to be announced a few weeks ago, are the newest flagship designs from the largest LCD leader of 2005.

Both new displays feature a modern look compared to the older units, but do not receive much of a bump in way of specifications -- this is actually a good thing since we know Dell isn't lying to us about the panel stats, unlike other manufacturers.

	2007WFP	2007FP
Panel	20.1"	20.1"
Pixel Pitch	0.258mm	0.255mm
Luminance	300 nits	300 nits
Constrast Ratio	800:1	800:1
Response Time	16ms	16ms
Resolution	1680 x 1050	1600 x 1200
Inputs	DVI, D-sub, S-Video, Composite, USB	DVI, D-sub, S-Video, Composite, USB

The Dell 2007FP is a 4:3 LCD display boasting very similar stats to the 2007WFP, with the major difference being the aspect ratio and resolution.

Dell still has not announced a successor to the widely popular 24" 2405FPW from last year. Forum speculation suggests that the company may instead release a 23" version as the panel provider for most of Dell's displays, LG Philips LCD, does not produce a 24" model. The 24" panel used in the 2405FPW display is from Samsung.

At the time of publication, neither display was available for purchase. However, Dell typically waits for stock of the existing models to sell out before replacing the new models. Over the last several display launches from Dell, the price did not increase between display generations.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

16:9?

By bnme on 3/10/2006 1:35:54 PM , Rating: 2

Hmmm... Why do they make computer monitors @ 16:10 and not 16:9 (like most wide-screen TV's)?

Or they want to keep the market seperate?

RE: 16:9?

By GGRR on 3/10/2006 2:46:41 PM , Rating: 2

I would say because the primary purpose of comp displays is for productivity, not entertainment. I think 16:10 is better, cause you get 16:9 with small black bars, and the extra vertical space to work with.

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By masher2

(blog) on 3/10/2006 5:54:27 PM , Rating: 2

The 16:10 format was designed to allow display of a 16:9 image, along with enough space for display of a playback control bar.

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By masteraleph on 3/11/2006 8:25:50 PM , Rating: 3

Actually, that's not why at all.

16:10, unlike 16:9, accomodates both 4:3 and 16:9 very well. Example:
With 16:10, you end up with a 1920x1200 panel rather than 1920x1080 (16:9). With 1920x1200, you can easily display something at 1600x1200 if need be (leaving the sides blank), with perfect pixel correlation. On the other hand, at 1920x1080, the highest res. you could go in 4:3 would be 1400x1050. So by adding 120 verticle pixels, you get the ability to have an additional 150 pixels in height and 200 in width for 4:3.

This is also the reason for the 2005fpw/2007wfp being 1680x1050. Whereas some are complaining that there should be an extra 30 pixels, the real point is that 1400x1050 is a standard resolution. If the screen was 16:9, it would be 1680x945. You therefore miss even 1280x960 as a possibility, can go with 1152x864 if whatever you're using supports it, but are otherwise dropping down to 1024x768. Without the extra 105 pixels in height, you'd miss out on either 248 in width and 186 in height, or more likely 376 in width and 282 in height. And that, my friends, is a BIG difference.

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By PLaYaHaTeD on 3/11/2006 11:48:30 PM , Rating: 2

You're my hero

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 3/12/2006 12:06:09 AM , Rating: 2

Well put.

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By Trevorm7 on 3/12/2006 12:12:15 AM , Rating: 2

No explain why the made 17" and 19" lcds have a 5:4 aspect ratio.

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By Trevorm7 on 3/12/2006 12:12:49 AM , Rating: 2

Ahem, need edit button lol

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By masher2

(blog) on 3/15/2006 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 2

> "Actually, that's not why at all."

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Furthermore, computer and laptop widescreen displays are in the 16:10 aspect ratio both physically in size and in pixel counts, and not in 16:9 of consumer televisions, leading to further complexity. This was a result of widescreen computer display engineers' uninformed assumption that people viewing 16:9 content on their computer would prefer that an area of the screen be reserved for playback controls or subtitles , as opposed to viewing content full-screen...

