Samsung U32E850R

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a very sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the U32E850R. A range of monitors of known latency were used to compare with, taking over 30 repeat readings to aid accuracy. The monitor was compared to a range of screens of known latencies by using this method of side-by-side comparative testing. We calculated 5.13ms (under 1/3 of a frame) of input lag. This value is influenced both by the signal delay (the element you ‘see’) and pixel responsiveness (the element you ‘feel’) and indicates a very low signal delay. As with the BL3201PT/PH, the signal delay is essentially negligible and as low as we’ve seen from UHD models. Even sensitive users shouldn’t find this aspect of the monitor troubling.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In this article we explore various factors which affect the responsiveness of monitors. Key amongst them is the idea of ‘perceived blur’, which is contributed to most significantly by the movement of your own eye when tracking motion on a screen. We also introduce the concept of ‘pursuit photography’, which is designed to capture motion on a monitor in a way that is quite representative of what the eye sees. By using a moving rather than static camera, it is possible to capture the elements that contribute to perceived blur. Not only the pixel responsiveness of the monitor and any artifacts (overshoot, for example), but importantly the influence of camera (eye) movement as well.

The following images are pursuit photographs captured using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. The test is running at 960 pixels per second, which is a practical speed for such photographs and reflects what your eye actually sees during the test very nicely. The first three photographs show the results with the medium cyan background (middle row of the test) and the monitor set to each of its respective ‘Response Time’ settings; ‘Standard’, ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’. The fourth photo shows results with the light cyan background (bottom row of the test) and the ‘Faster’ response time setting. The fifth and final photo shows a fast 60Hz reference whereby pixel responsiveness isn’t a limiting factor. This is a Samsung S27A750D set to full brightness (eliminates PWM) and 60Hz, using its ‘Faster’ response time setting.

Perceived blur with various settings

With the ‘Normal’ setting, you can see that there is a significant degree of blur on top of what you would ideally see at 60Hz (i.e. the 60Hz reference). This is caused by far slower than optimal pixel transitions. Using the ‘Faster’ setting cuts this down significantly. There is still some blur (trailing from slower than optimal pixel responses) with the ‘Medium’ background but this is much weaker compared to the ‘Standard’ setting. With the ‘Light’ background there is some very light overshoot (inverse ghosting) visible, but very little in the way of conventional trailing. There is therefore very little additional overall perceived blur on top of that expected (60Hz reference). Using the ‘Fastest’ setting introduces obvious and unsightly overshoot from grey to grey acceleration that’s far too aggressive. This is extremely obvious and widespread during normal use.

From this analysis and indeed general use it’s quite clear that the ‘Faster’ setting, which is default, is optimal. In our subsequent analysis we look at a much broader range of transitions using this setting, during gameplay. Note that we will not be including a section on ‘overclocking’ as the monitor could only be set to an astounding 61Hz before significant frame skipping was observed. Needless to say the benefit of this compared to 60Hz is as good as nil.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On BF4 there was a moderate degree of blur, but this was largely as you’d see on even the fastest 60Hz sample and hold monitors. For the most part the pixel responsiveness was not a limiting factor, so the blur you observe would be similar regardless of how fast and cleanly the pixel transitions could theoretically be performed. There was a bit of trailing from slower than optimal pixel responses here and there, particularly where transitions occurred between various medium-dark shades. When strafing past a gun metal grey turret with dark and gloomy sky in the background, you could see a somewhat exaggerated trail. It didn’t appear as an obvious ‘smoky’ trail like on some VA panels nor did it stick out like a sore thumb. It is unlikely to bother most users, unless said users take issue with 60Hz monitors in general. Still, it’s important to note that there were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness evident for such transitions. There was also some light overshoot in places, particularly where medium-dark and medium-light shades move against one another. When strafing past some rocks or tree trucks with a bright blue sky in the background, for example, you can see a slight trail that is brighter than either shade involved in the transition. In some cases this appears a bit stronger than in the Test UFO demonstration with the light cyan background, but it is still quite light and not something most users would notice or find obtrusive in our opinion.

Our observations were similar on Dirt Rally. Overall things were much as you’d see on even the fastest 60Hz LCDs, with eye movement causing most of the perceived blur. There was again some trailing on top of this from slower than optimal pixel transitions, particularly between closely matching medium-dark shades. Whilst driving past darker areas of vegetation, for example, there would be a little extra blur on top of what you might see on some 60Hz models. This was fairly minor and would escape the notice of most users, however. Also minor and to most something that will be either unnoticeable or not at all irksome is the small amount of overshoot here and there, particularly between lighter shades. When observing lighter areas of sky whilst driving past bright green tree tops, for example, there was a hint of this. We are highlighting these issues just for completeness, the take home message is really that performance was much as you can hope for from a 60Hz LCD.

