Related Articles

Conclusion

The Samsung 172x is an impressive monitor. Physically it looks very stylish with the thin, uniform bezel and the unobstrusive buttons. Some users may dislike the fact that the DC powersupply is external and is not part of the monitor itself. The desktop performance is good with perfect geometry and great sharpness. For those who are doing a lot of graphical work, it will be essential to calibrate the monitor properly. The Magictune software has wizards to help with the process but the end result was not satisfactory. After the calibration, my grey browser windows had a red tint. This was the result of a calibration choice to make a picture look more natural and in the end I had to change it. The color has improved a lot according to Andy who uses several LCDs regularly including the older Samsung 151s. For those who like to watch movies on the computer, the 172x performs admirably also. Unfortunately it is not all the way there yet with games, notably shooters. There is a distracting blurring effect that those migrating over from a CRT will definitely notice and those currently on LCDs may not notice a huge improvement over 25ms LCDs. The general consensus in the office is that the claimed 12 ms response time is a bit aggressive. The benefits of LCDs are undeniable though with their tiny footprint compared to a CRT as well as their light weight which makes them ideal for lan parties or users who move their monitor around regularly. I would not hesitate to recommend the 172x for office work yet the price makes it prohibitive - for about 30$ more one can get a 19" LCD with DV. I was expecting a lot more in terms of performance especially with weighty claims such as a 12 ms response time and cannot really recommend this monitor at this price point. Samsung will really need to look at the pricing structure of this monitor and rethink the numbers they are using as they are not indicative of real world performance and as such we cannot recommend this product.

Note- We have updated the review of the 172x in a new article due to problems with the original 172x sample we received and it has affected our evaluation drastically