Samsung 245T: LCD Prime

by Jarred Walton on 2/7/2008 1:00 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

60 Comments

Back to Article

  • daarrid - Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - link

    First, I'd like to thank Jarred Walton for his excellent review. A great deal of work goes into such a review. So, first and foremost, thank you sir! I'm also impressed by your timely follow-ups to the comments that have been posted.

    I just purchased the Samsung 245T (August, 2008). The firmware evidently has changed because there are new scaling options.

    I'm only using two inputs - the VGA for various computers connected to it via a KVM and a Sony Playstation via the HDMI.

    The VGA input now shows three options for size: wide, 16:9 (this is new), and 4:3. Wide is the only useful option (it appears to be 1:1 pixel mapping). The other two options distort the display. Why 16:9 was added as a choice is hard to say because it adds no useful function I can think of.

    However on the HDMI input (and perhaps the DVI - I didn't test the DVI input) we have the old choices - Wide, 16:9, 4:3 and a new one! The new one is called "Just Scan" which seems to be 1:1 pixel mapping. Samsung evidently is listening.
    Reply
  • bobo51 - Thursday, June 26, 2008 - link

    I find it interesting that 4 months after Jarred was reassured by his contact at Samsung that this panel was a PVA, it is still speced as a TN panel on the Samsung website. And the mail order websites that report this characteristic seem to just parrot what is on the Samsung website.

    It would seem that it being a PVA unit would be a marketing point that Samsung would want to be front-and-center in their specs and advertising. So why isn't it out there?

    Does anyone have any written documentation or labeling on the back of a unit (or anything other than someone's statement) that this is a PVA panel?
    Reply
  • maxdog - Friday, August 22, 2008 - link

    All of the 24" panels on the Samsung website state the same type. I'd like to know for sure. Reply
  • TrinityJayOne - Saturday, June 07, 2008 - link

    Just thought I'd point out that there's an error in this review regarding display modes. It's true that there's no 1:1 pixel-mapping, but there IS a 16:9 option, it just isn't available when using a DVI source (I'm guessing because Samsung figure DVI = PC only and video cards support 16:10 resolutions). For HDMI, component, S-video etc, the 16:9 option will keep your 1080p signal un-squished and 720p will be upscaled. Check it out for yourself in the user guide, about 2/3 of the way down the page- http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/EM/20070...">http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/conte.../200707/... Reply
  • XrayDoc - Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - link

    The new Dell 2408WFP has been available for perhaps a month. When are we going to see a killer review on AnandTech? Reply
  • machspeed5 - Saturday, February 16, 2008 - link

    Conflicting Information!!!

    Page 4 of this trustedreview of the 245T states "genuine 1:1 pixel mapping"

    http://www.trustedreviews.com/displays/review/2007...">http://www.trustedreviews.com/displays/.../2007/11...

    ".....A tonne of connectivity only adds to the appeal, as does the genuine 1:1 pixel mapping from 1080p sources."

    This Anadtech review clearly states the opposite!

    Who is correct here? Clarification appreciated, as you've thrown a monkey wrench in my purchasing decision! :P

    Thanks
    Reply
  • machspeed5 - Saturday, February 16, 2008 - link

    found this:
    source: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=10319083...">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=10319083...

    According to the User's Manual:
    - if the video source is connected through PC/ DVI, you will be able to switch the size between "Wide" and "4:3";
    - if the video source is connected through Composite/ S-Video, you will be able to set the size to "Wide", "16:9", "Zoom1", "Zoom2" or "4:3";
    - if the video source is connected trough Component/ HDMI, you will then be able to choose the size between "Wide", "16:9" or "4:3".
    Supposedly, by "Wide", they mean "Full screen" (1920x1200).
    I don't really know what they mean by "Zoom1" and "Zoom2", but I guess this is some scale of "expansion" (by keeping the aspect ratio). But I insist, this is just me guessing; I do not own the screen.
    As matter of fact, this leads also to the conclusion that there is no pure "1:1 pixel mapping" for all resolutions, even if you can get such pixel map for a HD 1080 lines source if you choose the "16:9" size.

    can you confirm please, & perhaps update the review? many thanks.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, February 16, 2008 - link

    I checked the VGA and DVI connections... I didn't consider that they would add options on other inputs (most OSD controls gray out disabled options rather than removing them completely). I'm trying to come up with some meaningful "input lag" testing -- internal image processing lag would be more appropriate as a description -- so I'll see about testing the Component/HDMI/S-Video as well.