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By Jynx980 on 3/16/2006 4:53:25 AM , Rating: 2

Can you link to that article?

Parent

RE: 16:9?

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 3/16/2006 6:30:14 PM , Rating: 2

Keep in mind, that is wikipedia though. I have talked to engineers from LPL and DisplaySearch that pretty much confirmed the reasoning for going with 16:10 were consistent with what masteraleph wrote.

Parent

16ms response time?

By shabby on 3/10/2006 7:56:31 AM , Rating: 2

Is this a joke?

RE: 16ms response time?

By Phillips on 3/10/2006 8:30:00 AM , Rating: 2

No, the 16ms is not a joke. Dell has an established history on bring fast and affordable panels to the masses. This would not be the first time they have done a 16ms panel. The 2001FP was the first, and it is amazing.

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By NerV04 on 3/10/2006 8:43:50 AM , Rating: 1

i dont know much about lcds, but isnt 16ms kind of slow for gaming? i thought that you needed like 4ms or 8ms to be fast..

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By A5 on 3/10/2006 9:40:59 AM , Rating: 2

The response time issue is mainly dependent on how sensitive your eyes are - I cannot notice any effects when I'm playing BF2 on my 25ms Samsung, so there's really no way to know until you try it.

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By Fenixgoon on 3/10/2006 10:08:10 AM , Rating: 2

isn't 17ms generally considered the breaking point for ghosting?

at any rate, 16ms isn't bad at all

<--- wishes he had a 2005FPW or 2007FPW

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By pnosker on 3/11/2006 4:39:34 PM , Rating: 2

The response time is measured differently by different manufacturers. It is likely that all of your 4/8ms displays have the exact response time but measured in a different way. Ie. Grayscale black to white vs black to white to black

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By KorruptioN on 3/10/2006 9:43:30 AM , Rating: 2

Only the marketers want you to think that 16ms is bad. I've got a 1905FP, rated at a conservative 20ms, and I think it is pretty decent for gaming, and I came from a CRT too.

Dell had better fix the backlighting issues seen on the 2005FPW. I prefer PVA panels over S-IPS panels for the most part.

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By AnnihilatorX on 3/13/2006 8:24:23 AM , Rating: 2

yeah I've never experence ghosting on my Dell 2005FPW unless at simulated tests of an extrememly fast object moving on the screen

Turning on vertical sync helps game image tearing problem a lot
and I've never noticed any ghosting since

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By yacoub on 3/10/2006 10:30:13 AM , Rating: 2

yeah like the "amazing" input latency on the 2405. S-IPS is the only way to go for gaming LCDs.

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 3/10/2006 8:01:40 PM , Rating: 2

The 2405FPW is actually not a SIPs display. It is the only Dell display that uses a PVA Samsung monitor.

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By yacoub on 3/10/2006 10:55:00 PM , Rating: 1

Please read more carefully. No one claimed it was S-IPS. It's _VA and _VA panels (PVA, MVA, etc), while often exhibiting the nicest color reproduction, often fall victim to input lag when running at high res widescreen resolutions like modern 23" and up LCDs use.

Parent

RE: 16ms response time?

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 3/11/2006 8:25:38 PM , Rating: 2

I'm not disagreeing with you -- I just thought i'd clarify.

Parent

Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By bob661 on 3/10/2006 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 2

Anyone know?

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By bob661 on 3/10/2006 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 2

I meant "panel".

Parent

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By The Cheeba on 3/10/2006 10:10:28 AM , Rating: 2

It's official. In true slashdot fashion, dailytech readers have stopped reading all articles.

It's right in the 3rd paragraph unless they changed it since you read it.

Parent

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By The Cheeba on 3/10/2006 10:10:42 AM , Rating: 2

...err 2nd i meant.