We also tested the Blu-ray movie titles used for our review and observed for any weaknesses attributable to pixel response behaviour. There were no issues to report, without any observable overshoot or trailing from sluggish pixel responses. The pace of action here is limited by the low frame rate at which these titles run, at around 24fps.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, which is introduced in the ‘Variable refresh rate’ section of our responsiveness article. As with Nvidia’s G-SYNC technology, the aim is to dynamically adjust the monitor’s refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate outputted by the GPU. Both of the articles we’ve just linked to explain why this is important, so we won’t repeat those technical intricacies here. Suffice to say that having the frame rate and refresh rate synchronised is important to eliminate the stuttering (VSync on) and tearing or juddering (VSync off) caused by frame rate departing from the refresh rate. There is also a reduction in latency compared to enabling VSync, although as explored previously we don’t have the means to empirically measure that difference in an accurate way.

Although the end goal of both AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-SYNC is the same, the process of achieving this is somewhat different. G-SYNC requires the use of a proprietary ‘G-SYNC chip’ which is integrated into the screen and replaces the traditional scaler and assistive electronics of the monitor. One of the advantages of this is that it allows Nvidia to regulate some aspects of calibration and responsiveness (pixel overdrive implementation) to try to ensure an optimal experience. The key benefit of FreeSync is that it doesn’t require additional hardware and instead relies on the ‘Adaptive-Sync’ protocol which is an optional extension of the DP 1.2a standard. The original scaler and assistive electronics are used and you retain the usual manufacturer-specific OSD options and port selection. The end product usually ends up a fair bit cheaper as there isn’t a ‘G-SYNC premium’ attached to it from the use of additional proprietary hardware within the monitor.

The Samsung U32E850R uses DP 1.2a+ and therefore supports the Adaptive-Sync protocol and hence AMD FreeSync via DisplayPort. You need a compatible AMD GPU to use FreeSync, such as the Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce that we’re using. There is a list of compatible models here and in addition it’s expected that most if not all future GPUs from AMD will be compatible. Upon connecting the monitor for the first time, assuming you have AMD’s Catalyst Control Centre (CCC) installed, you will be given a notification that you’ve got a FreeSync-capable display and should enable the technology. To do this you simply open CCC and navigate to ‘My Digital Flat-Panels – Properties (Digital Flat-Panel)’, ensure the checkbox at the bottom of the page is ticked and then press ‘Apply’. This page and checkbox is shown in the image below.

There are a few important things to note which are specific to FreeSync and this monitor:

1) There are some options related to FreeSync in the monitor menu, which are explored in the ‘OSD video’ featured earlier. They found in the ‘System’ part of the menu under ‘FreeSync’. There are basically two options that can be used for FreeSync; ‘Standard Engine’ and ‘Ultimate Engine’. The former provides a 50Hz – 60Hz variable refresh rate range, whereas the latter allows a broader 40Hz – 60Hz range. There were no downsides observed to enabling ‘Ultimate’ rather than ‘Standard’. This second option seems a bit redundant, so we’d just recommend sticking to ‘Ultimate Engine’.

2) Outside of the operating range (40 – 60Hz) the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. If you’re using ‘VSync on’ you will get stuttering if the frame rate dips below 40fps and the usual VSync latency penalty if it tries to rise above 60fps. With ‘VSync off’ you get tearing or juddering both below 40fps and above 60fps.

FreeSync – the experience

GTA V is a graphically demanding game, which becomes readily apparent if you try to run it at 3840 x 2160 with some of the nice bells and whistles enabled in the graphics options. Unless you have a monstrously powerful system, of course. With our single Radeon 290 we’d have to make monumental sacrifices in image quality to be able to sustain 60fps reliably at the native resolution (and even then, there would be no guarantees). By making more modest changes to the graphics options, we were able to keep the game looking very pleasant whilst also running within the FreeSync window of 40-60fps pretty much all of the time. Whereas these dips below 60fps would cause obnoxious stuttering or palpable tearing without using a variable refresh rate technology, the experience is now free from such annoyances. It is worth saying that 40fps is not the same as 60fps, as there is additional motion blur and a somewhat less connected feel to the game world. It is worlds away from the stuttery or juddery tear-ridden mess that presents itself when the technology is disabled, though, and really does make the difference between the game being playable and enjoyable or not.

