Features and Specifications

As always, we'll start with a disclaimer: Those who are unfamiliar with display technology may wish to consult our short glossary of terms that we use in our display reviews before continuing. Specifications are prone for abuse, though, so just because one display rates higher in terms of contrast ratio or brightness doesn't mean it's actually a better display. (You'll get a prime example of this in a moment.) As usual, we will do our best to separate the reality from the hype in our reviews.

Samsung 245T Specifications
Video Inputs Analog (VGA)
DVI with HDCP support
HDMI
Component
S-Video
Composite
Panel Type S-PVA (Samsung SAM02F5)
Pixel Pitch 0.270mm
Colors 16.7 million (8-bit)
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1 Static
1500:1 Dynamic
Response Time 6ms GTG
Viewable Size 24" diagonal
Resolution 1920x1200
Viewing Angle 178 vertical/horizontal
Power Consumption <130W max stated
92W max measured
Power Savings <2W
Power Supply Built-in
Screen Treatment Matte (non-glossy)
Height-Adjustable Yes - 3.75 inches
Tilt Yes - 25 degrees back/5 degrees forward
Pivot Yes
Swivel Yes
VESA Wall Mounting 200mmx100mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 22.1"x17.1"x9.8" (lowered)
22.1"x20.8"x9.8" (raised)
Weight w/ Stand 19.4 lbs.
Additional Features (4) USB 2.0 - left
(USB connection to PC required)
Audio Audio out connection (for HDMI)
Limited Warranty 3 year parts and labor (original owner only)
Price MSRP $799
Online starting at ~$635

Like many of the latest high-end LCDs, the 245T comes with a backlight that offers an improved color gamut. Whether your eye can actually see the difference is a bit more difficult to say; even with an older 24" LCD sitting next to the 245T, it would be difficult for us to say that one of them looks clearly better/worse than the other. The backlight is also not quite as bright as other models on the market that are capable of 400 or even 500 nits, but we almost never run our LCDs at that brightness level; 200-250 nits is where we prefer to set are LCDs.

In the features department, the Samsung 245T compares favorably with the best 24" LCDs on the market. You get the typical four USB ports as well as a variety of video input options. How useful stuff like S-Video and composite input are varies by individual; we generally don't use either connection anymore. The VGA, DVI, HDMI, and component connections are more important, and you get one port for each. Whether or not the second digital port needed to be HDMI is another topic for debate; it's unlikely you would actually use the audio pass-through capabilities, in which case a second DVI port would have sufficed -- especially since the audio output jack only provides stereo audio. Since you can still use a DVI to HDMI cable, however, this isn't a major concern, and we're happy to have two digital connections.

Samsung provides a three-year manufacturer warranty on the 245T (in the US), which is much better than you get with most other brands. Technical support is available online or through the telephone, though telephone operating hours are not 24/7. You need to call during regular business hours, which is 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. M-F (Pacific Time). We were unable to get any specific answer as to pixel defect policies, though it sounds like if we made enough noise they would repair/replace the monitor even if there was only a single dead pixel. Since we did not experience any actual problems with our LCD (dead pixels or otherwise), we'll leave it at that. Note that the warranty only applies for the original purchaser; it is nontransferable.

Index Appearance and Design
POST A COMMENT

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnnonymousCoward - Monday, February 11, 2008 - link

    Jarred, Jarred, Jarred...

    IMHO, this monitor is total garbage and unusable due to input lag. I don't think you should shrug it off since you can't detect it, as it is a big issue for many people.

    Check out this great chart: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/samsung_xl20/in...">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/samsung_xl20/in...

    You talked about measuring input lag...well, it's true that 2 DVI output ports could have a lag between the two, but we notice that they don't since the chart shows lags ranging from 1.6ms to 58.8ms (taken from average readings). That data validates user experiences, as well. Other sources have found that the 244T/245T have 55-65ms of input lag, and that the ports don't matter: http://tinyurl.com/2xl857">http://tinyurl.com/2xl857

    Even if you can't perceive that, think about it in terms of ping. Is a 60ms ping the same as 120ms? This monitor effectively adds 60ms to your ping! And regardless of games, this isn't at all acceptable to me for a mouse cursor in Windows; the delayed feedback makes it harder to precisely point at anything.

    Thanks anyway for the review, and normally I enjoy your writings.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, February 11, 2008 - link

    Here's the problem with that chart of input lag:

    The GPU sends out a signal, at 60Hz. That means that the display gets a new image every 1/60s. So you can measure an input lag of 17ms, 33ms, 50ms, 67ms, 83ms, etc. What you can't measure are input lags of 2ms, 5ms, or any other value... unless the testing methodology itself is unsound.

    They're taking an average, but an average of what? "We have 20 pictures that show no input lag and 20 pictures that show 1 frame of lag. That makes the average lag half a frame = 8.3ms." If the margin of error (due to output synchronization) is 1 frame - and it is in my testing - then lag is either undetectable, ~1 frame, ~2 frames, etc.

