BenQ GW2x50(HM) thread.

M

Medion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
1,584
Seems several of us are discussing this series of monitors in at least three other active threads. Figured I'd attempt to consolidate this into one thread and not derail the others (although those were recommendation threads, so hardly a derail).

Pretty much all of the big name e-tailers are either out of stock (Amazon, MWave), or don't list it yet (Newegg, Tiger Direct). Wanted to get some discussion on availability, as well as impressions/reviews for the select few that have it. Amazon has it listed under some resellers, none of which offer the same price (two are close) or return/exchange policy as Amazon. Not sure I want to take a chance on them. I did call Amazon today to ask if they had an expected ETA for availability. I was told that they special order them, don't have an ETA yet, and that their special order is based on the number of people who "purchase" it from them now. I've already purchased mine, but they give you the chance to cancel before shipping when they get it in stock.

Anyway, as a basis, here's the key models:

GW2250 - 21.5", VGA/DVI
GW2450 - 24", VGA/DVI
GW2750HM - 27", VGA/DVI-D/HDMI/audio in/out, 2x2W speakers
 
Good idea on make a new topic. :D

At www.amazon.de (germany) you can buy the GW2450HM for 190€ but they got 8€ more expensive with the new stock but still it's cheap compared to quality with a TN or IPS Monitor.

But i have a question to the GW2x50(HM) owners.
How are the blacks are they deeper than on your IPS? And if you have a dark image and you enable dynamic contrast do you have somthing like a gray film effect over the image that's what i had with my LG IPS235V. :mad:
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Dynamic contrast never works properly on monitors. The blacks are so deep, you shouldn't need to use it any way.

I don't have the BenQ but I do have a Samsung F2380MX with a measured 3,500:1 contrast ratio @120cdm/2 while my IPS and PLS panels are around 850-900:1 at the same brightness. There is no comparison in terms of blacks, even with the lights on.
 
A few hours ago, PC Nation claimed to have 6 in stock. Ten minutes ago they had 2 in stock. It seems like these monitors are flying off the shelves as Amazon had 6 resellers listing them in stock, now down to three. I pulled the trigger.

Anyway, soon as I get a shipping email, I'll know when to expect it. If it were Amazon direct, I'd likely have it by Monday, so I'm not expecting anything sooner than Wednesday. These guys claim to be doing free Fedex 2-3 day delivery.
 
I have the feeling too that they always go quick out of stock.

To the GW2x50(HM) owners do some youtube videos if you have a camera and show us some Movies, Games and Browsing and the options on this Monitor, thank you. :)
 
I have a GW2750HM pre-ordered on Amazon. Hopefully they don't take too much longer.

Much thanks to NCX for those above links. Looks like the 5000:1 static contrast ratio is not a lie, as well as the better response times (compared to the last batch of BenQ VA LED's, i.e. the EW2420 and 2730).
 
Europe seems to have the HM (speakers and + HDMI) versions of GW2450 and GW2250, only. GW2450HM is still almost as cheap as a feature comparable TN, though.

I'm mostly interested in the pixel layout of these though. VA panels can be a bit weird that way, which makes some of them not so good for text work, IMHO. But at these prices one can get one for watching video and it'll probably be good enough as a secondary work monitor.
 
I got a GW2450 (not HM) today at Frys for $180. I am coming from a NEC20WMGX2, a glossy IPS that I used for 5+ years, and I tried a Dell U2312HM recently for a week (returned it because the anti-glare was too heavy to me. )

I like it and glad I got it (I wanted to wait for a review but got scared Fry's might sell out at $180, so bought it before any reviews are out.)

Based on Skyrim (only game played so far), what I really like about it:
At first I tried Standard mode with some calibration suggestions for the EW2420. It looked good. I then played some Skyrim and I liked it. Smoke, steam, snow drift looked more pronounced. Then I tried Game Mode with dynamic contrast on 3 out of 5 (it is off in standard.) In Game Mode with dynamic contrast the contrast really jumps out. Skyrim looks very much better with the Game Mode & dynamic contrast. Seems like new enhanced video settings. More detail, and texture and stuff look more 3D, more vivid and detailed. And it makes colors more vivid to me in general. For example, this web page's dark reds and blacks almost look wet, ike fresh paint/ink on paper, to me on this monitor in Game mdoe with dynamic contrast on.