    Not surprisingly, I've got other things to review as well, so it might be a couple weeks before I get around to testing this.
    Reply
  • machspeed5 - Sunday, February 17, 2008 - link

    thanks.

    looking forward to seeing the input lag & HDMI pixel mapping options on the 245T. :)

    word on the street is that the input lag is pretty bad, ~50ms, (2.5 frame lag.)

    from my readings, 50ms (while on the upper end of laggy displays) may still be usable for all but the most time-sensitive games. (fps specifically) a lot of people complain and overrate the input lag problems on forums, though it's evident few understand what it is. (even confuse it with response time)

    i'd appreciate hearing your opinion on the matter. I plan to use a PS3 with the 245T, and FPS will certainly be in the machine from time to time.

    Genuine 1:1 pixel mapping is also important to me, and if you could clarify the issue here i'd be much appreciated.

    cheers
    Reply
  • Thetruepit - Monday, February 11, 2008 - link

    It does suffer from inverse ghosting.
    Most noticeable in gaming mode so I don't use that.
    Surprised it wasn't picked up. Also if you move your mouse cursor over a grey background you see noticeable ghosting.
    Reply
  • alainiala - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    I do A LOT of monitor testing at my work because I'm one of a handful of people responsible for setting our enterprise hardware standards. I try to steer our company away from TN-based panels, but sometimes its unavoidable (all but one 22" panel that I'm aware of are TN). I find S-PVA to be acceptable, but the true beauties are the S-IPS monitors. NEC makes some of the best S-IPS monitors around, but they are very pricey. My favorite monitors is undoubtably the NEC 2490WUXi, but you have to be prepared to sell an organ to get one. Not worth it for the average user, but anybody with color-critical apps should take a long hard look at it. I do wish more manufacturers would stick with S-PVA and S-IPS... But alas, the pricepoints demand we all get stuck with TN garbage. Reply
  • Pjotr - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    TVA -> PVA Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    Fixed, thanks - after writing an article for so many hours, some things start to blur past your eyes. :) Reply
  • uethello - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    The panel being listed as TN is ominous to me. I've been studying monitors hard for about a month (since I found out how much of my money Uncle Sam is giving me). Seems like some manufacturers build monitors with both types of panels. Going for the "Hope" buy, I guess. The person who hears about someone getting a good panel and buying in the hopes of not getting a TN. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    I talked to my contact at Samsung and got this response on the panel:

    "As to your question, the 245T does have an S-PVA panel, which is a far superior technology than TN, not that I need to tell you that. The 245BW uses a TN panel. The proper authorities have been notified and they’re working on fixing [the PDF] immediately. I appreciate you letting me know."

    So no worries - the 245T is an S-PVA panel as reported and as the images show.
    Reply
  • Dainas - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    ...all manufacturers are seemingly phasing out all mva/pva panels below $650, replacing them with TN at the same pricepoint and no one cares. It surprises me that the reviewers despite not being a big fan of $500+ TN panels, have not noted this plain as day trend. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Ummm... did you read my HP w2408 review? I pretty much slammed on that trend and said that IMO the TN panels still suck by comparison. I also praised this LCD for not being a TN panel. How is that "not noting the trend"? Reply
  • Dainas - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    ok, you noted that much :P Except for what amount to closeout deals, we are starved for choice compaired to 6 months ago. Its not just a matter of waiting for things to get back up to swing after the chinese new year. Besides the expensive stalwarts such as this and the dells line, TN is just eating up everything else was :(

