Dell 2007WFP vs the Samsung 215TW

[otispunkmeyer]

well aside from the samsung boasting an extra inch, and swivel capability..... they both have VGA, DVI with HDCP, Composite, S-vid, height adjust, 8ms response, 16.7M color, PIP, PBP 300cd/m^2

the samsung boasts a higher contrast ration at 1000:1 vs 800:1 on the dell, but the dell fights back with 4 USB ports.

providing the banding issues are now fixed... the dell at £317 vs the sammy at £458 [retty much makes the dell a no-brainer right? (plus dell has a 4 year warranty with next bussiness day exchange)

(a no dont regal me with the awesome NEC LCD20WGX2 because the version they sell here is a limp wristed effort compared to the US version)

 

[xtknight]

Sounds about right to me but the Samsung may still have better color reproduction.

I'm not sure what they've settled on for the Dell 2007: a S-IPS or S-PVA panel. It's kind of a big deal when you're considering it. Oh well, fortunately whichever it uses, it is a very good monitor. And yup banding is non-existent in A02/desktop mode.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

I dont know about you but coming from a 21" CRT there way NO way in hell I was going to get a 20" LCD and lose screen size, so for me the 215tw was the perfect choice.

 

[BuckNaked]

Kind of off topic, but thought I would ask here if you don't mind. I was looking at the Samsung 215TW tonight at CrapUSA, just to get an idea about how it looks in person. I was talking to the guy about what I wanted to use it for, and he then runs his fingernail across the screen, leaving a 'tail' or streak across the screen that then relatively slowly redrew itself, and says the response time is too slow for gaming...he then did the same thing with a Samsung 205B, and it didn't show anywhere near the delay in 'refreshing' the streak as the 215TW did...

First I was a little shocked about his method, not sure its such a good idea to run your fingernail across the screen of an LCD, but I also question if this really shows the same response time of the actual pixel in actual use, or if its actually just the time that the screen takes to recover from the deformation induced from the pressure of the fingernail. Anyone else ever hear or see of such a way to test a screen for response time? Anyone want to comment...?

The only reason I posted in this thread, is I am also interested in the 215TW vs. 2007WFP, and thought I would post this here...

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kind of off topic, but thought I would ask here if you don't mind. I was looking at the Samsung 215TW tonight at CrapUSA, just to get an idea about how it looks in person. I was talking to the guy about what I wanted to use it for, and he then runs his fingernail across the screen, leaving a 'tail' or streak across the screen that then relatively slowly redrew itself, and says the response time is too slow for gaming...he then did the same thing with a Samsung 205B, and it didn't show anywhere near the delay in 'refreshing' the streak as the 215TW did...

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it today. That really is pretty funny. :laugh: And no, it doesn't have anything to do with the response time so it was just a coincidence. Yes, it's a bad idea. The crystals may have to realign to their original state, but overdrive can't possibly be used to speed it up in this case so it's not indicative of response time. In two cases, the 215TW has less afterimage than the 204B anyway: http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?...01&p1=1021&ma2=36&mo2=104&p2=1040&ph=1

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kind of off topic, but thought I would ask here if you don't mind. I was looking at the Samsung 215TW tonight at CrapUSA, just to get an idea about how it looks in person. I was talking to the guy about what I wanted to use it for, and he then runs his fingernail across the screen, leaving a 'tail' or streak across the screen that then relatively slowly redrew itself, and says the response time is too slow for gaming...he then did the same thing with a Samsung 205B, and it didn't show anywhere near the delay in 'refreshing' the streak as the 215TW did...

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it today. That really is pretty funny. :laugh: And no, it doesn't have anything to do with the response time so it was just a coincidence. Yes, it's a bad idea. The crystals may have to realign to their original state, but overdrive can't possibly be used to speed it up in this case so it's not indicative of response time. In two cases, the 215TW has less afterimage than the 204B anyway: http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?...01&p1=1021&ma2=36&mo2=104&p2=1040&ph=1

Thanks for backing up my feelings on the 'methodology'... now looking at the link you provided, I am comparing the 2007WFP and the 215TW, http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?...06&p1=1042&ma2=36&mo2=104&p2=1040&ph=1 and it appears that the Dell redraws more quickly... is this correct? How much of difference is there in color fidelity between the Dell and the Samsung? I ran across the 215TW for under $420, and the Dell is currently $375 or so, and am considering both... The NEC 20WMGX2 is unfortunately a little out of my budget at the moment...

