Closer Look at 17” LCD Monitors Features: Pixel Response Time

This time we reviewed thirteen 17” LCD displays in order to figure out not only their evident highs and lows, but also their real pixel response time, which definitely affects the image quality. Find out the best 17” LCD now!

by Oleg Artamonov
07/17/2003 | 10:59 PM

My first article where I tried to measure the response time characteristic of several 15” LCD displays (see our article called Closer Look at 15” LCD Monitors Features: Pixel Response Time) received very big feedback from the readers. Some of them asked specific questions and shared some suggestions about the applied measurement methodology. So, I will first try to answer most frequently asked questions.

 

First of all, some readers expressed a supposition that different colors on the screen may switch not simultaneously because of certain peculiarities of the display electronics (although physically all sub-pixels are absolutely identical in this respect). Furthermore, odd and even pixels may also switch not simultaneously. So, as I measure the rise time for an entire (white-colored!) line, the measured response time would be overestimated from the start. I took these considerations into account and performed the measurements on both: white and red lines and on a dotted line of red pixels (next nearest). But I discovered that the result shown by each of the displays reviewed today was the same whatever the color or the shape of the line was. As the signal-to-noise ratio is the highest for the measurements taken on a white line, all oscillograms shown in this article are taken for this particular line.

Some readers also criticized me for assuming that the manufacturer specifies response time according to the ISO 13406-2 standard. Let me make my position clear once again. If the manufacturer doesn’t explicitly tell how exactly he measures response time, I think I have the right to assume that he sticks to the industry standard. Sometimes the measured and specified response times differ greatly, which can mean that the manufacturer either tells wrong numbers or measures this characteristic according to his own methodology. But tell me, do these two variants differ for a common user like me? In both cases I am misled because I will compare this response time value with the values of those displays that honestly tell their response time according to the standard.

I was also asked to mention my own subjective impressions about the response time so that you know how the numbers reflect visually the image quality. Still, I chose not to do that because my eye perception might depend on a number of factors and couldn’t be measured or calibrated. To compare visually two displays, close to each other in characteristics, I would have to place them side by side and meditate for a while, viewing one after another… And then I would have to do the same for all displays… So, once again, I won’t allow my subjective opinions to mess up with the objective data. Of course, I will say a few words about the visual perception of response time for some particular displays. For example, Samsung 172B has high total response time, but produces a very slight image blurring thanks to its low pixel rise time.

One more note. I measure the time it takes a black pixel to turn on and off again (from complete black to complete white and back again), but switching between two shades of gray may take more time, thus producing noticeable blurring. I am going to address this issue in one of the upcoming articles by showing the relation between response time and the initial and terminal states of the pixel.

Viewing angle is yet another important characteristic of an LCD display, but we don’t have any equipment at our disposal to measure it yet. Anyway, I am putting down my subjective impressions about it. Some displays don’t comply with their own specs in this respect, which can be easily seen with a naked eye.

The last thing to discuss before going over to the tests is the pulse-width modulation of the backlight lamps with a frequency of 200Hz – 1kHz. The question is whether this flicker strains the eyes. On the one hand, the frequency is rather high, but on the other – some people say they notice this flicker when working with the display for a long time. So, I carried out a brief test. After unpacking and turning on each display, I worked in a word processor (white background, black text) for a quarter of an hour. Then I tried to guess, listening to my own impressions, whether there was any flicker. Then I connected the oscilloscope and the sensor and checked whether my impressions reflected the reality adequately. The result surprised me a lot: I was only wrong with two displays, Samsung 171S and Sony SDM-X72. I guessed that the first one had no flicker, while the oscilloscope said it had modulation with 540Hz frequency (this is quite high, and that’s why I was wrong). For the latter I thought it had a flicker and it did have it, but not from the backlight lamp… We will discuss this phenomenon later in the article. For all remaining displays with pulse-width modulation of the backlight lamp (those from NEC) my guesses were correct. It means that the eye subconsciously perceives modulation of the light stream even if it is performed with 200-300Hz frequency. I won’t claim that it leads to higher eyestrain (this is a too subjective factor), but you may want to pay attention to this characteristic when choosing your display.

The last preliminary note concerns the cases of the displays. Few of them allow using the display in the portrait mode or mount it on the wall. But this limitation exists only when you use the monitor’s own base. There is a standard for fastening the base to a display called VESA – a square with 75mm-long sides and four holes in the corners. Most displays comply with this standard. In other words, you can simply buy another base from a third-party manufacturer and fasten it to the display with four screws.

