SAMSUNG S22F350 review: input lag, deinterlacing and upscaling using the piLagTesterPRO

This is a 1080p75 TN monitor from 2020. It does not have an adjustable stand; the default height and angle are fixed. It does offer a VESA mount if you need more flexibility. Power is supplied via an external 14w DC supply. Like most TN monitors it has little lag, but it does suffer from somewhat high response time.

Image quality and upscaling

Good upscaling is critical for retro gaming. Ideally, all pixels should appear equally sharp and bright (no aliasing), and angled lines should appear smooth, with no jagged, irregular steps. On computer monitors this is less of an issue than TVs, but it's still worth testing.

resolution	quality
480p/i	A+ Minimal but detectable blur. Could only display progressive input, interlaced was not supported.
720p	A- Sharp, almost as good as 1080p. Some very slight jaggedness and pixel re-arranging that only really shows up on diagonal lines and 1-pixel wide checkerboards.
1080p	100% of pixels displayed, all sharp

Unfortunately this is a TN display which means limited viewing angles - from above everything is washed out and from below it's all too dark. Side to side is actually pretty uniform, with minimal color shifts.

The display has 1 HDMI and 1 VGA input. I only tested HDMI.

Input Lag

I used a piLagTesterPRO to measure input lag. This device sends a frame of video over HDMI and measures how long it takes to display it. This display has a game mode, and with it off input lag was about 4ms  at the top of the screen. Turning game mode on did not change input lag any, but did improve response time. I toggled all the other display quality settings as well, but did not see any further improvements, however the tests reported below with every "enhancement" set to off, except for game mode which was on.

Input Lag Test Results

I report two kinds of values. 1st response measures how long it takes for the TV to start responding (I use a 5% change in display brightness). This overly optimistic value doesn't tell how long it takes to see anything useful, but matches what other reviewers call input lag. full response is a more realistic measure of lag, and requires the display to reach 80% of full brightness. This combines both input lag and response time, and is closer to what you would actually experience in a game.

		top		bottom
Resolution		1st (average)	full response	1st response	full response	scan out
480i		4.4	14.4	19.3	29.3	14.9
480p		4.4	14.4	19.3	29.3	14.9
720p		3.6	13.6	19.3	29.3	15.7
1080p60		3.6	13.6	19.2	29.2	15.6
1080p75		3.4	13.4	16.2	26.2	12.8

The input lag is about 4ms across all resolutions and refreshrates. Scan out is about 15ms for 60hz, and about 13ms for 75hz.

Interestingly, the display supports refresh rates above the recommended 60hz, even at 1080p. This is with proper sync: that is to say the monitor doesn't drop frames, but actually increases the redraw rate to keep up with the rate that data is sent to it. If you "overclock" the display it can handle 75hz at 1080p; this is really a misapplication of the term overclocking; what I really mean is if you force your videocard to output 1080p75, the screen will sync with it just fine. You can also go slower, down to 50hz.

One issue is the response time is quite variable depending on the transition the LCD has to make. Black to white is fast (5ms) and fairly clean, whereas other transitions often happen in 2-steps, where the LCD gets close to the desired brightness, pauses for half a frame, and then steps the rest of the way. This made the typical response time 15ms in normal mode, and 10ms in game mode. I'm sure this two-step process causes some motion artifacts when viewed on a high speed camera, and probably results in moving stimuli looking more muddy to the human eye than they would otherwise, so my chart uses the slower 10ms transistions rather than the 5ms from the fastest. I'm not going to be too hard on the display, however, as this is a common issue.

Results compared to other displays

To allow quick comparison between many displays I've summarized the results across all the displays I've personally tested with the piLagTester Pro. Min lag is the time to the first response, measured where the screen starts drawing (typically, the top); real lag is the time to the full response, measured where drawing finishes (usually the screen bottom), i.e. input lag + scan out + response time. Numbers in red denote average values that can vary by up to 8ms between power cycles.

This list is sorted by real lag for each display's native resolution and max refresh rate (usually 1080p60 but some sets are 720p60, and other monitors, like this one, support > 60hz). It is a subset of the screens I've tested, mostly monitors, but a few TVs thrown in for comparison.