BF4 was similar in many respects. Although somewhat less demanding in general, there are certainly plenty of options there that can bring pretty much any system to its knees when trying to run at the 3840 x 2160 ‘4K’ UHD resolution. High levels of MSAA (Multisample Anti-Aliasing), for example, can be a real killer. And of course there is that wonderful ‘resolution scale’ slider that some users might like to play around with that is essentially like a sort of supreme AA filter. With our system we obviously couldn’t crank up the settings quite that much without killing the frame rate such that it consistently fell below the 40fps FreeSync floor. We were able to use settings which gave a nice balance of image quality and performance at this resolution, though, and which also maintained a frame rate within the FreeSync operating window quite consistently. There were some momentary drops below 40fps when the action really intensified, but generally things stayed above that. As with GTA V it’s important to say that ‘the higher the frame rate the better’ does still apply with regards to motion blur and connected feel. But being able to dip below 60fps without everything basically grinding to a halt or becoming intolerable to look at and interact with makes a world of difference.

We could of course go on and talk about experiences in other games such as Titanfall, ESO, Dirt Rally and Warframe which all benefited in some way from FreeSync. But we think you get the picture. The UHD resolution is demanding and frame rates can be unpredictable in games. Being able to game at such a resolution without worrying that even the slightest dips below 60fps will destroy the experience is really a very nice thing indeed.

The ‘4K’ UHD experience

We’ve tested a broad range of ‘4K’ UHD (Ultra High Definition – 3840 x 2160) monitors of various sizes, ranging from around 24” to 40”. In this article we explore some key points to bear in mind when considering UHD monitors. The main article is written from the perspective of a 28” screen (which by connection gives a very similar experience to the more ubiquitous 27” screens) but also links to models we’ve tested of various other sizes. With its 31.5” screen, the Samsung U32E850R yields a pixel density of 139.87 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). We’ve explored the sort of experience this pixel density provides in the section of our BL3201PT/PH review entitled “The ‘4K’ UHD experience”, around three quarters of the way through the review. Given that the practical difference between the 32” screen of the BenQ and 31.5” screen of the Samsung is negligible in this respect, we won’t be repeating a lot of this information.

The take home message is essentially that we find the ~32” screen size to be something of a sweet spot for the UHD resolution. It provides a comfortable viewing experience without scaling for us from our preferred viewing distance of ~70cm – although mileage may vary according to preferences, eyesight and preferred viewing distance. This provides a large working area both in terms of physical space but also, importantly, useful work area. Text and image clarity is excellent and you can fit a lot on the screen at once, as demonstrated by the images below.

It also gives a distinctly ‘UHD’ quality to games and the currently fairly scant movie content that supports it. There is of course a fair difference in pixel density between this (139.87 PPI) and smaller UHD models (particularly if you consider a 23.8” model with a pixel density of 185.12 PPI). From a normal viewing distance, though, we feel that this difference is quite unsubstantial. Less so than the numbers would suggest. And we feel the level of detail and clarity potentially offered by the screen is very nice when coupled with the large 31.5” screen. It provides a very immersive gaming experience, drawing you into games in quite an impressive way. It certainly feels different to using smaller screens where you feel like you’re observing through a small window – a far less engrossing experience, in other words. The images below show various games running on the monitor. They of course give no indication whatsoever of what the monitor looks like first hand and are simply there to aid your visualisation of the monitor.

Interpolation and upscaling

The monitor runs natively at 3840 x 2160 – that is how many pixels it has horizontally by vertically. If you wish to run the monitor at a lower resolution than this, such as 2560 x 1440 or 1920 x 1080, an interpolation scaling process is used. You may wish to connect up a games console, for example, or drop the resolution on games which are too demanding to run at the 3840 x 2160 ‘4K’ UHD resolution on your system. As a PC users, you need to ensure that the monitor is handling the interpolation rather than the GPU for optimal results. AMD users can simply leave everything as it is by default, as the factory defaults will allow the monitor to handle the scaling. To double check things are correct, open Catalyst Control Centre and navigate to ‘My Digital Flat-Panels – Properties (Digital Flat-Panel)’. Ensure ‘Enable GPU scaling’ is unchecked (not ticked) and hit apply if this box was originally checked and you have unchecked it. Things should be setup in a similar way to the below image on modern AMD drivers with the Catalyst Control Centre.

Nvidia users should open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. Ensure ‘No scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown in the image below.

