Articles: Monitors

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]

Sampo PD-80A11D

This is one of the cheapest 17” LCD displays in the market. Its characteristics correspond to the price (only contrast ratio is somewhat better): 250nit brightness, 400:1 contrast ratio, 120/115 degrees viewing angles (horizontal/vertical), 34ms pixel response time (moreover, the manufacturer says its not the full response time, but only the rise time).

The display is huge. Even the bulky older models from Samsung (the 171 series) seemed somewhat smaller. The weight of the monster is about 9kg. When taking the thing out of its package, I thought they had confused something at the store and had given me an 18” or 19” model… The framing is unnaturally wide: about 5cm.

It’s hard to point out any remarkable features in the design: the display has an unassuming look. The base is as solid as the case, but only allows adjusting the tiling. There is no height adjustment or portrait mode. The website of SAMPO Technology Corp. says the display can be mounted on a wall. In practice it means that there are four holes in the back panel for a standard VESA base to be purchased separately.

The settings menu is very confusing, and there are no quick access buttons to any of the most frequently used menu items, such as brightness, contrast and auto.

Horizontal viewing angles are average, not too good and not too bad. Vertical angle suffers the pain of most matrixes – the screen appears noticeably darker when viewed from below. Brightness and contrast were set to 45% and 52%, respectively, at work. So, subjectively, PD-80A11D belongs to mainstream displays with one drawback: bulky design.

The test result surprised me a lot. Although the manufacturer’s website just says “Response time – 34ms Rise Typical”, the display did the rise in 19ms and the fall in 8ms. That is, the total response time (27ms) was smaller than the specified pixel rise time!

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 ]


Comments currently: 9
Discussion started: 12/15/15 08:17:05 PM
Latest comment: 12/21/15 11:42:08 AM

View comments

Add your Comment