30" screens are worth every penny. I broke the bank when I bought my Mac Pro back in 2006 by buying a 30" ACD at the same time. I had to scrimp on my RAM and graphics cards for ages, running with just a single 7300GT and 512MB RAM, all because I'd forked out the extra for a 30" display. Honestly though, in all the years of owning all kinds of different hardware, different CPUs, different graphics cards, hell I even have a Prometia Mach 2 phase change cooling system in the garage, nothing has compared in levels of satisfaction to that I get from my 30" screen.
Its remarkable how nice it is to work with that much screen real estate. The only problem with a 30" screen is, of course, gaming. I've run two 7300GTs in SLI and now have two 3870s in Crossfire. Both solutions have let me play most games at the full 2560x1600 resolution. Honestly, you don't need much antialiasing - if any at all - on a 30" screen, the pixels are simply too small for you to notice.
I don't play all the top games anyway. I haven't played Crysis yet simply because I dislike the fact that I don't think game manufacturers should produce games that can't even run at 2560x1600 smoothly on graphics cards brought out *two generations later* than when the game came out.
My bottom line: If you use your computer to work then the 30" displays are simply unbeatable and if you can scrape the pennies then they're worth the extra cost. If you use your computer largely for playing the latest greatest games then you might want to save your wallet a little and get a 24" since otherwise you'll be hurting too much with constantly buying new graphics cards.

8 inches in width???? Get your facts straight.

A Dell 3008WFP here... and every bit satisfied with it, after a lot of research before plunging my money for it (from sites that had it compared with both the Samsung and the Apple)

Honesltly though, this article wasn't really up to Tom's hardware standards.... very generic comparisons between models, without hard data supporting the 2-3-4-5 stars given to each monitor, a table for comparing the models, or coming up with a winner in the end so that someone actually shopping for a 30" can have some help in the subject

I had to roll back to re-view the scores of each monitor to know the winner for sure...A conclusion section could have been so handy you know!!

The winner is the Dell 3007WFP HC --5 stars at the end of the review.

We will keep your formatting suggestion in mind, thanks!

LMAO!

I would sooner hook up a 32" LCD TV. Better contrast ratios and response time for less.

I don't understand what it means for non-Dell-computer-owners to use the 3007. Is access to the OSD simply a matter of convenience, or does its absence severely limit control of the monitor? Can non-Dell-computer-users still have full control over the 3007 via their graphics card driver software or some other mechanism? Thanks much.

With nowhere near the resolution.

The point of a 30" monitor is the phenomenal resolution - no HDTV can really match that.

No mention of HP or LG panels = weak comparison.

Thanks for sharing. Keep posting.

Regards,
image stitching
http://www.sblgraphics.com/panorama.aspx

Why haven't you tested the Samsung SyncMaster 305T+, the
HP LP3065, the LG W3000H and the NEC MultiSync LCD3090WQXi?

I could be wrong, but as far as i~m concerned the only difference between the Samsung 305 and 305T+ is that the T+ has a HDMI input and the 305 doesn't.

Anyways, I just sold my Samsung 275 (which I loved btw), at first I was considering upgrading to a 30", but I get I'd rather get 2-3 24". I guess the gain spacewise is more atractive compared to a 30". I hardly play games and work with video/3D so space for timeline and palletes is a must. True, I do lose some resolution, but there's nothing that pisses me off more than windows overlaping each other and having to search between them or make space so I can work with UV Maps and stuff.

This is technically true... with "current screens" including a fair deal of older models that are still commonly in use today but were made within the past 5 years or so, before HDCP was commonplace. Also, "this generation" particularly qualifies the statement, because the generation in question is that of the ACD 30", which is actually several generations old. I guess Apple just can't be bothered with refreshing the crucial hardware inside their displays year after year because their user base is comprised of visual design professionals who have no need for such silly features as the ability to play BluRay movies... which it also wouldn't be doing considering Macs don't offer BluRay (yet).
It was among the best when it came out, but the prime of any piece of hardware's performance is always when it is relatively new, but it will age like milk rather than wine.
I hope that when Apple replaces the current (last) generation Cinema Displays for LED-backlit ones, that they also see fit to support DisplayPort daisy-chaining. And a better LCD panel.

But people should take note: many cheap LCD screens (monitors or TV's) use Dynamic Contrast Ratio to boost the contrast ratio numbers, but it really does nothing for the picture other than make bright scenes washed out and dark scenes... too dark to be easily seen. I wish manufacturers would rid themselves of these gimmicks to boost the apparent performance specs and the god-awful, over-blue "showroom floor" color "calibration". The industry standard should evaluate true panel contrast, average reaction time from black-to-white and color-to-opposite-color instead of just gray-to-gray, and most importantly of all, color gamut to an actual standard of measurement. The actual type of display panel should also be included in advertised specs, and active-matrix TFT etc. doesn't count.

I talked my roommate into buying a 1080P 32" LCD TV instead of a computer monitor and mount it on the wall over his computer desk. Now he's about 3' from it which is a little close but I was amazed at how incredibly sharp and clean it looked. I originally thought it would be horrible for things like text but it works quite well as long as you don't sit right up to it.

I recommend this for people who don't need the extra resolution or contrast:


I might sell my 24" LG P-MVA panel and get one for my room because now I do most of my photo and video work on the mac pro with a cinema display (the S-IPS cinema display has good colors and contrast but is pretty ghosty, and the rest of the mac is totally over-rated but industry standard because most graphics people are elitist punks). I like the hardware but I hate OS X because it's sluggish even though I pamper it. (8 core 2.8GHz, 300GB velociraptor OS drive, 8GB ram, 2600XT)

the link didn't show up so here's the text of it

http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/n [...] pCatg=5883

Um, you give Dell bonus points for including a card reader? Does the monitor have the software necessary to slide-show your photos, or is it literally just a $20 card reader slapped into your $1200 monitor, connected to your computer by the USB cable you now have to run to your monitor? Seems to me that's not really a plus at all.

Card readers on TVs make sense, since they can play back your videos or photos. A card reader on a computer monitor seems unnecessary, just one more thing that might break or wear down.

The big advantage I see is less clutter. It also comes with usb hub so two less things to plug into the back of my computer, one less thing to plug in to a power bar and two less things to take up space on my desk. And if they break down well it's not a lot to replace them.
For Photos the pure presence of such a large finely detailed display is awesome. Two 24" just can not do this.

For just a little less screen size, but still wide enough to have 2 projects/spreadsheets side by side (1920x1080) the Acer B273HU will get all that desktop at a reasonable price. This 27" is below the big price cut at 26"

30-inch LCD monitor?? A huge device, that must looks very wonderful and the visual effect should be very nice!