Now, let’s wind up the introduction and get to the testing participants.

CTX S700

Our first participant is a display from CTX. This is a well-known manufacturer of mainstream displays – both CRT and LCD. The CTX S700 display is the junior model from the 17” family and doesn’t offer any extraordinary characteristics: the specified brightness is 250nit (1 nit = 1 candela per square meter), contrast ratio is 350:1, and both horizontal and vertical viewing angles are 140 degrees. The specified response time equals 25ms.

Designers took it easy when making the case: it won’t become a major attraction of your office or room. The base only allows adjusting the display tiling, but it can be replaced as it complies with the VESA standard.

The matrix has rather wide spaces between pixels and you can see separate strings. Overall, the display looks zebra-like striped. Viewing angles are really moderate: when viewed from below, the display gets very dark, from above – it shows wide dark horizontal lines. Brightness is unevenly distributed from top to bottom – it can be clearly seen at work. Backlight brightness was also small according to today’s standards – I had to set both brightness and contrast of the display to 60% at work.

Response time as measured in the test noticeably exceeded the specified value (33mm pixel rise time plus 3ms pixel fall time equals 36ms total). I won’t conceal the fact that the image produced by the display was more “blurred” than when 25ms matrixes are used. Moreover, you can see in the oscillograms certain brightness fluctuations corresponding to the refresh rate (I set the refresh rate to 60Hz and 75Hz – the brightness fluctuation frequency changed, too). It’s not clear why there is such an effect. It may be that the manufacturer reduced the capacity of Cs capacitors (see the picture below) to reduce response time. These capacitors are connected in parallel to each cell and maintain its state until the matrix is refreshed again. If their capacity is low, the cell gets partially discharged and changes its brightness before the refresh (the picture with the sub-pixel structure is taken from the Samsung Electronics website).


Sub-pixel structure for LCD displays

Theoretically, such effects can be the result of the LCD display working on alternating current (and this is a must for normal work of any LCD display, starting from wristwatch and calculator displays). The polarity can be changed in three ways: for the whole screen at once, for a line of pixels or for a dotted line (checkerboard pattern). The latter variant is the most complex one as concerns its electronic implementation, but the other two make the whole screen or separate 1-pixel-wide lines flicker (the scheme of polarity change algorithms is taken from the Samsung Electronics website).

When working with this display, I couldn’t set it up for the eyes to feel good, although this was hardly because of the flicker: its amplitude was too low to be perceived by the eye.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Iiyama AS4315UT

The AS4315UT model from Iiyama is another representative of the “middle class”. The manufacturer promises 150 degrees horizontal and 125 degrees vertical viewing angles, 250nit brightness, 350:1 contrast ratio and 25ms response time. Besides the standard D-Sub, this display has a DVI-input, which in fact is no rarity for a 17” model.

The overall elegant exterior is somewhat spoiled by the bulky vertical pole of the base that allows adjusting the height and tiling of the display. The menu is rather unhandy, especially its three-page structure. Still, you won’t have to use it often – brightness, contrast and self-adjustment are accessed by means of “hot” buttons.

Side viewing angles proved good, while the view from above or below was worse: the screen grew dark. Screen brightness is of average level. During work, I set brightness to 40% and contrast to 43%. When brightness was at maximum, gray vertical lines become visible at the black background. If you try to remove them by manual fine-tuning, text reproduction quality worsens. On the other hand, maximum brightness and contrast settings should only be used in games – it’s inappropriate to use them at work.

The display didn’t make it to its specs and showed 22ms pixel rise time and 7ms pixel fall time.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Iiyama ProLite E430S

It is a new LCD display model from Iiyama. Its shipments began last spring. The specified characteristics don’t differ much from those of the previous model: 250nit brightness, 350:1 contrast, 140/120 degrees viewing angles (horizontal and vertical, respectively), and 25ms response time.

The display is very neat and compact: a thin case, a small and elegant base that allows adjusting the screen tiling… The model may come in three colors: white, silver (with “S” in their marking) and black (with “B” in their marking). There are two built-in speakers, but the sound quality they produce is only enough to give voice to Windows and ICQ-like programs.

The menu follows the bad example of the previous model, AS4315UT, with the same disadvantages: the division of the menu into three groups is unhandy.

Horizontal viewing angle is average, while vertical one depends on the direction: if you look at the screen from below, it appears dark. The brightness adjustment increment is very small: you can hardly see the difference changing brightness by plus-minus 5%. It’s all quite different with contrast, even 1% changes are evident. When working in a word-processing program, I found 60% brightness and 32% contrast most comfortable settings.