I would also like to thank you for your work in the LCD guide posted at the top! Very nicely done!

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kind of off topic, but thought I would ask here if you don't mind. I was looking at the Samsung 215TW tonight at CrapUSA, just to get an idea about how it looks in person. I was talking to the guy about what I wanted to use it for, and he then runs his fingernail across the screen, leaving a 'tail' or streak across the screen that then relatively slowly redrew itself, and says the response time is too slow for gaming...he then did the same thing with a Samsung 205B, and it didn't show anywhere near the delay in 'refreshing' the streak as the 215TW did...

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it today. That really is pretty funny. :laugh: And no, it doesn't have anything to do with the response time so it was just a coincidence. Yes, it's a bad idea. The crystals may have to realign to their original state, but overdrive can't possibly be used to speed it up in this case so it's not indicative of response time. In two cases, the 215TW has less afterimage than the 204B anyway: http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?...01&p1=1021&ma2=36&mo2=104&p2=1040&ph=1

Thanks for backing up my feelings on the 'methodology'... now looking at the link you provided, I am comparing the 2007WFP and the 215TW, http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?...06&p1=1042&ma2=36&mo2=104&p2=1040&ph=1 and it appears that the Dell redraws more quickly... is this correct? How much of difference is there in color fidelity between the Dell and the Samsung? I ran across the 215TW for under $420, and the Dell is currently $375 or so, and am considering both... The NEC 20WMGX2 is unfortunately a little out of my budget at the moment...

I would also like to thank you for your work in the LCD guide posted at the top! Very nicely done!

The Samsung for that price I feel is the way to go, better response times, bigger, better color its a winner IMHO.

 

[xtknight]

The only advantage of the Samsung is color. The extra size just increases the dot pitch, and the Dell has a better response time. It also has a USB hub.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

i will throw in a question: forget about the features (USB hub, portrait mode, video inputs etc.). Assuming they both cost the same. Just talking about sheer Image Quality & Visual Experience (for games & general use). Is the Samsung a no-brainer (even for the untrained eye)...or just a tad bit better?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
i will throw in a question: forget about the features (USB hub, portrait mode, video inputs etc.). Assuming they both cost the same. Just talking about sheer Image Quality & Visual Experience (for games & general use). Is the Samsung a no-brainer (even for the untrained eye)...or just a tad bit better?

Well, the Samsung is slower but higher contrast. I would take the Samsung personally since I've been used to ghosting for ages but I'm sure others would value the speed more. Oh, depending on the panel, the Dell has either the same viewing angle or a wider one than the Samsung. The dot pitch is slightly smaller on the Dell. Still the contrast is the most important to me. Plus IIRC the Samsung has better downscaling options but I'm unsure. The Dell is probably better for most people.

I'll summarize it by saying I'd take the Samsung if Dell used an S-PVA, but I'd pick the Dell if they used an S-IPS. I've no clue which one Dell has decided on at the moment but I believe they are still switching between the panel types.

 

[Madellga]

I've got a Samsung 215TW for my son's rig and I'm pretty impressed. I love my 2405 but after checking the 215TW, I would go for it if I had not bought the 2405 1 year ago.

It's also sharp and I haven't noticed any issues while gaming. It hasn't the USB hub from the 2007fpw but it has built-in speakers and component video in. Ok, the speakers are not impressive but they get the job done - reducing also cable cluttering.

Ah, no dead pixels either just a leaking backlight a little bit on the upper corners (when screen is black and room completely dark), but that does not bother me.

PS: I got the 215TW after trying a 940MW - indeed a different product (I tried the cheap way), but the 940MW had some kind of image noise on Windows desktop. I don't know if this was a defective unity or product characteristic - I tried changing DVI cables, video card (ATIxNvidia), even computers. The noise was always there. I returned it and used the refund for the 215TW.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

still undecided, the dell is a great price for me at least.... £317, im just working out if i can justify the extra £140 odd for an extra inch and better IQ

 

[raehl]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
I dont know about you but coming from a 21" CRT there way NO way in hell I was going to get a 20" LCD and lose screen size, so for me the 215tw was the perfect choice.

You realize that a 21" monitor is pretty much exactly the same screen size as a 20" LCD, right?

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: raehl

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
I dont know about you but coming from a 21" CRT there way NO way in hell I was going to get a 20" LCD and lose screen size, so for me the 215tw was the perfect choice.

You realize that a 21" monitor is pretty much exactly the same screen size as a 20" LCD, right?