Also, it is a good size to me. The Dell U2312HM only seemed a bit bigger than my NEC20WMGX2 but the GW2450 seems a lot bigger.

Negatives: I wish it were a glossy screen but its anti-glare is not too bad. Most say VA panels are semi-glossy but to me I would call it medium to light anti-glare in comparison to the heavier anti-glare on the Dell U2312HM. It has a slight sheen to it on whites but not as grainy as the Dell is. Its viewing angles are decent but not quite as good as the Dell U2312, and neither are as good as my old NEC.

So far this monitor seems a steal at $180.
 
CrabJuice said:
I'm mostly interested in the pixel layout of these though. VA panels can be a bit weird that way, which makes some of them not so good for text work, IMHO. But at these prices one can get one for watching video and it'll probably be good enough as a secondary work monitor.
Click to expand...

What sort of pixel substructure does A-MVA use?

I may be wrong, but I thought the VA text issue was more with S-PVA, as it has a dual subpixel structure. I believe they went back to single for C-PVA and assumed A-MVA was single too.

And it may not matter that much. I find text easier to read on the S-PVA I am currently using than the IPS monitor I used to own -- and a junky TN too (which coincidentally was made by LG).

To me, the coating matters more so... on my dinky laptop screen with glossy coating, I find the text the clearest.
 
I just ordered mine from Fry's online, their website states they have them in stock. Should get next week, will report back.
 
Unfortunately most today monitors can have awesome contrast ratios with "on the shelf" settings, but almost none of them have proper contrast ratios when calibrated properly, and with 120 cd/m2 luminance, which is most likely the way it will be used.

However, I want to explain a bit why I am concerned about this:

Lowering the contrast makes the image darker overall, and down to some point, the image gains white details. If you go with contrast up, at a specific point the white details disappear.
A good monitor will still have good contrast in the situation where you lower the contrast to the point where all white details appear on a calibration image. If you go with contrast too high, the whites also seem to leak light out of them, making it impossible to work even by lowering the brightness.

All this has to be achieved WITHOUT going over 120 cd/m2. All monitors will have good contrast if you go with brightness to 100%. But if you lower the brightness in order to achieve 120 cd/m2, on almost all monitors will be very hard to read.

From personal experience I am unable to use a monitor with anything higher then 100 cd/m2. I was unable to set my tn monitor to a "readable" state, and I can say almost the same thing about my Asus PA246Q, as when I lower the brightness to a level where is not too bright, the white background is already too dark, and the black/white difference is not big enough for easy reading. However, I am less sensitive to CCFL light, making it possible to work with my Asus even with bigger brightness.
Can't say the same thing about my Samsung S24A350H. Only way I could work with it, but again, is only slightly better, and far from satisfactory, was to lower R,G,B down to 30, lowering the contrast to 0 and going with brightness up to 85. (yes, contrast to 0, not brightness). However the image looks more washed out and less vivid, but is much more easy on the eyes.

I am really curious how this monitor works from contrast point of view, AFTER calibration, AFTER lowering the luminance down to 120 cd/m2 and WITHOUT any dynamic contrast settings.

Also, I would really appreciate if anyone could test the amount of ghosting on this monitor, and the easiest way to test it is like this:
Get on a FPS game, (quakelive.com for example).
Get in a bigger room and get to the center of it. Now start moving your mouse in a continuous movement, either left or right, but try to keep the speed the same. The speed of the mouse has to be close to turning 360 degrees in 2 or 3 seconds.
If you are able to distinguish details on far objects, without noticing a blur effect, then the monitor is good enough for gaming.
I was able to notice a very small amount of ghosting with my 2 ms, Samsung S24A350H, actually was so small, that I could see the details pretty well, regardless of the small amount of ghosting.

Please, someone test this Benq :D I am really curious.
 
Namelessme said:
What sort of pixel substructure does A-MVA use?

I may be wrong, but I thought the VA text issue was more with S-PVA, as it has a dual subpixel structure. I believe they went back to single for C-PVA and assumed A-MVA was single too.

And it may not matter that much. I find text easier to read on the S-PVA I am currently using than the IPS monitor I used to own -- and a junky TN too (which coincidentally was made by LG).