    I would expect nothing short of a full blown rant about this, hehe.
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    Aside from closeout deals and Black Friday specials and the like, have there ever been 24" LCDs that didn't use TN panels available "cheaply"? Seems that when the 24" LCDs were initially all good panels and all expensive, then as more came out the prices dropped some, then someone started making 24" TN panels and those monitors formed a whole separate price bracket. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    I believe there are some S-PVA 24" panels for around $400-$450. Are they good LCDs, or are they the reject S-PVA panels that couldn't be put in $600 LCDs? I don't know - I'd like to get one to test, but unfortunately the budget LCD companies aren't interested in sending us review samples. Anecdotally, I've heard that while they are usually better than TN panels, they've got other issues - firmware, low build quality, etc. Reply
  • Deusfaux - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I thought Samsung monitors had a 16:9 scaling mode? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    This one doesn't... other Samsung displays might. See the OSD image gallery for details. The only options are "Wide" (fill the whole screen) and "4:3". That means that 5:4 resolutions (1280x1024) will also be distorted no matter what you do. I don't think the minor stretch of 16:9 to 16:10 is terrible, but some people care more about that than I do. Again, though, this is only an issue on non-PC use (or if your drivers don't allow you to correct the scaling). Reply
  • hotdogandchips - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Jarred, can you tell us when the NDA regarding the 2408WFP expires by any chance? ;0 Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    LOL... actually, no, I can't. Funny thing is that the date isn't set in stone just yet either, which is part of the reason I can't say. It's supposed to be this month, based on what I heard at CES, but it might get moved to early March? Reply
  • AcAuroRa - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    According to

    http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/...">http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consum.../C070096...

    ... its a TN.... bah I'm confused -_-.. is it a TN or a PVA?

    I actually own a w2408... and I actually like the thing -_-;;...but if there can be some facts straightened out I might go and get a 245T off the 'Egg as it is currently on sale for $650...
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    See above post... the unit I reviewed is most assuredly an S-PVA panel. I believe the PDF is simply erroneous. Reply
  • bobo51 - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I am confused.

    The article identifies the 245T as having a PVA panel. But I just went to the Samsung website and in their specification PDF for the 245T the panel is stated to be a TN.

    Is their website document incorrect?
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I can absolutely state that the 245T LCD I have is S-PVA (based on how it looks from various angles), and Samsung told me it was S-PVA before I received it. http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/...">This states otherwise, so I guess someone just put the wrong information in there. The other possibility is that there are different LCD panels in some of the 245T displays... hopefully not.

    Most companies do not make a point of stating what sort of technology their panels use. While I can understand that on TN panels, I'd think anyone using a PVA or IPS panel would want to crow about it. Kudos to Samsung for at least putting information on all of their displays in the PDF files; now they just need to make sure the data is correct. :)

    I'm going to email my Samsung contact about this and see if there's just an error in the PDF that they can correct.
    Reply
  • XrayDoc - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I was all excited about this new display until I read about the limited scaling choices. I can't believe they didn't include a 1:1 or pixel to pixel option! Not everyone has a triple SLI video card setup that can run Crysis well at 1920 x 1200. I'd much prefer to run the game at a lower resolution with black borders and have the "pixels" look sharp, as opposed to stretching the non native resolution to fill the screen and look blurry! Plus automatically stretching 16:9 aspect sources vertically to fill the 16:10 screen is just plain ludicrous. Most people can notice when the aspect ratio is displayed incorrectly. What happens with a 2.35:1 ratio DVD? Does that also get stretched vertically so that you dont' see any black bars at the top or bottom? This single design flaw is a definite deal breaker for me. I hope the upcoming new models from Dell, etc. don't have this same design flaw. Reply
  • yyrkoon - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    The big question would be; 'why do you need a 24" LCD to play Crysis?' For me personally I cannot see the need for anything much more than a 19" LCD(a good one at that) for gaming. This making current title fly on my C2D system with a 7600GT, and it draws way less power than one of the current higher end cards. Granted I probably wouldnt mind using a 8600 or something that draws slightly more power, and has DirectX 10 capabilities, but I wont go out of my way just yet to purchase another card, especially since I am still using XP Pro.

    Also I'm noticing complaints about input lag ? I would think this would be an image retouching LCD which doesnt require fast screen refreshes. You can buy cheap fast LCDs that will play games just fine(all day long).
    Reply
  • nubie - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    In most proper drivers you can select a mode that has 1:1. In the nVidia classic panel (I only use the classic panel, google sedonadisable if you can't find yours.)

    Use DVI or HDMI, and go to device adjustments, there is a setting called "centered output", use this to send black pixels to fill the digital signal until the pixel ratio is 1:1.

    I ran into a problem that wouldn't allow me to run custom resolutions, this is the fix:

    http://wikitechia.org/wiki/The_custom_resolution_c...">http://wikitechia.org/wiki/The_custom_resolution_c...

    I agree that scaling technology needs serious work, 16:10 is not 16:9, and 1388x768 is not 720p. Add to that the fact that even if you can get the native res of some panels to be sent by the PC, the display still stretches and overscans it, that is bad.

