which monitor????

I can't seem to decide between the Dell UltraSharp 2007fp or 2007wfp. The price is almost the same so thats not a factor. Which one is the better choice??

The widescreen one.

[quote59c4c4a8d3="h3x"]The widescreen one.[/quote59c4c4a8d3]
Not that cut and dried -- it depends on what you want to do with it. I have the 2001FP (predecessor to the 2007FP) because I didn't want the widescreen. I wouldn't have a widescreen personally unless it was at least 24", because of the 1680x1050 resolution. Due to the nature of the work I do, I need a full 1200 vertical resolution -- I don't want to lose 150 vertical pixels just to gain 80 horizontal. Also, many games don't have native widescreen support so you wind up with either distored image or side pillars and much less resolution. At least with a 24" WS at 1920x1200 you can drop to 1600x1200 with pillars if need be, and still have a kick ass resolution.

Also, don't quote me on this, but I believe that the widescreen will have slightly smaller workspace.

I'll be using it mostly for games, internet, movies etc....
from the pics that I saw, The widescreen seems huge though. Also the widescreen is $50 cheaper so I'm assuming the 2007fp might be better.

I might also consider getting the 19" version(1907fp). Is the 19" big enough or should I shall out some extra more for the 20"??

The widescreen isn't THAT huge, not compared to the 2405 or 3007. The res is 1680x1050, while the 20" 43 model (the 2007fp) is 1600x1200. The 43 model has always been more expensive than the 20" widescreen model. Like I said, I have the 2001FP and love it. I'm planning on a 2405 (or 2407) widescreen 1920x1200 to run in a dual-display setup.

The 19" version is nice but of course is only 1280x1024 resolution. But if that's enough res for you, then it's a great choice. Dell makes some of the best LCD's but make sure you buy the UltraSharp models (ending in FP/FPW) and not the el-cheapo E series. The E models are okay for business use but not for gaming.

[quotef47637a8cb="dmorris68"]The widescreen isn't THAT huge, not compared to the 2405 or 3007. The res is 1680x1050, while the 20" 43 model (the 2007fp) is 1600x1200. The 43 model has always been more expensive than the 20" widescreen model. Like I said, I have the 2001FP and love it. I'm planning on a 2405 (or 2407) widescreen 1920x1200 to run in a dual-display setup.

The 19" version is nice but of course is only 1280x1024 resolution. But if that's enough res for you, then it's a great choice. Dell makes some of the best LCD's but make sure you buy the UltraSharp models (ending in FP/FPW) and not the el-cheapo E series. The E models are okay for business use but not for gaming.[/quotef47637a8cb]

I'm looking at the ULTRASHARP 2007FP also. The only thing I'm worried about is the slower response time, do you play games on yours?

[quote42bf55b7ed="Brok3n_Sword"]I'm looking at the ULTRASHARP 2007FP also. The only thing I'm worried about is the slower response time, do you play games on yours?[/quote42bf55b7ed]
Oh yeah, definitely. Lots of games. )

Don't believe the myth of response times. Without going into a long-winded explanation, just know that quoted response times have little relevance to comparing one monitor's gaming performance to another's -- I've seen several 16ms panels outperform 8ms panels in gaming (in fact the Dell UltraSharps are 16ms and are consistently rated as top-tier gaming panels). The problem is there is no industry standard to how response time is measured it could be black-to-white, white-to-black, gray-to-white, white-to-gray, gray-to-gray, etc. Throw in different levels of gray in there and you have many ways to measure response time and get a "good" number that is NOT a valid indicator of whether it ghosts/smears in games or not. The safest bet when choosing a gaming LCD is to stick with those that have been positively reviewed for such. ALL of the Dell Ultrasharp monitors excel at gaming.

The important things to look for in a good gaming monitor are
[list42bf55b7ed][li42bf55b7ed]Color depth. Always go with an 8-bit panel. Some cheap panels (especially older ones) are 6-bit panels and can only reproduce 262K colors, the rest are dithered and will look like crap in photo work or gaming where subtle color changes occur. True 8-bit panels can reproduce the full 16.7M color palette. Unfortunately this isn't always stated in the specs, so read reviews and data sheets where you can find them. One common tip-off of a 6-bit panel is the spec claiming "16.2M color support." It should be 16.7M if an 8-bit panel.
[li42bf55b7ed]Contrast ratio. Anything above 4001 is acceptable, but the higher the better. The better panels have 6001 and higher.
[li42bf55b7ed]Brightness. You want 250 nits or higher.
[li42bf55b7ed]Interpolation quality. This is important for gamers with a system incapable of running your favorite games at the native resolution of the LCD. If you, for example, buy a 20" 1600x1200 LCD but can't run your favorite game that high because your PC isn't up to it, then you'll have to scale or interpolate to a lower resolution. Poor interpolation support results in block or fuzzy graphics and ghosting/smearing in games, even if the native resolution doesn't ghost.
[li42bf55b7ed]Finally, response time. All else above being equal, you generally want a faster response time. However a fast RT does not make up for failings in the other areas, especially color-depth and contrast ratio. And as mentioned, one panel's 8ms RT may be no better than another's 12ms or 16ms panel.[/listu42bf55b7ed]

Forgot to say thanks for the information, this really helped me out.