To me, the coating matters more so... on my dinky laptop screen with glossy coating, I find the text the clearest.
Click to expand...
If you follow the link and scroll down there are structure pictures of BenQ EW2730V from adtomov:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/lcd-...trices-differences-what-models-placed-30.html

That structure would probably be OK for me. But there seems to be alot of variations between panel models. And yes, The S-PVA crowfeet style (you can see examples of those in the avforum thread), I've had some issues with before.

I also forgot about color-shift. But I think, these days, thats a minor thing compared to the vertical gamma shift of TN. From the Korean review it looks like a darkening in horizontal and a slight lightblue tint in vertical. Not too bad. Has to be seen in person, though.

As I mentioned the GW2450HM was already cheap around here and today the GW2750HM also dropped. Good times for good contrast. :)
 
cerbul said:
Unfortunately most today monitors can have awesome contrast ratios with "on the shelf" settings, but almost none of them have proper contrast ratios when calibrated properly, and with 120 cd/m2 luminance, which is most likely the way it will be used.
Click to expand...
Actually, I somehow agree with you. But from I've seen from more serious reviews, where they usually have a brightness/contrast chart, that is simply not true. Our minds plays tricks with us, perhaps? Anyhow. I think 5000:1 contrast and modestly rated brightness level of these monitors should take care of this for us. Unless a weird subpixel structure somehow comes into play here.
 
Note: BenQ's website and most retailers state the GW2450 has a 1 year warranty but the paperwork, with the monitor, stated 3 years and BenQ support, via my monitor's serial number, confirmed it is a 3year warranty.

Also of note: The power-on light is on the side, so you DONOT see it while the monitor is on - no annoying light in front as many monitors have. This might sound minor but I think it is a very good feature for while you are watching videos or playing games in a dark room.
 
For those still looking for the BenQ GW series, Shop BenQ has them in stock, free shipping, and a decent price. Links below;

BenQ GW2250 - $149.00
BenQ GW2450 - $219.00
BenQ GW2750hm - $399.00

So, if your favorite (r)etailers are out of stock, consider them. I just ordered mine, we'll see how that goes (canceled my PC Nation order. They claim in stock, but if you call, they're back-ordered at least a week).
 
Last edited:
Fry's is back to $180 but limited to one per household. Not sure what Fry's is doing.
 
Damn, if Fry's had the HM version I'd totally bite. Oh well, still waiting on Amazon for the 2750HM.
 
I have the GW2450HM on order from memoryexpress. It should be here tomorrow! I will try and take pictures tomorrow night and give my impressions. I have both a S-PVA and P-MVA to compare it to.
 
madmook said:
Damn, if Fry's had the HM version I'd totally bite. Oh well, still waiting on Amazon for the 2750HM.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the 2450HM listed is really the correct product. BenQ only has the 225/2450 non-HM versions listed for the US, so I'd be wary of those listings until confirmed. Amazon has made minor errors like this before.

Shop BenQ STILL hasn't shipped mine. Not like I have any alternatives though, no one else seems to have the 2750HM in stock.
 
I'm really curious how it compares to the S-PVA and P-MVA. I expect it'll have much better blacks, but also interested in text quality, coating comparisons, etc.

One note for anyone ordering this... be sure to keep your plastic bags, and whatever else came in the package. I read one review of a different BenQ monitor, where the customer was denied a return because they didn't have all the packing materials.

Which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. It also brings up the point of how good (or bad) is BenQ quality overall? I have heard of them before, but I'm not sure how they rank amongst monitor companies. Any graphics professionals ever use them? Or are they more the generic sort of company, that makes okay monitors, but nothing special?
 
Fry's shipped mine, but not being delivered till Friday...:(

Got in at 180, before the price bumped up, then back down....:D
 
CrabJuice said:
modestly rated brightness level of these monitors should take care of this for us.
Click to expand...
Strike that. I noticed that the playwares review measured the 2750HM to 400 cm2. Thats too bright for my preference. Will probably mean it will not be dimmed to lower than 150 cm2, depending on dimming method. But they usually have that span.

I'm looking at that LG now from the palywares review. M275WV. Better response times. More sensible brightness rating. But where is the monitor? Asia only? :) Dangit. Looks like we're behind these days.
 
CrabJuice said:
Strike that. I noticed that the playwares review measured the 2750HM to 400 cm2. Thats too bright for my preference. Will probably mean it will not be dimmed to lower than 150 cm2, depending on dimming method. But they usually have that span.