Parent

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By bob661 on 3/10/2006 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Forum speculation suggests that the company may instead release a 23" version as the panel provider for most of Dell's displays, LG Philips LCD, does not produce a 24" model.

I read it before posting. This doesn't say that the 2007's are made by LG Philips. Since they're talking about the 24" in this sentence, my frst thought would be that LG Philips make the 24" not the 20.1. Besides, Samsung makes most of the 20.1's (including the 2001FP) on the market, I just wanted to know if Samsung was still the manufacturer for this panel.

Parent

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By xtknight on 3/10/2006 6:12:49 PM , Rating: 2

The 2001FP, 2007FP, and 2007WFP all (extremely likely for last two) use panels from LG Philips LCD.

Parent

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By bob661 on 3/10/2006 7:34:49 PM , Rating: 2

Thank you sir for that info.

Parent

RE: Who makes the panle in the 2007's?

By The Cheeba on 3/10/2006 8:03:16 PM , Rating: 2

Click the links in the article that say "panel stats"

Parent

Price of the 2001FP?

By RobFDB on 3/10/2006 4:09:25 AM , Rating: 2

I wonder if Dell are going to drop the price of the existing 20" range to help shift the stock. Knowing Dell thought they'll probably keep selling it at the premuim price and then just slip the 2007 range in. *sigh*

RE: Price of the 2001FP?

By BillyBatson on 3/10/2006 4:48:58 AM , Rating: 2

well seeing as they normally have the dell coupons available for their lcd's (i got my 2005WFP for $404 shippred) they might go that route to get rid of the, or offer discounts with PC orders.

I am sure this is going to be a fully HDCP compliant monitor?

Parent

RE: Price of the 2001FP?

By maxusa on 3/10/2006 5:53:50 AM , Rating: 2

I read on the forums that the 7-series might support HDCP. However, going through the user manual, I did not find any reference to HDCP. The datasheet mentions nothing. Guess not, huh?

Parent

RE: Price of the 2001FP?

By ElFenix on 3/10/2006 9:28:39 AM , Rating: 2

the datasheet for the 3007 specifically mentions HDCP, so it's glaring in its absence here.

Parent

RE: Price of the 2001FP?

By Googer on 3/11/2006 1:49:29 AM , Rating: 2

The Samsung SyncMaster 320P is HDCP complient with HDMI connections.

Parent

RE: Price of the 2001FP?

By Questar on 3/10/2006 10:06:06 AM , Rating: 2

You can get the 2005FPW for $354.
http://www.slickdeals.net/#p7183

Parent

16 ms... probably slow res time

By Blackraven on 3/10/2006 10:21:48 AM , Rating: 2

Considering that I've seen the Bravia V-series of Sony and it's a similar LCD from Samsung use 8 ms, isn't this kinda slow in response time?

Parent

16:10

By ogreslayer on 3/10/2006 7:28:48 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
The Dell 2007FP is a 4:3 LCD display boasting very similar stats to the 2007WFP, with the major difference being the aspect ratio and resolution

That looks like a 16:10 guys, aspect ratio is 1680x1050 even the shape tells you this. why would Dell after just championing widescreen displays just up a do a 180 on their premium line

RE: 16:10

By ogreslayer on 3/10/2006 7:29:43 AM , Rating: 2

meant resolution was 1680x1050... you guys need to add an edit button

Parent

RE: 16:10

By ogreslayer on 3/10/2006 7:31:07 AM , Rating: 2

Oh... my bad there are 2 monitors... like I said edit button... *sighs*

Parent

RE: 16:10

By DigitalFreak on 3/10/2006 7:52:50 AM , Rating: 2

Or maybe you should read the entire article before posting. :0)

Parent

heh

By yacoub on 3/10/2006 10:28:04 AM , Rating: 2

The Dell 2007WFP - 30 lines short of 1080. Why don't they simply make it a 21" widescreen instead of 20" and thus gain the extra lines of vertical resolution? :[

RE: heh

By Spoelie on 3/10/2006 10:41:27 AM , Rating: 2

coz HD is 1920x1080, not 1600x1080

Parent

RE: heh

By yacoub on 3/10/2006 10:58:56 PM , Rating: 2

The point is that the HD we're talking about is 1080, not 1050. Thus they should make widescreen monitors starting in resolutions that offer at least 1080 pixels in the vertical native resolution if they want people to buy it for HD content.

