Conclusion

Now, here’s the table listing the results of all participating displays and their specified response times. For those manufacturers who tell both rise and fall times, the both numbers are listed with a slash (the first number is pixel rise, the second – pixel fall). For those who tell only the total time or doesn’t specify explicitly what the mentioned value stands for (in this case, I assume the total time is specified), there is only one number.

Well, now a few comments of ours. Two manufacturers behave quite strangely. Sampo specified a worse response time than it is in reality, which is quite a unique case. The real characteristic proves quite good, to the bargain. As for Samsung, they are not eager to share the technical info. For all models I had to dig for the response time specifications in the Korean website. All other sites either name this specification for very few models, or don’t tell it at all. Secondly, it seems like the number “25ms” is set without any consideration. In practice the displays differ a lot and it is rather inappropriate to equal the 172B model with its small pixel rise time to other displays with the same total response time.

Both displays from NEC stood up to their specs and showed very low response time. This had its price, though: the manufacturer had to reduce viewing angles, which could lead to some inconveniency at work.

The same is true for the Sony displays. Small response time is accompanied with narrow viewing angles. Moreover, the top-end X72 model produces unpleasant flickering effect at the refresh rate frequency.

The displays from Iiyama proved to be ordinary budget products, showing no extraordinary results.

As for the leader of the test, I guess it is Samsung SyncMaster 172B. Samsung Electronics came up with a product that combines elegant design, good response time and excellent viewing angles. There is only one thing missing: the DVI-input, but it is present in the top-end 172T model, which we didn’t include in this roundup.