From corner to corner thats fine, but if you use the height of the screen as a comparison then a 20" is smaller and thats what I didnt want to give up.

 

[imported_burningrave101]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp

Originally posted by: raehl

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
I dont know about you but coming from a 21" CRT there way NO way in hell I was going to get a 20" LCD and lose screen size, so for me the 215tw was the perfect choice.

You realize that a 21" monitor is pretty much exactly the same screen size as a 20" LCD, right?

From corner to corner thats fine, but if you use the height of the screen as a comparison then a 20" is smaller and thats what I didnt want to give up.

You are trying to compare a standard 4:3 aspect 21" CRT to a 16:10 aspect widescreen LCD and they are completely different. Widescreen may not have the height of a standard 4:3 but because of the wider view it's much more natural to the human eye and you can spread out more applications on the screen as well as you can view DVD's and games in widescreen mode which is superior to 4:3 IMO. I would never EVER go back to a 4:3 display after having widescreen LCD's and notebooks.

 

[Anogar]

I actually really dislike 16:10 as compared to 4:3. I use two 4:3 monitors, Viewsonic VP201b - each with a resolution of 1600 x 1200, for total desktop of 3200 x 1200. Having it be something like 3360 x 1080 seems ridiculous to me. Too long and skinny.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: burningrave101

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp

Originally posted by: raehl

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
I dont know about you but coming from a 21" CRT there way NO way in hell I was going to get a 20" LCD and lose screen size, so for me the 215tw was the perfect choice.

You realize that a 21" monitor is pretty much exactly the same screen size as a 20" LCD, right?

From corner to corner thats fine, but if you use the height of the screen as a comparison then a 20" is smaller and thats what I didnt want to give up.

You are trying to compare a standard 4:3 aspect 21" CRT to a 16:10 aspect widescreen LCD and they are completely different. Widescreen may not have the height of a standard 4:3 but because of the wider view it's much more natural to the human eye and you can spread out more applications on the screen as well as you can view DVD's and games in widescreen mode which is superior to 4:3 IMO. I would never EVER go back to a 4:3 display after having widescreen LCD's and notebooks.

I think you also needed to consider resolution into your decision. I decided to replace my 19" CRT to go with my HP L2335 LCD. The HP is 1920x1200 and the CRT was 1600x1200. Replacing the CRT with an LCD, I needed a LCD that would provide 1200 vertical. Options would be a 4:3 20.1" that gave me 1600x1200 like the CRT or get a large widescreen that did 1920x1200. A widescreen under 23" would not be an option.

 

[silentvois]

I got both the Dell 2007WFP and the HP F2105 (uses the same samsung LTM210M2 panel as the 215TW). From what I can tell you is that even though revision A02 fixes the banding problems it there's still some minor banding that is visible if you look closely in a gradient test. My HP doesn't have that problem at all except for a very very minor bit with the green gradient, and even still, is much much harder to notice than on the Dell.

The colour definitely is nicer on the HP. The viewing angle is about the same on both Dell and HP, and I do prefer the HP panel for viewing angle as the S-PVA panel just becomes "slightly" washed out from a wide angle. The Dell on the otherhand with the S-IPS maintains a viewing angle a little better but with a metallic purple tint. This really distorts the colour and gets very annoying, especially in movies with a lot of darkness. The purplish tint becomes exceptionally apparent on blacks.

Ghosting wasn't much of a problem on the HP at all, there was some extremely minor ghosting which you really had to vigilantly look at it to see it. The Dell was just a bit better with ghosting, almost not noticable, but I must say, it's not much better to make me pick the Dell over the HP.

I would say to definitely go with Samsung 215TW over the Dell 2007WFP, the picture quality and colour is significantly better, and you don't get that annoying metallic purple tint at wide viewing angles. The 215TW will however, have a slightly paler image at wide viewing angles, but much better than having a metallic purple tint distort the picture.

If I remember correctly, S-PVA is supposed to be the better of the VA panels at viewing angles?

On top of that, the 215TW is a little larger than the 2007WFP.

 

[Bull Dog]

Originally posted by: Anogar
I actually really dislike 16:10 as compared to 4:3. I use two 4:3 monitors, Viewsonic VP201b - each with a resolution of 1600 x 1200, for total desktop of 3200 x 1200. Having it be something like 3360 x 1080 seems ridiculous to me. Too long and skinny.

Meh I like my 3840x1200 pixel desktop (2x1920x1200) (16:10 x2)