    Doesn't the Xbox360 have support for native panel resolutions such as 1280x1024 as part of the VGA output? Doesn't this extend to the HDMI output? I would really like to know what support there is for native panel resolutions on consoles.

    Every PS3 and Xbox360 I have ever seen has had mediocre picture quality, and I sincerely hope that it is a problem on the display side (in-store displays only).
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I don't think consoles support PC resolutions. They are usually HDTV/TV resolutions, so you get 640x480 on the old stuff, and 720p or 1080i (or maybe 1080p?) on new stuff. Of course, some titles use a lower resolution like 1024x576 or something and stretch that to 720p/1080p for performance reasons.

    The 245T will accept other resolutions; the problem is that your only options are "fill the whole screen (and aspect ratio be damned)" or "fill a 4:3 area (again, forget about the actual AR)". With PC connections, you're fine if you use the driver to adjust the stretch options.

    Unless I'm severely mistaken, you don't get that functionality with consoles. Or DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD players.
    Reply
  • nubie - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    WRONG!!! Information available as of 2005:

    http://hardware.teamxbox.com/reviews/xbox-360/40/X...">http://hardware.teamxbox.com/reviews/xbox-360/40/X...

    1024x768
    1280x720
    1280x768
    1280x1024
    1360x768

    I was simply curious as to whether recent updates to the Xbox360 firmware had made it MORE compatible.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Interesting - didn't know consoles supported other output resolutions... though it seems like it would be game dependent, right? (I'm pretty much a PC-only gamer, so I haven't owned a console since the N64.)

    If you can output 1360x768, you should be able to get a 16:10 AR that will fit with this display properly. That's what I would go for, anyway.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Playing DVDs, you can usually control this with your player software, and in fact you can control this with NVIDIA and AMD graphics cards (though I'd give the edge to NVIDIA here) under Windows. The problem is what happens when you hook up something like a game console, or some other device that doesn't do internal scaling. Then you're stuck with what the LCD firmware provides, and in this case it falls short.

    I'd think Samsung could release updated firmware to address this issue. Will they, and if so can you apply it to the initial models? Probably not, but they may prove me wrong.
    Reply
  • SilthDraeth - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Click on about above the Forums link, then on the next page, click on intellitext and then choose the option to turn it off.

    Problem solved.
    Reply
  • Welshtrog - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I have tried about 10 times and the B***** thing will NOT turn off Reply
  • GTMan - Friday, February 08, 2008 - link

    You probably have to enable cookies.

    Or get a good hosts (google "hosts") file to block lots of ads. There is also a little program called Homer which will replace the blanked ads with a color gradation.
    Reply
  • Welshtrog - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I have tried about 10 times ant the B***** thing will NOT turn off Reply
  • AmishElvis - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Those drop down ads are a deal breaker for me. Get rid of them or I will find another tech review site. Reply
  • Owls - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I agree. The ads are highly instrusive. Any other sites people recommend? Reply
  • GNStudios - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I read the review and got very intrested in the monitor (I have a Samsung 215TW now). When browsing some the internet I found many people complaining that it's very noisy.

    Is this true?
    Reply
  • mattsaccount - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    My parents bought one of these over Christmas. The monitor they received definitely emits a certain amount of noise, but none of us found it that distracting. You can barely hear it in normal use, and it's not an irritating high pitch ring or anything. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I haven't noticed any noise from this particular unit, but that's pretty variable. Usually the noise comes from capacitors inside the chassis, so as best as I can tell it's luck of the draw. Reply
  • kmmatney - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    I'd be interested to see how my $299 Soyo 24" LCD compares. It uses a non-TN panel (MVA), and can be had from OfficeMax. Reply
  • jimmy43 - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Well I'm glad you guys talk about the different panel technologies to educate people, there is more than just the size and refresh time to a monitor. However, I'm wondering what is with the input lag taboo at these large sites? It's not too hard to measure, and it would complete your article so we dont have to go to independant reviewers to get a good idea of how laggy a monitor really is. Reply
  • nevbie - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Agreed, and also, here is a reference to such a review that tests input lag (as an example): http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/hazro_...">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/hazro_...

    Note that in many cases here the input lag exceeds the response time, that so many reviewers pay attention to.