During the test the display produced 28ms pixel rise time and 4ms pixel fall time, making 32ms in total.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

NEC MultiSync LCD1701

This is one of the latest models from NEC featuring a very fast matrix; the manufacturer says its response time is only 16ms (12ms pixel rise and 4ms pixel fall time). Viewing angles are 140 degrees (both horizontal and vertical); brightness is 260nit and contrast ratio – 450:1.

The display is very compact, its framing is just one centimeter and a half wide. The base allows adjusting the tiling of the display, but not the height.

The menu is rather average in its user-friendliness; brightness and contrast are quick-accessed. The display can automatically set itself up when the refresh rate or resolution change (NEC calls it Non Touch Auto Adjustment – NTAA). There is only one unpleasant thing about the controls. The names of the buttons are made by extrusion, without any color. So, with a black display I couldn’t see those names at all. You can either rely on your sense of touch or pop your eyes out trying to make out what this or that button serves for. It took me about fifteen minutes to learn the names by heart and I had no problems after that. Still, it is a pity that the manufacturer didn’t bother to add some silver paint into the markings on the buttons…

Viewing angle is quite average. When viewed from below, the screen appears completely dark. When viewed from above, it shows a wide dark band. So, I would say that the specified vertical angle of 140 degrees is a small overstatement. Moreover, when you look at the screen from aside, the image worsens much earlier than the specified 70 degrees. The display has a good reserve of brightness and contrast: I set them to 45% of the maximum at work.

During the tests the display showed a record-breaking response time of 16ms (12ms pixel rise and 4ms pixel fall time). These values fully comply with the specifications. The backlight lamp modulates at 220Hz. Modulation depth was about 20% even at the maximum brightness.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

NEC MultiSync LCD1760NX

This model is a more expensive analog of the previous one. It has the same super-fast matrix, and better viewing angles (160 degrees both horizontal and vertical). There is also a DVI connector present.

The design of the display is similar to the other model from NEC, except the base. There is a vertical pole here, allowing the adjustment of both: the tiling and the height of the screen. Moreover, thanks to the rotating circle in the base, you can swing the screen to 170 degrees to the left or right. As this model was painted white (they come in two colors – white or black), I had no problems reading the markings written on the buttons. White letters on a white background turned to be easier to read than black on black.

Notwithstanding wider specified viewing angles, there are no evident improvements. Both: horizontal and vertical angles are far from perfect, just like in LCD1701, and the display doesn’t stand up to its 160 degrees promise. Meanwhile, the small effective viewing angle can even be discomforting at work. Screen brightness is similar to that of the previous model: 40% brightness and contrast were comfortable enough for me.

The measured response time was 17ms (13ms rise + 4ms fall). As the measurement error is about 1-2ms, we can say that the display met its specifications. Again, the backlight lamp of this model modulated at a frequency of 220Hz.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

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

Samsung SyncMaster 171S (GH17LSSSJ)

The letters “SSS” in the name indicate that the display is made in a silver-black case and features a base that doesn’t support the portrait mode. The specified characteristics don’t impress much: 250nit brightness, 350:1 contrast ratio, 160/120 degrees viewing angles and 25ms response time. No wonder, as this model belongs to the older 171 family that has been manufactured for a long time (according to LCD manufacturers’ standards, of course) and is now ousted to the budget sector by the newer 172 family.

The display is bulky, although it doesn’t surpass the above-described Sampo here. The massive base helps to adjust the tiling and height, but doesn’t allow putting the screen too low. So, if you happen to have a high desk and a low chair, you will have to look at the screen from below, which is not very nice. The control buttons are placed on the right, you can press them with your thumb, holding the panel in place. Brightness and auto-adjustment have quick access buttons, while contrast is only set in the menu. Anyway, the menu is quite simple, there will be no problems using it.

The matrix is typical: horizontal viewing angles are more than enough for comfortable work, while the angle “from below” is relatively small. There is enough brightness: I found 35% brightness and 30% contrast most comfortable for a word-processing program.

This display was far from hasty in the tests: 37ms pixel rise time and 4ms pixel fall time. Still, the blurring was not too evident, although I wouldn’t recommend you to use this display at home. Backlight brightness is regulated by means of pulse-width modulation with the 540Hz frequency.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Samsung SyncMaster 171N (GH17ASAB)

The N-marked models are somewhere between the old 171 and the new 172 families. They have the same bulky base supporting the portrait mode like the 171 models, while the compact case is the same as in the 172 family. The parameters are similar to those of SM171S: 250nit brightness, 400:1 contrast ratio, 140/120 degrees viewing angles and 25ms response time.

