Monitors: I'm torn

Dell 3007WFP This week, I’ve been looking at Dell wide format LCD monitors. The Sweetest of the Sweet at this point is the 30″ 3007WFP Ultrasharp (pictured at rightleft). Despite it’s 2560×1600 native resolution, this hulking behemoth of monitorhood comes with a $2,199 price tag – or 1862.66 sq. px. per dollar – which makes it entirely out of the question.

Next in the lineup is the 24″ 2405FPW UltraSharp (pictured at right). Make no mistake, friend, this is an almost equally-beautiful piece of display periphery. However, its on-discount pricetag of $879.20 (1920×1200, 2,620.56 sq. px./dollar) still makes it a fairly expensive option.

Lastly – and easiest on the checkbook – comes the “lowly” 20.1″ 2005FPW UltraSharp (not pictured: redundancy alert!). At 1680×1050, the 2005FPW is the most expensive in terms of square pixels per dollar ($3,046.63)…but it’s awfully hard to pass up at that low, low price.

NEC AccuSync 95F Samsung SyncMaster 712N For reference purpose, I currently have a dual-monitor configuration, with monitor #1 (left) being an NEC AccuSync 95F, and monitor #2 (right) being a Samsung SyncMaster 712N. Both of them are currently set to 1280×1024 (since I got tired of twiddling around with 2 monitors running different resolutions, and the Samsung has a native resolution of 1280×1024), so I’d be losing a few square pixels with any of the above LCDs…not to mention the infinite price differential. Still…man, those things are sweet-lookin’!


6 Comments on “Monitors: I'm torn”

  1. Tenkey says:

    Quick question- since pixels already exist in two dimensions, is it correct to call them Square Pixels when multiplying the resolution measurements?

    Just being a dick

  2. cliff says:

    You are correct, sir. I’m not 100% sure what I was thinking about when I wrote the post…

  3. Tenkey says:

    At first I thought you were going to say that I was correct…I am a dick 🙂

  4. Kate says:

    not to be a dick…but the picture of the first monitor is on the left of the post, and the caption says it’s on the right (at least it appears so on my computer). I suppose it’s easy enough to fix, so I thought I’d point that out.

  5. cliff says:

    No…it’s on the left. Once again, Cliff is an idiot…

  6. cliff says:

    Okay…everything should now be kosher on this post. Does anyone see anything else that “The Editor” missed? (It’s a good thing I don’t write for a living…)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s