[citation][nom]Ritorix[/nom]"Acer, on the other hand, lists its monitor at 3ms grey to grey, and as expected, performed significantly worse on the response time test."So, uh, wheres the test results? Why would it be 'expected' to perform slower?[/citation]
When a company lists response time, it means how fast the connection is to your computer, essentially. 2ms is the fastest for LCDs today. When the number says 3ms grey to grey, it doesn't mean it's 3ms period. It means that the response time for different shades of grey, and only grey, is 3ms. But reading a box or looking at online specifications, you wouldn't necessarily know that if you're interested in buying it. That's why we pointed it out.
[citation][nom]UmeNNis[/nom]Uhm how did the earlier 22" models 'not measure up'?Last I checked, the Samsung 22" model was widely reviewed as (albeit pricey) possibly the best gaming monitor you could buy at the time? (I know, I did the research, then bought it; not surprisingly, I am very happy with it)[/citation]
That is based on my previous time with Viewsonic's VX2265WM 22" 120Hz FuHzion display (long name, I know). It only had relatively good quality, and at the time I wrote the review (for Total PC Gaming Magazine UK), it received a 6/10. I've only had a limited time with Samsung's model, and more research on it proves that you are in fact correct. Samsung's display is not to be discredited, as it is rated quite well by several trusted hardware publications.