When running the monitor non-natively at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) there is a moderately high degree of softening compared to running Full HD natively on a screen of similar size. Whilst things don’t look as soft as we’ve seen on some models, there is a definite loss of detail and ‘blurring’ on textures and object edges in games. So whilst you could run a games console as a secondary use for the monitor, for example, it really isn’t ideal for that purpose. As a PC user you have the flexibility to drop down to 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) rather than 1920 x 1080 if you are finding your system is struggling a bit. Again, things simply aren’t as sharp as when viewing 2560 x 1440 natively on a screen of similar size. The softening is less jarring than at 1920 x 1080, however. Things actually still look fairly respectable in terms of detail and just the overall clarity. We certainly feel this is useable as a fall back, even if not ideal.

As a PC user watching native 1920 x 1080 content such as Blu-ray movies through software, you would generally leave the monitor at its native resolution of 3840 x 2160. By doing this the monitor does not handle the scaling and instead the GPU or movie software ‘upscales’ the content to fit the native resolution of the screen. This leads to a relatively minor softening of the image compared to viewing this content on a native 1920 x 1080 screen. It is worlds away from the softening that occurs when the monitor interpolates 1920 x 1080.

Conclusion

Having tested another UHD monitor of very similar size, the BenQ BL3201PT/PH, it was no surprise to feel right at home with the U32E850R. The thought of a 31.5” or 32” monitor may have seemed rather strange a few years backs, as until relatively recently it was a size reserved for TVs rather than monitors. With the 3840 x 2160 ‘4K’ UHD resolution, though, it starts to make a lot more sense. Not only does it provide a strong pixel density for excellent clarity and detail when gaming, it provides a large screen area to make for an engrossing experience. With that many pixels, the monitor can also make good use of the screen space from a productivity perspective – giving users an excellent workspace without forcing them to reach for the scaling bar.

But what about the U32E850R itself? Overall, the performance was pleasing and it was enjoyable to use and review. Out of the box the image was very bright, but fairly rich and well balanced really. With the OSD options afforded by Samsung, including a variety of gamma settings, it was quite straightforward to add that edge in richness and improve the overall balance further. And of course reduce that searing brightness. Whilst the gamma tracking wasn’t perfectly adherent to the standard ‘2.2’ curve, it did come close enough to provide a good experience for all-round use and give quite accurate shade representation. The slight modifications to the curve also allowed the monitor to show marginally enhanced visibility in dark scenes, but not to an extent that affected the gaming atmosphere. There was no patchy, artificial ‘oil slick’ look as you get with stronger low-end gamma enhancements.

Contrast was quite as you’d expect overall, with the usual ‘PLS glow’ and a fairly standard contrast ratio for the panel type. This glow was somewhat stronger than we’d seen on the BenQ model, but was really no stronger than we’d expect from an IPS-type panel of this size. Really, this aspect was a bonus on the BenQ and ‘as expected’ on the Samsung. We were particularly pleased by the screen surface used, which was very light matte (similar to the BenQ). This provided an image free from obvious graininess and helped preserve clarity and vibrancy better than most matte surfaces. The luminance adjustment range of the monitor was also exceptional, with a useful ‘Eye Saver’ Low Blue Light (LBL) setting as well. The monitor uses a hybrid solution to dim its backlight, though, which means that it only remains ‘flicker-free’ above a brightness of ‘30’ in the OSD. The ‘Eye Saver’ mode actually forces brightness below this threshold – we found the alternative LBL setting of ‘Warm2’ to be preferable anyway, and this was flicker-free at the right brightness setting.

What many will no doubt be particularly interested in, though, is the responsiveness of the monitor. The long and short of it is that it was, overall, pleasing. There were some ‘imperfections’ such as some slower than optimal pixel responses here and there and a touch of light overshoot, but nothing that should really hamper the experience. Even if you’re moderately sensitive to such issues. There was no input lag to speak of, with our testing indicating very little if any signal delay. The monitor also implemented FreeSync very nicely, allowing it to provide a much smoother experience than a monitor without variable refresh rate technology when the frame rate dipped below 60fps. And indeed, this is something of an inevitability on most systems running at the UHD resolution. The lower price and lower glow of the BL3201PT/PH might make it a more compelling choice for some users. And indeed it too supports AMD FreeSync. The variable refresh rate range on the BenQ is only 48 – 60Hz, however. On the U32E850R it is 40 – 60Hz. Whether that extra 8Hz of variable refresh rate range is enough to sway you or not is quite a personal choice and will likely depend on the power of your system and how often you expect to drop below 48fps but stay above 40fps when gaming.

The bottom line; if you are drawn in by the Samsung, you’re in for one of the best UHD gaming experiences on the market. And it’s not a bad choice for other uses, either.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.