New 20-inch Dell display arriving September 12

The guys over at Engadget have word that Dell is preparing another refresh of its popular flagship 20.1" wide-screen monitor. After last year’s UltraSharp 2007WFP, this year’s model will be reportedly dubbed SP2008WFP. The monitor will arrive on September 12, sporting a silver bezel, a built-in two-megapixel camera, and a brand new display panel.

The display will feature the same 1680×1050 resolution and 300cd/m² luminosity as the 2007WFP, but it will have a response time rating of just 2ms and a contrast rating of 2000:1. For reference, the 2007WFP is rated for a response time of 16ms and contrast of 800:1. Engadget has some pictures of the SP2008WFP over here.

Comments closed
    • spartus4
    • 14 years ago

    I have the 2007WFP. I like the black border. The new one has a silver border that doesn’t look at all appealling. My whole system is black and the 2007WFP fits in perfectly. I don’t know way Dell would change the current border with something that makes the border stand out. I bet I am not the only one that doesn’t want something that stands out so much. I once had a KDS flat LCD panel and the border kept me from enjoying the content of my display. The black border of the 2007WFP doesn’t draw my eyes away from the content of the screen. I hope Dell comes up with a panel that uses the black border.

    • albundy
    • 14 years ago

    man, did someone beat it with a fugly stick? looks like the lower and cheaper models that dell offers, starting with the base. Also does not look like it rotates.

    • maroon1
    • 14 years ago

    2000:1 dynamic contrast ratio or normal contrast ratio ??

    • Lord.Blue
    • 14 years ago

    Sign me up for this one:
    §[<<]§ edit...NVM...just saw that it is not really a 16.7M color panel. Darn 6-bit panels.

    • snowdog
    • 14 years ago

    Clearly It is another mediocre TN panel. Buy the old one while you can. It loses a some inputs as well. Oh and I think it is uglier to boot.

    • Tairc
    • 14 years ago

    Me, what I really want is a 24″ standard-aspect monitor. I don’t understand why anyone wants wide-screen, really. Other than movies and games, wide screen offers me next to nothing. I want vertical height, so I can read more of a .pdf without scrolling. I want bigger overall screen area, so that even if I go into portrait mode, I still get adequate width.

    What is with wide-screen prevailing, anyway?

      • snowdog
      • 14 years ago


      Most games don’t benefit either. Older games are locked at 4:3, and a lot of newer ones actually chop off the top and bottom for widescreen resolutions.

      • sigher
      • 14 years ago

      This baby pivots, so you can buy a very tall and narrow display I you will 🙂

      • zqw
      • 14 years ago

      I don’t think I can use more vertical than a wide 24 or ‘square’ 20 for text work.

      • green
      • 14 years ago

      widescreens are cheaper to make and so are cheaper to buy

      • rgreen83
      • 14 years ago

      Why are wide-screen lcd’s more desirable? For the same reasons wide screen has always been more desirable dating back to the first silent motion pictures. You can fit more people in front of a wide-screen, therefore more tickets you can sell. Want to see the movie on your tv or pc the way it was made and the way you saw it at the theatre? Wide-screen is the way.

      There is another probably more important reason though, that being that humans are not cyclops, we have a pair of eyes side by side, therefore we have greater field of vision horizontally than vertically.

      • ludi
      • 14 years ago

      Dunno about you, but my mouse has a high-mileage scroll wheel.

      With widescreen, you can take the page width up to fullscreen for a ridiculously high resolution and see details as fine as you wish, and then scroll. Or, with a reasonably large widescreen, you can load up two pages side-by-side and compare.

      It’s also nice for work tasks because you can window up, say, a spreadsheet and a document and then display them side-by-side for direct comparisons.

    • Tarx
    • 14 years ago

    20″ – that’s so 2006 :p (I’m somewhat kidding)
    The question is what is the largest display that is usable on a desk (without going to 2 displays – that is a different issue).
    After trying a 30″ LCD, I think for many people that passes the limit (although it is great to sit back and watch!). And the price it is comparatively quite high.
    1920×1200 (similar to what Forge mentioned), is a great resolution for more than just being able to handle 1080p (which is getting more important as well). That is also the highest standard resolution that a single DVI will support at 60Hz.
    24″ LCDs are getting quite inexpensive (some are under $500) and with 1920×1200 the dot pitch is slightly bigger (.27 instead of just under .26) so for many that would be a bonus. Larger LCDs such as a 27″ LCDs are also available for that resolution, but the price starts climbing quickly (however I could see 25″ or 26″ becoming popular in a year or so). A 27″ LCD might not be worth the significant price premium unless used like a TV (e.g. in a small apartment, or sitting back to play video games on an X360), or want larger pixel sizes(.30 pixel size).
    One issue is that quality of the LCD panels for 24″ are not yet to the same level (as far as I’ve seen) as the higher-end 20″ LCD, including for gaming but for many people they would be fine. (hmmm… could TR do a review of these “mid-sized” LCD?)

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 14 years ago

    I, for one, thing it is ugly. And that stand looks way too unstable.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 14 years ago

    the lack of component / S-Video inputs is disappointing.

      • Taddeusz
      • 14 years ago

      They probably figured out most people don’t use them. I know I don’t use the ones on my 2007WFP. Nor do I have plans to ever use them. Why when HD is all around us?

    • Ni kun
    • 14 years ago

    I hope they don’t include in this LCD model their panel lottery (and stick with S-IPS ones), Faroudja banding problems, and odd backlight bleeding.

      • zqw
      • 14 years ago

      2ms response means a RTC TN panel. No one would stretch the truth to 2ms for a RTC P/MVA or IPS, esp not Dell (based on prev specs.)

    • Archer
    • 14 years ago

    The screen is too small for 1680.

    And yeah, 1920 or bust.

    • Forge
    • 14 years ago

    1680*1050 still makes me cringe. It can’t do 1080p at full size, and the highest standard tallscreen res it can do is 1280*1024 or 1280*960. Ick.

    My buddy Walt just got bitten by that. He has the 2005FPW and played an older narrow-only game. He was surprised that 1280*1024 was all the higher he could go – black borders on all four sides or fuzzy pixels, while I could run it at 1600*1200 and native res.

    1920*1200 fo life.

      • Norphy
      • 14 years ago

      What I do in that situation is add a custom resolution to Windows and run it at 1400×1050. The majority of games that I’ve seen then detect that 1400×1050 is available and offer the option to run the game at that res.

    • DreadCthulhu
    • 14 years ago

    It is a shame they aren’t bumping up the resolution; more pixels are always nice to have.

    • Pizzapotamus
    • 14 years ago

    Bah, I hope they keep updating the tall-screen 20in as well.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This