I'm looking at that LG now from the palywares review. M275WV. Better response times. More sensible brightness rating. But where is the monitor? Asia only? :) Dangit. Looks like we're behind these days.
Click to expand...

My NEC 20WMGX2 was at 450 CM2 I think, and my GW2450 is no where near as high. I would guess the GW2450 at 100 is like the NEC around 50. Report wrong or GW2750 that much brighter?
 
Got my GW2450HM today.

Again same problem I have with every LED monitor I look at. Everything looks blue and whites overpower.

Coating is very similar to my Samsung 244T (S-PVA) and LG L245WT (P-MVA). Light to medium antiglare. Some sparkling on whites and solid colors.

Comparing to LG text is a lot clearer and easier to read.

Input lag is about the same or a bit better than the LG L245WT which is way better than the Samsung 244T. I checked with AMA on set to premium.

Contrast is a lot better. Blacks are a lot better. See the pic. It is next to the LG.

dsc0092ra.jpg


But is it good enough? First I will have to see if I can get the colors better. Second... I dunno. My plasma has ruined me. But it is definitely a lot better. Playing diablo III on my LG is like there is a fog over the game. With the GW2450HM its like the fog of war has been lifted lol


Anything anyone wants to check or know please ask. I am undecided on this monitor and do not know if I am keeping it. Next thing I want to check tomorrow is the boot up on the monitor. Thing I really hate about the LG is I barely bet to see the post screen. Makes getting into bios and other post duties difficult.
 
Last edited:
Crake8 said:
My NEC 20WMGX2 was at 450 CM2 I think, and my GW2450 is no where near as high. I would guess the GW2450 at 100 is like the NEC around 50. Report wrong or GW2750 that much brighter?
Click to expand...
Yes. The CW2450 might still be an option. I think its brighter than 250 as specified, however. The Prad review of the Philips 24" with the same panel rated it at 314.
Its probably not wrongly reported. Its just odd that Benq/AUO would mess up the specifications that badly. I thought they wanted to pimp their figures as much as they could. Maybe the trend is to have less bright screens and have good power consumption figures instead. Theory checks out with the Benq, since it specs to 30W while the review shows 38W.

Bun-Bun said:
Comparing to LG text is a lot clearer and easier to read.
Click to expand...
Thats good news, at least. Good luck with the calibration. I always try to aim for yellow when trying do to get rid of the blueish, in lack of calibrator.
 
Bun-Bun said:
But is it good enough? First I will have to see if I can get the colors better.
Click to expand...

Please post your calibration when you get your colors set. I am just using numbers I got from an EW2420 review - http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/ccfl-led-computer_display-backlight-computer_monitor,2-154-5.html Our calibrated results found the BenQ running with a 65 contrast, R86/G80/B78 color values, and an impressively low brightness of 40. Although I am at 76 brightness to reduce strobe and I like it a little brighter.
 
Last edited:
@bun-bun

Thanks for posting your first impression and pics. I have a couple of questions...

Would you state the BenQ as being semi-glossy? I may be wrong, but my own definition would be something where you can see reflections, clearly see your face, etc, but not super clearly. I have two TVs (one is a vizo, other sony), which I would define as semiglossy. If a light shines on them, it causes a glare... I can partially see reflections... yet the screen isn't like a mirror or anything. It's more like a smooth semi-matte. But I would never say they have 'sparkle', or put them in the same ballpark as any matte display on a monitor. So based on it being similar to the Samsung 244T, and seeing some sparkling, it sounds like it's basically a standard matte.

How is the text when compared to the 244T? It may be tricky when comparing to the LG, as LG sometimes layers on thicker AG coating, even on their non-IPS models (I had a LG TN with somewhat heavy coating, for instance).

How are the blacks when compared to the 244T (s-pva)? I am sort of surprised the LG (p-mva) looks quite as bad as it does in your screenshot -- it doesn't look very VA-ish at all. I expected the BenQ to have deeper blacks, but the blacks overall on that LG look rather terrible.

How is panel uniformity, whites, etc.? Just sort of that overpowering LED white? I'm curious how it will look with better calibration. And besides the deeper blacks, is it any better than your Samsung S-PVA?