Sure, 720p is doable but then you're wasting 350 lines of vertical resolution on that x1050 monitor (that equates to black bars nearly a quarter of the height of the screen), instead of simply upping the native resolution enough to include 30 more vertical lines so 1080 HD would fill the entire screen with no bars and no downsampling.

Parent

RE: heh

By tayhimself on 3/13/2006 12:48:58 PM , Rating: 2

God some people are stupid beyond belief. I hope you do realize that HDTV is not simply defined as a horizontal resolution. So a 10x1080p while being considered HDTV in your opinion is not HDTV.

What the previous poster is saying you need 1920 vertical lines (in traditional TV parlance or 1920 pixels in the horizontal direction in monitor speak) to go with the 1080 horizontal lines.

So if you have have 1680 you need an additional 240 vertical lines to go with the the 30 more horizontal lines of resolution.

Parent

good news...8-bit

By arswihart on 3/10/2006 9:23:51 AM , Rating: 2

I think I remember rumors that these new monitors would get 6-bit panels, but it looks like they're sticking with 8-bit, which is a good thing I think.

Still the response time is the same as the previous generation right? Wonder what the difference will be besides external appearance.

RE: good news...8-bit

By KorruptioN on 3/10/2006 9:44:30 AM , Rating: 2

Once you've used a good 8-bit panel (*heart* my 1905FP), seeing any 6-bit panel is pretty disappointing.

Parent

RE: good news...8-bit

By Spoelie on 3/10/2006 10:10:28 AM , Rating: 2

hmm, I was hoping it would now match the 2405fpw specs (1000:1 contrast ratio, 500cd/m² but it doesn't) :/)

Parent

My 2005FPW...

By CZroe on 3/10/2006 1:17:50 PM , Rating: 2

My 2005FPW has a bad USB hub. If Dell truely waits until it's out of stock to sell the newer model, I think I'll wait to RMA it. :) Sooner or later, refurb 2007WFPs are bound to be the warranty replacement model.

HDCP/Vista support?

RE: My 2005FPW...

By broly8877 on 3/10/2006 1:23:12 PM , Rating: 2

I'm not sure why people are worried about Vista support, any monitor that you can use with Windows XP, you can use with Vista.

HDCP compliance is not required for Vista.

HDCP protected media will need a HDCP compliant card and monitor to play it, or at least play it at full resolution/quality.

Parent

IMHO

By logeater on 3/13/2006 6:38:37 PM , Rating: 2

Monitors are good and all, but I think a racing car or something would rock. Especially if it had racing stripes on the side.

RE: IMHO

By caboosemoose on 3/15/2006 1:52:04 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, dig those racing stripes.

Parent

Something seems wrong

By electriple9 on 3/12/2006 9:08:33 PM , Rating: 1

Arent the current dell widescreen lcds 16ms for refresh. Should the new ones have a better refresh rate.
Thanks

RE: Something seems wrong

By AnnihilatorX on 3/13/2006 8:31:35 AM , Rating: 2

16ms is the response time, not refresh rate
Refresh rate should be 60Hz

Parent

Backlights

By ATWindsor on 3/10/2006 6:44:47 AM , Rating: 2

Hopefully there will be abit less backlights in theese new versions.

Finally!

By broly8877 on 3/10/2006 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 2

Since the 2005 is currently so cheap, I hope this means they're purging remaining stock.

Wait, is it just me, or is HDCP compliance no where to be found?