By default the monitor has 75% contrast and 100% brightness. To achieve 100-nit brightness of white I dropped the brightness setting to 35% and the contrast setting to 40%. Brightness is controlled with the lamps here, through pulse-width modulation at 360Hz. Color gradients are reproduced superbly irrespective of its current settings.
The gamma curves looks neat enough, but the gamma is set too low, even though not as low as, for example, on the SyncMaster 940T (the curves lie higher than they should, resulting in a brighter than necessary image).
There’s a bigger dispersion of the color temperatures than in the previous model, and once again there is no mode with warm colors. The colors in the Warm mode can only be characterized as neutral, not warm. The Normal mode yields downright cold colors.
The monitor is indeed very fast, even surpassing the BenQ FP93GX. The average response is a mere 3.0 milliseconds. The maximum is 7.0 milliseconds (on a transition between two light tones).
Alas, the high speed is accompanied with errors. The average RTC error is 19.1% here while the FP93GX’s average error was 15.2%. Fortunately, the value of the error is rather small on black-gray transitions, which means that the artifacts won’t be too conspicuous at everyday work, unlike on Samsung’s 60th series monitor (the SyncMaster 760BF model was reviewed in our article dedicated to response time compensation technology and the SyncMaster 960BF will be discussed later in this article) which produce artifacts even when you’re dragging dialog boxes in Windows (white shadows trail behind black letters on a gray background).
The monitor offers the option of disabling response time compensation completely (it’s referred to as RTA in the menu) and the result of your doing so is shown in the diagram above. As you see, the matrix installed in the 940BF is quite fast even without RTC (but of course the response time is much lower with enabled RTC, except for the rightmost point on the graph which is the transition to pure white where RTC technology doesn’t work). But why would you want to buy an RTC-enabled monitor, paying extra for this very response time compensation, only to disable it right after purchase?
The monitor’s contrast ratio of over 300:1 is very good, especially for a TN+Film matrix. It can’t beat PVA matrixes in this respect, but has a good result for its own class.
Thus, the SyncMaster 940BF is very short of being an ideal monitor (if such a thing is at all possible), a rather big RTC error being its only drawback. Alas, Samsung’s monitors are still a long way from the competitors in this respect. The good news is that the error is now smaller on black-gray transitions and, consequently, less conspicuous, but the average error on all the transitions is still quite big. On the other hand, the 940BF is the fastest monitor among the models included in this review with an average response time of only 3.0 milliseconds which is 0.5 milliseconds smaller than the second-best result of the BenQ FP93GX. Half a millisecond isn’t a big difference, of course, but the current record-holder should be praised anyway.
In the rest of its parameters the 940BF is a good, if not exceptional, midrange monitor on a TN+Film matrix. It is quite well set up for its class, has a good contrast ratio and is assembled in a neat and nice-looking case. It doesn’t make much sense to choose an office monitor from RTC-enabled models only, while for home users and for gamers this monitor is a good choice.