The design of the front panel has been changed: the plastic framing is much narrower, and the control buttons are shifted to its lower edge. As with the 171S model, we have only two quick access buttons: for brightness and auto-adjustment. The menu follows the Samsung style. It is the same as in 171S as well as in 15” models. One more difference from the 172 family is the integrated power supply unit (just like in 171S).

Viewing angles are similar to those of the previous model (well, if there is a 10-degree difference, you will not notice it with a naked eye). But the bad view from below is more important for this model as it becomes the view from the left in the portrait mode. Screen brightness is higher than in 171S. I set 25% brightness and 22% contrast at work. Anyway, I’d like to say that even with the maximum brightness, the image was quite OK.

This display performed quite well in the tests having shown 25ms pixel rise time and 4ms pixel fall time.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Samsung SyncMaster 172S (MO17ESZS)

The parameters of this display repeat those of its predecessor, SyncMaster 171S: 250nit brightness, 350:1 contrast ratio, 140/120 viewing angles (horizontal/vertical), 25ms response time. The main innovation is the case. Samsung abandoned the bulky cases typical of 171 family and the new displays are among the most compact in this roundup. The case itself resembles that of 171N model, but thinner, as the power unit is external. The base has been changed most dramatically:

This design solution allows changing the tiling of the screen up to the horizontal position when the screen is folded with the base into one (thus you can mount it on the wall, all necessary accessories, screws and the like, coming with the display). The base also allows a small adjustment of the screen height. Besides, the base has integrated speakers (in the multimedia version of the display) and input sockets. I have to admit that this is one of the best display case designs. In fact, there is only one drawback: it is impossible to work in the portrait mode (because of the connectors in the base; the base cannot be detached from the screen and doesn’t comply with the VESA standard). In any other respect, the new case is up to the mark.

The menu is the same for all Samsung models. It is easy to navigate through. Quick access buttons are assigned to brightness and auto-adjustment. The buttons are small but easy to press.

The real parameters of the display don’t greatly differ from its predecessors. Viewing angle is good from the side or from above, but worse from below. So, the larger share of the specified 120 degrees of vertical viewing angle relates to the upper sector. Screen brightness is at the same level as in 171S: 33% of both brightness and contrast were comfortable for work.

The measured response time was good, although not excellent: 22ms pixel rise time and 4ms pixel fall time. We even noticed a slight blurring on the screen.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Samsung SyncMaster 172B (MO17ESZS)

This display looks an exact copy of the previous one, but drastically differs from it in its characteristics: 250nit brightness, 500:1 contrast ratio, record-breaking 170 degrees viewing angles (in the both directions) and 25ms response time.

As the design doesn’t differ from the previous display, let’s go over directly to image quality. Viewing angles are really impressive – the image looks excellent whatever the direction you view it from. While many other displays couldn’t boast any acceptable view, when you looked at them from below, this one is devoid of this weakness. The effective viewing angles do correspond to the specified 170 degrees. I don’t know how the engineering men from Samsung Electronics achieved this, but the result is excellent and 172B has no rivals in this parameter, at least among the monitors reviewed today.

During work I set both: brightness and contrast to 30%, but the black color doesn’t greatly suffer when brightness is at 100%. The matrix has a high level of contrast.

The total response time was rather average: 31ms. But unlike other matrices with a slow rise and fast fall, this one did the rise in 13ms and fall in 18ms. In practice it results in a less washed out image than on other displays with the same total response time.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Samsung SyncMaster 172W (MO17WSDS)

The only exceptional characteristic of this wide-screen display (its dimensions are 16:9 instead of 5:4, which is traditional for 17” LCD displays) is brightness equal to 450nit at 400:1 contrast ratio. Viewing angles and response time are average: 140/110 degrees and 25ms.

The colossal brightness is achieved by means of the new operating mode aka MagicBright, known to the users of the new CRT-display series from Samsung. When you press the MagicBright button, you will be offered four options: User Defined, Text, Internet and Entertain (in the order of increasing brightness). Brightness is rather low in the Text mode (I set both brightness and contrast to 40%), but in the Entertain mode the screen is simply shining.

The viewing angles correspond roughly to the matrix used in the 172S model rather than the 172B one. When viewed from below, the image appears dark.

