Dell 2709W 27" TFT Resolution question?

keogh · 1 Nov 2008 at 12:54

Howdy,

I currently have a Dell 2407 and a Dell 3007 for my everyday use.

Well the 2407 will be going, and I want to replace it with another <30" screen, and am looking at the Dell 2709W 27" which has a native res of 1920x1200 which is perfect.

But my question is, the lowest res to get 1920x1200 is a 24" (right?) and we all know that tft's don't scale well, so if this screen is 27" and the native res is 1920, then it will be scaling it right? Well how does it look? Does a 27" screen at 1920x1200 look rough?

I want the bigger screen, but not if it will bodge the crispness of the display up.

Any advice appreciated!

thanks

HornyRhino · 1 Nov 2008 at 13:20

not sure as im in the process of purchasing a large monitor but from the weeks of forum reading apparently it better on the eye (fatigue wise) as the fonts and slightly bigger and easier to read over long periods but as to the scaling issue? all i know about scaling is that the lower resolution are done by a inbuilt scaler chip on panels but most now leave it to the graphics card which is with new gpu cards better (nvidia that is ...ati im not sure)

what the dell 30" like for games? any issues?

pros....
cons...

was tempted as they crop on auction sites regulary for low prices.

keogh · 1 Nov 2008 at 13:28

The 30" is beautiful with games, but as it runs at 2560x1600, you need a beefy machine to run it. My rig is pretty good, but it still struggles with highend games (namely Crysis) as max... and I'm not even including AA.

So if you got the machine to run the games at that res, then it really does look great. I remeber the first time I booted a game up on my 30" (coming from 1920x1200) I was like WOW, it looked great... but I get tired of having to knock settings down all the time cos the high res.

HornyRhino · 1 Nov 2008 at 13:45

thanks for the info m8

i did have the dell 27" on my list but most reviews and some users on here show it got too much lag for games so ended now looking for 26" models namely
LG W2600HP and Nec LCD2690WUXi except now i been told theres a version 2 of the Nec but cant find any details of its release.

oh well..

hope you find what you after...

regards

HR

wombraider · 2 Nov 2008 at 13:51

I have a 27" dell , it looks great @ 1920 x 1200 ( it sits beside my 2407 )

Text looks great , games look amazing.

I also owned 3 dell 3008 , they were ok ( apart from the 3 being faulty)
2560 x 1600 is a hell of a res to game at tho and you need an uber gfx card
to try and drive a display of that size.

On desktop tho the 30" is amazing , but icon fonts etc look really really small and
it takes a bit of getting used to.

I gave up trying to get a working 3008 and settled on the 27" instead.

TheOtherOption · 2 Nov 2008 at 14:02

Good to see some positive reviews for the 2709 as I was looking at it as a replacement for my 2001fp !

Jimbo Mahoney · 3 Nov 2008 at 12:08

keogh said:
But my question is, the lowest res to get 1920x1200 is a 24" (right?) and we all know that tft's don't scale well, so if this screen is 27" and the native res is 1920, then it will be scaling it right? Well how does it look? Does a 27" screen at 1920x1200 look rough?

It's not scaling because its native resolution is 1920 x 1200.

keogh · 3 Nov 2008 at 12:14

Jimbo Mahoney said:
It's not scaling because its native resolution is 1920 x 1200.

Ok it may not be scaling as such, but its gotta be stretching the image in some way, cos if 1920x1200 fits on a 24", then you would have nice black borders around the 27" screen cos of the extra 3" in the screen. So it must stretch it to fit that space!

You know what I mean.

TheOtherOption · 3 Nov 2008 at 12:18

keogh said:
Howdy,
I want the bigger screen, but not if it will bodge the crispness of the display up,
thanks

The pixels will be slightly larger so will still look fine compared to a 24" with smaller pixels - you shouldn't see much difference as far as I am aware.

Viewsonic now have a 1920*1080 22" screen available so you can go lower than 24" but it has far fewer inputs than an equivalent 24" screen might.

keogh · 3 Nov 2008 at 12:23

TheOtherOption said:
The pixels will be slightly larger so will still look fine compared to a 24" with smaller pixels - you shouldn't see much difference as far as I am aware.

Viewsonic now have a 1920*1080 22" screen available so you can go lower than 24" but it has far fewer inputs than an equivalent 24" screen might.

Ok cool, and I wouldn't touch a viewSonic screen again if my life depended on it, not after all the faults I've had with previous models!

gt_junkie · 3 Nov 2008 at 12:26

keogh said:
You know what I mean.

Nope - just bigger pixels - no scaling!

1920x1200 is the same on varios screens rated at that res. You can get 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 and 28" screens with 1920x1200. The only difference with each screen is the pixel size.

Smaller screen = smaller pixels.

gt

J1nxy · 3 Nov 2008 at 13:22

I just changed from a 2707 to 2709 and love the image from both of them. There maybe some input lag but to be its undetectable. I use mine with a PC, Macbook and PS3 and the image always looks great from any of them.

mMori · 26 Dec 2008 at 13:39

J1nxy said:
I just changed from a 2707 to 2709 and love the image from both of them. There maybe some input lag but to be its undetectable. I use mine with a PC, Macbook and PS3 and the image always looks great from any of them.

I agree with this, my 2709 is stunning compared to my old samsung 22"bw.