    Monitor reviews are very interesting, but so subjective..

    Xbitlabs (www.xbitlabs.com) monitor reviews seem to have most of the measurements that I have seen in reviews, with the exemption of input lag.

    PS. If you review HP LP2065 (I hear S-IPS or MVA), I'll give you a virtual hug. =P
    Reply
  • tayhimself - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    Can the input lag be removed by disabling scaling etc? What causes input lag, and how is it measured? Thanks! Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, February 07, 2008 - link

    There are a few things to consider. First, how do you measure input lag? If you use two outputs on one GPU, they don't necessarily get identical content - you can get +/-1 frame difference due to refresh rates, internal buffering, etc. Using a splitter for a signal can do the same thing. So you have a margin of error of at least one frame. I've tested with varying techniques in the past and decided input lag wasn't a real issue... or at least not an issue you can easily fix just by changing LCDs. CRTs may be better in this area, but I'm even less willing to go back to using a cumbersome CRT.

    The real issues with image lag are more complex. You have things like double (or even triple) buffering that add one or two frames of lag. Then technologies like SLI and CrossFire add at least one frame of lag when doing AFR (the most common mode), and triple and quad solutions using AFR could add up to three frames of lag internally... and no one seems to worry about that. (I asked NVIDIA and ATI about this in the past, and their response was something along the lines of "you don't actually think anyone can notice the 0.02s delay, do you!?")

    I tend to agree, at least for *most* people. Despite what many would like to think, our eyes really don't react quickly enough to notice differences of a couple hundredths of a second. If I ever encounter an LCD where I notice a problem with input lag, I'll make a note of it, but I haven't yet - even with the much-maligned 2407WFP.

    I suppose professional gamers might have more issue with input lag, but then there are multiple sources of lag they need to try to reduce. There are lots of things that most people just live with and don't notice - image tearing because VSYNC is off, lag because you can't afford a $2000 CPU+GPU setup, lag at your input device (mouse/keyboard), running on a 19" LCD instead of 30".... Internal image lag in an LCD is one of these things in my book.
    Reply
  • lyeoh - Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - link

    Please do more useful reviews of monitors.

    Input lag is an issue with nonCRT monitors. In fact significant input lag is a _showstopper_ for many people (even if they didn't know of such a thing till they experienced it :) ).

    I personally don't care about lags of 10-15ms but some LCD panels have been _tested_ and _documented_ by many to have lags of >50ms, and that is VERY SIGNIFICANT.

    Go search youtube for input lag if you don't believe there are monitors with significant lag.

    I have walked into a shop which was selling panel TVs and even the shopkeeper noticed the lag when I pointed it out, that screen had terrible lag (my guess is at least 100-200ms). Imagine playing Tekken on that and not seeing your opponent's move till 100ms after it has occurred...

    Even a nonpro gamer playing Counterstrike or other FPS will find it annoying that he keeps getting shot by someone peeking round a wall/corner before he even gets to see that person. Games like Guild Wars allow some players to interrupt skills if you do things in time. Every millisecond counts. If your round trip ping is 100ms and your reflexes are 250ms, you can easily interrupt (with a 0.25 sec interrupt skill) opponent skills that take 0.75 seconds to cast (assuming the game adds 100ms max). If the panel is too slow, what used to be easy with a faster LCD/CRT becomes difficult if not impossible to do reliably.

    Gamers might be able to tolerate colours not being so good, and even a few dead pixels (actually a dead pixel in the exact center makes it good for some games as a built-in crosshair ;) ), but high input lag badly affects the gaming experience far more.

    As for the two outputs having a difference, just use a card which doesn't (you can check with CRTs). To be rigorous, you can always swap the outputs to confirm the results.

    I'm sure you can think of ways of measuring input lag. Some people use a chronometer/stopwatch displaying on both the screen being tested and a CRT, and then take a few pictures of it with a decent camera.

    The rest of your post about double/triple buffering etc is not relevant - little to do with a monitor review.

    You can go measure system latency in a different review- PC, video card, game or even CPU review. It might be quite interesting, given a cache miss in modern CPUs can waste a lot of cycles. A CPU might perform well in throughput, but when there is an unexpected change it might take a while to reach top speed again. My guess is the time scales of a CPU make it unlikely that the latencies would reach the order of many milliseconds, but who knows...
    Reply
  • 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