Overall, this display has a specific function. Its 16:9 screen ratio and highest brightness make it the best choice for watching wide-screen movies. As for work, you’d better stick to the 172B model with its much wider viewing angles.

Response time of this display was the same as of the 171N model: 25ms pixel rise time and 4ms pixel fall time.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Sony SDM-S71R

One more – after the NEC models – display with a fast matrix. Its specifications: 260nit brightness, 500:1 contrast ratio, 160 degrees viewing angles (both horizontal and vertical), 16ms response time (12ms rise and 4ms fall).

The design of the display is pretty elegant, but what else did you expect from Sony? The control buttons are placed on the side, like in Samsung 171S. The menu is very user-friendly; brightness and contrast are quick-accessed. Auto-adjustment doesn’t need a quick button as it is performed automatically each time the resolution or the refresh rate change.

Regrettably, the real viewing angles fall short of the specifications. When you view the screen from aside at an angle of 60 degrees or more, the image looks yellowish. When viewed from below at an angle of 45 degrees or more, it appears dark. And if you look at the screen from above (30-40 degrees) there will be a wide dark band across the screen. So, the real viewing angles are much more modest than specified… It looks similar to NEC LCD1760NX. Seems like both displays are based on the same, or very similar, matrices.

Brightness is rather low (especially after the above-described Samsungs). I set brightness and contrast to 45% at work.

The display did a little worse than the specs claimed: 15ms pixel rise time and 13ms pixel fall time. Still, these values are very nice. If only the viewing angles were wider…

The backlight lamp modulates at 280Hz, but the flicker is nearly absent at the maximum brightness of the backlight (it is adjusted independently). Moreover, you can see fluctuations with the refresh rate frequency in the oscillograms. Again, their amplitude is too small to be taken into consideration.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

Sony SDM-X72

The specified characteristics of this display are quite good: 280nit brightness, 400:1 contrast ratio, 160 degrees viewing angles (both horizontal and vertical) and 30ms response time (10ms rise and 20ms fall – looks like the matrix from Samsung 172B, doesn’t it?).

The display is not as slim as its predecessor, because the case is rather bulky. The control buttons are placed on the side. They are rounded with an imprint in the center. The menu resembles the one of the previous model, but the quick access buttons are assigned new functions. Instead of brightness and contrast, they now control the volume of the integrated speakers and the ECO mode. This new operating mode, ECO, is enabled with a single press and reduces the brightness in a jump. It’s quite handy when you want to leave the computer for a while, so why waste the resources of the display?

The connectors deserve a closer look. First of all, there are three of them on the monitor: two VGA and one DVI connector. The first VGA and the DVI connectors are combined into the first input port of the display, and the second VGA is the second input port. We saw this two-input scheme in CRT-displays from Sony, now it just has a digital DVI input, natural for LCD-displays. You can switch between the inputs by pressing a button on the front panel. The enabled input is indicated by the LEDs.

Unfortunately, viewing angles had the same problems as in the previous display. When viewed from aside (at an angle of 60 degrees or more), the screen gets yellowish. When viewed from above or below, the image appears darker. Brightness was also far from perfection. For comfortable work I set 40% brightness and 50% contrast, but when I tried to raise brightness above 70%, the black color appeared gray.

Another unpleasant surprise can be seen in the oscillograms. Remember I said I was wrong guessing that the backlight lamp of this display flickers? Well, it doesn’t, but the whole screen does. Whatever brightness, the image was flickering at the refresh rate frequency (I checked this out with a few different refresh rate settings), and the amplitude of the flicker was 15% of the screen brightness, which is perceivable to the eye…

The measured response time was 10ms rise plus 22ms fall. It corresponds to the specified values absolutely.

Pixel rise time

Pixel fall time

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.

Model name

Measured response time, ms

Specified response time, ms

CTX S700

33 / 3

25

Iiyama AS4315UT D

22 / 7

20

Iiyama ProLite E430S

28 / 4

25

NEC MultiSync LCD 1701

12 / 4

12 / 4

NEC MultiSync LCD 1760NX

13 / 4

12 / 4

Sampo PD-80A11D

19 / 8

34 / -

Samsung SyncMaster 171S

37 / 4

25

Samsung SyncMaster 171N

25 / 4

25

Samsung SyncMaster 172S

22 / 4

25

Samsung SyncMaster 172B

13 / 18

25

Samsung SyncMaster 172W

25 / 4

25

Sony SDM-X71R

15 / 13

12 / 4

Sony SDM-X72

10 / 22

10 / 20

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.