Display	Year made (TV?)	Native Res	native min lag	native real lag	480i real lag	480p real lag	720p real lag	1080p real lag	native response time	native scan out
Dell E198FPb	2008	1024p	2.7	20.4		39.0	35.0		5.00	12.70
Planar PLN2200	2021	1080p	2.4	22.6	24.1	23.3	22.9	22.8	5.00	15.17
Samsung 2494sw	2011	1080p	2.8	22.7		26.5	26.5	26.5	8.00	13.30
Vizio VO370M	2010	1080p	2.5	23.6	83.0	49.0	47.0	24.3	5.47	15.67
Dell S199WFP	2009	900p	3.6	24.2	28.5	27.8	27.3	27.1	8.00	12.60
Dell E228WFP	2010	1050p	3.0	24.2		26.5	26.7		5.00	16.90
LG W1953T	2010	768p	2.6	25.6		28.7	28.7		10.00	13.00
Samsung S22F350	2020	1080p	3.6	26.2		29.3	29.3	29.2	10.00	12.80
Dell U2410 (game)	2010	1080p	4.0	26.2	62.2	28.3	26.5	26.5	6.00	16.20
TCL 40S325	2021	1080p	6.5	27.3	60.6	29.0	27.9	27.7	6.00	14.83
TCL 49s403	2018	4k	6.1	30.2	76.8	30.9	30.3	30.7	8.00	16.13
AOC/Envision G19LWK	2010	900p	3.1	31.2	39.5	38.7	38.4	37.8	15.50	12.60
Dell E2211H	2014	1080p	3.0	33.6	34.7	34.5	34.1	33.8	15.00	15.57
Panasonic TH-58PE75U	2008	720p	28.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	6.00	0.00
Dell 1907FPc	2008	1024p	3.0	34.0		35.9	34.8		15.00	16.00
Panasonic TH-42PX75U	2008	720p	28.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	6.00	0.00
Panasonic TH-50PZ80U	2008	720p	28.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	34.0	6.00	0.00
Corprit D157 (hdmi)	2021	1080p	3.1	34.5	34.9	34.8	34.6	33.9	16.25	15.13
Samsung S27C230	2014	1080p	2.9	36.0		36.6	36.1	36.1	18.10	14.97
Vizio E470VL (vga)	2011	1080p	22.0	39.0		39.0	39.0	39.0	9.00	8.00
Samsung LN32D403	2012	720p	20.9	41.2	58.9	42.4	40.7	40.7	5.50	14.83
TCL50s423	2021	4k	14.0	42.0	75.0	42.0	42.0	42.0	13.00	15.00
Dell U2410 (sRGB)	2010	1080p	20.5	42.8	62.4	45.0	43.1	43.1	6.13	16.13
ACER AT3265	2012	1080p	19.5	43.8	62.7	45.3	43.8	43.8	8.00	16.27
sony XBR 43X800D	2017	4k	24.5	44.3	46.5	46.0	44.6	44.7	5.00	14.83
Element elst5016s	2017	1080p	21.4	45.1	63.5	46.4	45.1	45.3	8.00	15.73
Sony 32L5000	2010	720p	21.1	45.7	80.1	47.3	46.1	45.6	9.00	15.63
RCA L40FHD41	2010	1080p	20.3	46.6	65.0	48.0	47.0	46.0	9.68	16.63
Sony 40VL130 (game)	2008	1080p	22.8	47.3	66.3	49.0	47.3	47.3	9.08	15.43

You can see that this display is quite competitive, like all TNs But stepping back for a moment: pretty much every screen on this list has acceptable lag. The difference between starting to respond 2.7ms vs 6ms after receiving the signal is meaningless. What's more meaningful is the response time, where lower values mean less blurry visuals. The spread is larger there, with this display being decidedly average. But certainly good enough.

Conclusion

Like most computer monitors this display is fast, much faster than most TVs. For most gamers it is plenty fast enough. It is kind of small, and the lack of adjustable stand is a real downer. At least it is VESA mountable, making it a good choice for a second monitor. If you like to share your monitor with a 2nd person the poor viewing angles could be a issue.

Other models 

I tested the smallest model, the S22F350. There are several more sizes: S24F350, S27F350, and even a huge S32F351. I don't expect them to perform identically to this model as the larger ones have freesync which probably means entirely different electronics. Indeed, the spec sheets do differ significantly. Given the large space of possible model numbers available to them I don't think they should have used the F350 postfix for all these models.