Closing Thoughts

We like to think that after spending over $600 on a 24" LCD, users will get a high-quality experience. That may not always be the case, but at least with the Samsung 245T we have no qualms with recommending it as a very good 24" LCD. Perhaps a better recommendation however would be to try and purchase a 24" LCD that comes with a Samsung S-PVA panel; all of the LCDs we've tested that have Samsung panels perform admirably, with the deciding factors generally being a personal preference -- external appearance, extra features, or more likely price.

The Samsung 245T has an MSRP of $799. At that price, we have to admit that it would be very difficult for us to recommend this particular LCD over some of the competition. Thankfully, a quick look online shows that prices are much more reasonable, and quite a few resellers carry the LCD for under $700 -- some as low as $630. That price is definitely higher than what we see on some of the budget 24" LCDs, but then many of those LCDs use TN panels

There are a few areas where the 245T falls short. Perhaps the biggest flaw is the support for resolution scaling. If you predominantly use 16:10 or 4:3 aspect ratios, you should be okay, but any 16:9 sources will end up slightly distorted when using the digital inputs; however, analog inputs are better on aspect ratio support. This isn't a big enough problem that we would go so far as recommending against using the 245T, and truthfully there are plenty of users that will never know the difference; still, there are other LCDs that offer better scaling options. Dell's 2407WFP and Gateway's FPD2485W are two examples, and there are certainly others.

There are many people that seem to think 24" LCDs are "too large", but after purchasing a 2405FPW three years ago I have never regretted the decision. In fact, I even took the next step and upgraded to a 30" LCD 18 months later. The cost of 30" LCDs is still relatively prohibitive, but when you think about how many hours you spend a day staring at your computer screen, we definitely wouldn't skimp on this important peripheral. We feel 24" LCDs are now the sweet spot for computer displays, and with prices ranging from $300-$700, they're more affordable than ever before. The Samsung 245T comes in at the higher end of that range, and it's still not perfect, but if quality is a primary consideration, you could do far worse.

If you're not in a big hurry to upgrade your display right now, we should also mention that there are a few other companies launching new displays in the near future. We can't talk performance or features yet, and we're not expecting any quantum leaps in overall quality to occur; still, waiting to see what other companies come out with won't hurt. One thing is certain: this isn't the only LCD we're going to see released this year with this particular Samsung S-PVA panel.

Printing Results
POST A COMMENT

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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 7, 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 2, 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now