Samsung 172X: 12ms Response Time for 17" LCD
by Kristopher Kubicki on June 8, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
Samsung LTM170EX
The cornerstone of any good LCD monitor is the panel. Samsung's 172X is no exception. We have talked about different display modes and LCD panels in the past. Today, we want to talk about a display mode that is traditionally different from Samsung's PVA (Pattern Vertical Alignment) display mode. We will talk about TN or twisted nematic mode.If you have read our LCD primer, you may already be familiar with Twisted Nematic display modes, or other variations on TN, such as TN with some sort of Frame Rate Control. Sharp's LL-191A LCD uses a TN display mode, and we also explained that in the review.
In a nutshell, the problem with current LCD displays is that many of them cannot break the 25ms response time barrier. Response time has quickly become the most important specification when buying an LCD. In most cases, we call the "average" response time the time it takes a pixel to twist and untwist, also known as "time rising, time falling" (we abbreviate that as "TrTf"). As manufacturers approach the boundary of display technologies such as PVA, MVA and IPS, it appears the industry has come full circle; back to the original TN technology used in some of the first LCDs.
Here is the problem: as manufacturers continue to stretch the limitations of their slightly different twisting methods, they begin to hit the theoretical limit for how fast their twisting technology can work. Granted, each technology has advantages and disadvantages, particularly in the realm of viewing angle and color replication. Within the last year, however, AUO, LG Philips LCD, and now Samsung have all readopted the TN technology with some minor tweaks.
Just like the Hitachi CML174 and the Sharp LL-191A, the Samsung 172X uses a 6-bit LCD panel. Our particular SyncMaster 172X uses the Samsung LTM170EX, one of Samsung's newest panels not even listed directly on the website. You can find out more information through a Samsung Semiconductor brochure. Notice that the monitor claims 16.2M color replication - a 6-bit LCD with a dithering technology. In reality, this LCD can only produce 262,000 color shades, but by using a method of frame rate control, the panel controller can adjust voltages to emulate out of bound gray scales.
Aside from the 6-bit display, most things concerning the LTM170EX are quite outstanding. The 500:1 contrast ratio seems about right for a TN based display. Our monitor produces 270 cd/m2 brightness; although, we suspect the European version may actually produce 300cd/m2. Last, but not least, the response time claims an impressive sub-13ms response time. There is a small footnote stating that these results are measured at 25 degrees Celsius (77 degrees Fahrenheit). We suspect that the transition periods may be higher at lower temperatures, since the liquid crystals are at a slightly higher state of solidity.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
View All Comments
Crosster - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
Just another test :http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/sam...
Crosster - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
nourdmrolNMT1 - Sunday, June 13, 2004 - link
question: what is the difference in this LCD screen, and the MUCH cheaper 12ms response 710N or 710T (t just has the DVI input)?MIKE
MadAd - Saturday, June 12, 2004 - link
Ho well, just another 6 bit panel, big whoop.When o when are we going to start seeing competition at the 19" 32bit 1280x1024 16ms $550 (£300) level?
When I bought this 17" Iiyama e431s i thought it was only going to be a season or 2 and ill be able to upgrade to something bigger, faster, stronger but now whats all this 6 bit retrograde stuff? Man they are dragging their heels here.
skunkbuster - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
as soon as they make an lcd with true 32bit coloring(and not that dithering crap) with 16ms times or lower, i'll get one.i dont like the fact that they have to sacrifice color reproduction for low response time. grrr
TheAudit - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
#11 – What about if you are space constrained and don’t want a 50 lb behemoth with a two foot long neck on your desk?#13 – You are correct. CRT technology hasn’t moved in years.
JGF - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
11, I wouldnt call the move to LCDs a 'fad'. Its the sound of inevitability. :) CRT's are dead. It pains me to say it since LCDs dont best meet my needs but CRT manufacturers are drastically cutting their lines back or dropping them all together and refocusing on lcd monitors.Crosster - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
I own one of this baby since 3 weeks, i'm very pleased with it. Display is very reactive (I play RTCW) and the only negative point I see is some dither in black colors, especially in video or DVD viewing.If you buy this screen, you should be aware of dead pixels (i had to test 5 different screens to get a clean one (a lot of them where red lit)
Otherwhise, I know it's not relevant but i just want to see the result, is it possible to get the Color profile you created for this article?
PS : Can we get too the date of manufacturing and the origin of the screen? Thanks
IkeEisenhower - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
This (and I really hate to have to use this term) corporate-hyped fixation on LCD and plasma displays is what turned me off of Tom's initially. I realize the site is all about chronicling the 'latest' technology, but Anandtech has always strived more to achieve end-user quality over faddish toys like these things. Unless you literally have money to burn or can't afford a decent desk or pay four bucks extra on your power bill, there is ablsolutely no advantage to using either an LCD or plasma display in favour of good 'ol perfected-technology CRTs. Sure, you can get a plasma to look decent at 1024x768 at forty diagonal inches, but unless you have a forty-inch-diameter head, it's useless. You can get the absolute best commercially-available 21-inch CRTs for easily half the price of a 22" LCD with decent tech in it. But althogh you can carry your new LCD in one hand, your colours suck, ghosting is inevitable, contrast levels fluctuate from bad to worse, AND YOU'RE SPENDING MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for something that merely looks cool. I know that the top CRTs out there have been done to death review-wise by innumerable other sites, but it would be great to see Anandtech buck the trend and show you spec-for-spec how 'good' these new LCDs are compared to CRTs that do everything so well they don't really have any room for improvement (the infamous Sony quip), and bottom-line the price.My two cents, for what it's worth.
ElFenix - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
yet another low resolution desktop LCD. I seriously do not understand why laptop LCDs have significantly higher DPI. mine runs at 142 DPI. in contrast a 17" 1280x1024 resolution monitor such as this runs at about 97 DPI. a 17" version of a typical notebook screen would run something about 1900 pixels across the screen, so obviously manufacturers don't have a problem with the DPI of making a 1600x1200 17" LCD, and yet they don't. i guess i just don't get it. why wouldn't people want 50% more desktop area?