Samsung SyncMaster 915N: 8ms Response Times

Subjective Analysis

For this portion of the benchmark, we will pit the SyncMaster 915N against the other monitors benchmarked in our 19” LCD roundup and comprehensive 19” display reviews since then. This is a subjective test that relies on our overall experience with the monitor after several hours of casual and thorough use. We also use test patterns and guidelines from the VESA FPDM to rate each unit as fairly as possible.

Here is generally how we rate a category:

5 - Outstanding; we have not seen anything to date that could rival our impression of this monitor's performance.
4 - Good, but room for improvement. There are units on the market that perform better.
3 - Average; this monitor performs well enough to maintain the status quo, but does not excel.
2 - Improvement needed; this monitor performs poorly in performance of this category.
1 - Unacceptable; this product does not pass even basic performance requirements.

DisplayMate / CheckScreen / VESA FPDM 2.0
	BenQ FP931	Dell 1905FP	Planar PE191M	Samsung 193P	Samsung 910V	Sony SDM-S94	LG L1980U	Samsung 915N
Intensity Range Check	4.5	5	4	5	4	4	3	3.5
Black Level Adjustment	4.5	5	4.5	5	4.5	5	4	3
Defocusing, Blooming, Halos	5	5	5	5	4	5	5	5
Screen Uniformity and Color Purity	4.5	5	-	5	4	4	5	5
Dark Screen Glare Test	3	4	4	4.5	4	4	4	4
Primary Colors	3	4.5	4	4	3	3.5	4	4
Color Scales	3	4	4	4	4	4	3	4
16 Color Intensity Levels	3	4.5	4.5	4.5	3.5	4.5	3	4
Screen Regulation	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Streaking, Ghosting	5	5	5	5	2	4	4	3

Note: the streaking/ghosting mentioned in this portion of the analysis refers to streaking and ghosting as interference, not as a byproduct of poor response time.

Notes from the Lab

As we somewhat suspected, the real weak points of the display line up with the intensity range check and black level adjustment. LGE recently had similar troubles with their L1980U (6-bit TN) display as well. When compared to the L1980U, Samsung clearly had an edge on color reproduction. Part of this may be due to Samsung’s slight change in the TN mode itself, but more likely has to do with the color interpolation – which does not use a square matrix like many of the other TN displays that we have seen. This image quality is not flawless, of course. Even though the interpolation might be slightly better than other 6-bit TN displays, some of the same issues with text present in the L1980U are present in this display as well.

The other low point for the SyncMaster 915N is the analog only cable. Dell uses expensive, but versatile Genesis digital signal processors for all of their displays. As a result, almost all of their displays are capable of multiple inputs and, at the very least, DVI and analog. Samsung displays very commonly have DSPs that are custom designed just for that display, and tacking on a DVI input isn’t just a matter of plugging the interconnects into the chip. In any case, we appreciate the fact that Samsung gave us so many levels of control in the DSP, like sharpness and coarse adjustment, but a DVI interface would have done this display a lot of justice. There were several instances while playing games where we could pick up small artifacts along the edges of the screen, and this anomaly seemed dependent on where the analog input cable was positioned on the desk. Analog interconnects need to disappear off the face of the earth, and fast.

Gaming was one of the better qualities of this display. Since the colors seemed accurate enough and wash out occurred infrequently, response time became the focal point of the display again. World of Warcraft and UT2004 received a noticeable boost in performance when rotating the camera. Motion blur was considerably less on the SyncMaster 915N when compared to the Dell 1905FP. One way to really differentiate this display from a display like the Dell UltraSharp 1905FP was to rotate the camera, but leave something in the center field of vision. LG’s L1980U performed great in this category as well, but the fact that the SyncMaster 915N came out ahead in several other tests really sets it apart from LGE’s alternative.