Review Price £473.00
Samsung claims speeds of 24ppm for both black and colour prints from the Samsung CLX-6260ND, though, as usual, we didn't see that kind of speed. Our five-page black text document produced 10.3ppm, but this increased to 17.9ppm on the 20-page test. Even so, this is only 75 percent of the rated speed. A five-page black text and colour graphics test gave 9.4ppm. These speeds are still quick and, subjectively, this is quite a fast machine.
It's bizarre that the technical specs for the machine on Samsung's UK website quote manual, double-sided print when, in fact, the machine will duplex automatically and at a fair speed. Our 20-side, 10-page duplex document gave 10.3spm.
A single page colour copy from the flatbed took 21 seconds and a five-page black text copy from the ADF took 27 seconds, both of which are reasonable speeds. A 15 x 10cm photo on A4 completed in 20 seconds and a near-A4 colour photo took 21 seconds from a USB drive.
Somewhat disappointingly, the prints we produced from the Samsung CLX-6260ND were a bit scrappy, for all its new polymerised toner. Patches of black text were inconsistent with light or missing toner in places. Colour prints were also patchy, with colour fills giving very mottled coverage. A colour photocopy of our black text and colour graphics page was worse, but it was also poor compared with printouts from other Samsung colour lasers. However, we think these issues could well be a problem with the particular review sample we tested, rather than one with the model in general.
The drum and toner cartridges are available in standard and high-yield versions and using high-yield consumables gives page costs of 2.4p for black print and 11.6p for colour. This is about average for a colour laser device in this price bracket.
Samsung’s CLX-6260ND is a reasonably good colour laser all-in-one, fast and easy to use, with just a couple of shortcomings. Whilst it is a shame Samsung didn’t fit a duplex scanner, so the machine could copy two-sided originals, this particular sample had poor print quality, too, though it shouldn’t be a general problem.