Visual tests
Having high tech tools is once thing, but being able to personally step back and appreciate results is another. The easiest way is to often simply compare the screens. Starting the game UT 2004 on the monitors and comparing the results could be enough. If there is still a doubt, it’s possible to look at the fastest scene and long tracking shots of a couple of movies and analyze the result.
Even if two of these screens claim faster response times than the AS4314UTG, officially a 20 ms, none of the three monitors could compete with the Iiyama. After this the ranks are tighter and none of these screens can be qualified as fast. All three have a strong afterglow, that is too much for a game where the character does a lot of jumping around. Based on this, the second most reactive screen (or the least slow) is the LG L1920B. This is unexpected because it was supposedly the slowest with a response time of 25 ms. The third and fourth places are, respectively, the Philips 190S5 and Samsung 193P screens.
The result is final. There are strong differences between the screens. Here are the winners (and losers) of the visual assessment test:
It’s interesting to compare our results with the monitors’ specifications.
It’s ironic. If we were to rate the screens based on manufacturers claims the order would be reversed compared to our visual assessment.
First conclusion: never trust the specifications!
