Samsung SyncMaster 193P

The Samsung 193P is an LCD that we have looked at before. Many may recall our exclusive preview of the Samsung 193P back in April. Our 193P boasted extremely ambitious specifications, which stirred a bit of controversy - 800:1 contrast ratios seem a bit unheard of. Samsung's official statement remains that there were multiple versions of the LCD with identical specifications, but different contrast ratios. We continued to ignore the specification altogether and just tested the monitor for ourselves. Six months later, we revisited this LCD monitor (with a store-bought sample) and ran it through the LCD testing gauntlet along with the other monitors.



There is no denying it - Samsung's design puts the other monitors in this roundup to shame. Most of our other LCDs today are entry level models, but there is no reason why every monitor shouldn't look as good as the SyncMaster 193P.

 Samsung SyncMaster 193P
LCD 19" SXGA LCD (Active Matrix)
pixel pitch: 0.294mm
Anti-glare coating
PVA Display Mode
Scanning Frequency Horizontal: 30-81kHz
Vertical: 56-75Hz
Response Time 20ms (Typical)
Contrast Ratio 800:1 (Typical)
Compatibility 1280 x 1024 (Native)
Brightness 250 cd/m2
Viewing Angle 178 / 178 (Horizontal / Vertical)
Power Working: 40W
Standby/Off: 5W
Warranty 3 years parts and labor
Interface DVI
15-pin D-sub

The monitor specifications for the 193P remain largely unchanged, since we looked at the unit several months ago, but the LTM190E4 panel specifications seem to have changed slightly (and Samsung's own internal documentation seem to disagree). In fact, the LTM specifications actually claim that the monitor has a 1000:1 contrast ratio instead of the advertised 800:1 ratio.

Again, for an in-depth analysis of our SyncMaster 193P, please check the original review from April.

Planar PE191M Samsung SyncMaster 910V
Comments Locked

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • soki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    We want to see some reviews of the new wave of 19'' LCDs. Like the sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology, viewsonic VP912b or some 10 bit eizo monitors.. When?
  • UlricT - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    umm... page #4
    "The time that it takes the LCD to go from black to white may be 15ms while the time that it takes the LCD to go from black back to white may be 10ms"

    could be kinda confusing for the noob there. You guys really need an editorial staff :D
  • screech - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    #4 true.....i have also heard that working at a CRT monitor for 8 or more hours a day doubles the chances of glaucoma.....so it might be safer going LCD (for the eyes)........anyway.....
  • Jeff7181 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Man... I guess ignorance is bliss... I'm perfectly happy with the image quality of my $80 17 inch CRT... I can't imagine paying over $500 for a monitor unless you're doing graphics work as a profession.
  • D0rkIRL - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    Why does the Dell 2001FP have a 25ms typical response time while on your older review you state it as having a 16ms typical response time?
    The pixel pitch changed from .255mm to .55mm.

    Any reason behind these?
  • skunkbuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    just out of curiosity, what happens to all these lcds after they are reviewed?
  • KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link

    I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.

    I still haven't found a monitor better than a high quality, high res trinitron.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now