    It could very well be that the 245T has worse lag than other displays. I don't have access to most of the displays they've tested, and I don't have any CRTs. I can compare results to a 2407WFP or 3007WFP, or maybe a couple other LCDs. However, the baseline would be inherently different.

    I talked about the question http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2...">here and later http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2...">here, and at that point I decided that the methodology and reliability (with clearly different screen refreshes taking place in pictures) made the whole process virtually meaningless, so I stopped doing it.

    If you want a figure of approximate lag, I can try to put a number of frames "lag" with a margin of error of 1. So anything less than one is apparently "equal" - which is what I found in every test I tried previously. To do an average is misleading - or at least an abstraction that hides the inherent flaws in the testing methodology - so I won't do that.
    Reply
  • nevbie - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link

    I don't know if this is reasonable - but if I were to think a way to measure input lag, it wouldn't be a comparison of clone moded monitors where other is a CRT and other is the subject.

    Instead I'd like to measure the time difference between pressing a button (mouse/keyboard) and a change that occurs on the screen. This is what people care about anyway. Of course such measurement would also count all the other delays caused by system, not just monitor only. (Now that sounds interesting, at least from a gamer standpoint!)

    How to do it? I don't know. A combination of a device that sends a signal to the PC and "photographes" the LCD (or part of it) would do it (constantly photographes for some time, after input given to the PC). Software-wise, a program that keeps the screen black and waits for input, and turns it red if it gets the input would be enough. Perhaps a modded caliberator could be used (dunno about their functionality). With such system you could even measure lag caused by other hardware, let's say multi-GPU (if such lag exists, that is).

    Just my thoughts..
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link

    I agree with your theory, that input lag measurements should be in increments of 1/60s. For some reason, that's never how the measurements play out.

    I found just what you asked for: 70 data points from 7 monitors, graphed. http://tinyurl.com/2gajok">http://tinyurl.com/2gajok http://tinyurl.com/rgx9n">http://tinyurl.com/rgx9n

    Looking at the data, I think it's reasonable to take the average of 10 readings, in spite of unknown measurement inaccuracies. Those averages give pretty good information about the real-world lag versus a CRT.

    Here's an easy test you can do to expose the lag: move your mouse across the screen in an abrupt, sharp sweep. Compare when the sound of the mouse against the table ceases, versus when the cursor stops moving.
    Reply
  • jimmy43 - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I tend to agree on most points with you. However, input lag IS a real issue. For example, I use a monitor with 16ms refresh time and it doesnt bother me at all, while it would drive other people nuts. The same goes for input lag, and certain people's sensitivies.

    Incidentaly, the 244T had input lag so terrible I read countless reports of them being returned because they were completely unusable. This is from many different sources on many different sites. So the first thing I wanted to know about the 245T was weather or not it addressed this issue.

    If you could, at the very least, just throw something about it in the subjective area then that would be helpful.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Subjectively, I didn't notice anything related to lag compared to other LCDs. But if I'm not susceptible to that.... :) Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    And I added a note on the subjective evaluation for you. Reply
  • PPalmgren - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    Input lag is the main thing I look for in LCD monitor reviews, and no one seems to want to cover it. It is the ultimate buying point for me. I "upgraded" from a Viewsonic VX922 to a NEC 2470WNX and the input lag made me put my 19 inch back of my desk. I mainly play RTSes and clicking accuracy is very important. When using the WNX I had major problems because of the delay, destroying my ability to click accurately on small things at high speed. In order to click dead-on, you have to guess your mouse distance exactly and click before the pointer shows up there on the screen. The input delay feels to be about 2-3 frames difference between my monitors. I currently have them both hooked up and use nView to switch between them now.

    Would it be possible to set a computer up for dualview and compare reviewed monitors side-by-side with a known well performer to measure input lag through a photo, etc? I think it would be a great thing for reviews. Since my purchase I've built 2 machines for customers who wanted 24'' monitors, and I've tested each of them with the same results (HP2408, Dell2407).
    Reply
  • jimmy43 - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I tend to agree on most points with you. However, input lag IS a real issue. For example, I use a monitor with 16ms refresh time and it doesnt bother me at all, while it would drive other people nuts. The same goes for input lag, and certain people's sensitivies.

    Incidentaly, the 244T had input lag so terrible I read countless reports of them being returned because they were completely unusable. This is from many different sources on many different sites. So the first thing I wanted to know about the 245T was weather or not it addressed this issue.

    If you could, at the very least, just throw something about it in the subjective area then that would be helpful.
    Reply
  • LTG - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Good intro on the base panel technologies.

    It would be interesting to know what is used for most LCD TVs (52", 65").

    I don't notice it mentioned usually.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now