I currently have a NEC S-PVA, which I am not expecting to live more than a couple of weeks... so am sort of scoping out possible replacements. The blacks on mine look pretty decent, nice colors... only thing I dislike is the coating, which isn't terrible, but it's the standard sort of matte coating. Based on what you have said so far, the coating on the BenQ sounds pretty much the same, no real improvement.
 
I really don't think you can fault the blacks on S-PVA monitors, and yours has better contrast ratio than my Eizo- it stands up very well to a high end CRT. In fact mine has a measured lower black level than my Lacie Electron Blue IV Trintron CRT - which I don't use much these days :)

8rUcS.jpg


Jtdx9.jpg
 
Bun-Bun said:
Again same problem I have with every LED monitor I look at. Everything looks blue and whites overpower.

Coating is very similar to my Samsung 244T (S-PVA) and LG L245WT (P-MVA). Light to medium antiglare. Some sparkling on whites and solid colors.
Click to expand...


I kind of have the same feeling as you for LED monitors. I would like you to try a little test if you don't mind, might solve your issue:

First, set brightness,contrast and RGB values to default. Set only brightness for now to a level where you feel comfortable.
Reduce the RGB Values to a level where you see that the white of a window background starts to look too dark for your liking. I assume that should be somewhere around 30,30,30 RGB Values if your settings are default to 50, 50,50 with a range selection between 0 and 100.
If you reached the values of rgb, and you still see whites sparkling at you with shining light, then start reducing the contrast.
For me, I start to feel comfortable around 44 out of 100, while the standard value was at 85 contrast.

This should result in making the whites not sparkle that bad anymore, but they might start looking a bit dirty. If they are too dirty, you can up a bit the RGB values, but not too much, as you will reach again the point where whites sparkle.

Here are my settings:

Default:
Brightness: 65
Contrast: 85
RGB: 50, 50, 50

Using this method, I reached the following values:
Brightness: I could go up with it to 90, without many problems.
Contrast: 44 is maximum value I can use with this monitor to get less sparkling whites, however the preferred value is between 0 and 12 (day or night, and yes, brightness might need to go over 100, so I am forced to up the contrast up to 12 when is too much light in the room - natural light).
RGB: 30,30,30, anything under 28 will make the whites be too dirty and dark.

The reduction of RGB values will have a bit of effect on the total quality of a picture, at the trade of less sparkling whites.
The question is how much you have to reduce contrast and RGB values, in order to reach comfortable level. The more you have to reduce them, the worse the image will look. I am curious how is with this monitor.

Also, please make a comparison from ghosting point of view, easiest way to compare is to check how well you can read in diablo 3 the text of the items on the ground while moving around.

Thank You
 
Crake8 said:
Please post your calibration when you get your colors set. I am just using numbers I got from an EW2420 review - http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/ccfl-led-computer_display-backlight-computer_monitor,2-154-5.html Our calibrated results found the BenQ running with a 65 contrast, R86/G80/B78 color values, and an impressively low brightness of 40. Although I am at 76 brightness to reduce strobe and I like it a little brighter.
Click to expand...

Out of the box brightness was 100 and contrast was 50. All the different presets are completely useless. sRGB is ok but gives no control over the colors. Standard is the only usable option.

Brightness went all the way down to ~30 without overly affecting colors or gamma however.

Namelessme said:
@bun-bun

Thanks for posting your first impression and pics. I have a couple of questions...

Would you state the BenQ as being semi-glossy? I may be wrong, but my own definition would be something where you can see reflections, clearly see your face, etc, but not super clearly. I have two TVs (one is a vizo, other sony), which I would define as semiglossy. If a light shines on them, it causes a glare... I can partially see reflections... yet the screen isn't like a mirror or anything. It's more like a smooth semi-matte. But I would never say they have 'sparkle', or put them in the same ballpark as any matte display on a monitor. So based on it being similar to the Samsung 244T, and seeing some sparkling, it sounds like it's basically a standard matte.

How is the text when compared to the 244T? It may be tricky when comparing to the LG, as LG sometimes layers on thicker AG coating, even on their non-IPS models (I had a LG TN with somewhat heavy coating, for instance).

How are the blacks when compared to the 244T (s-pva)? I am sort of surprised the LG (p-mva) looks quite as bad as it does in your screenshot -- it doesn't look very VA-ish at all. I expected the BenQ to have deeper blacks, but the blacks overall on that LG look rather terrible.

How is panel uniformity, whites, etc.? Just sort of that overpowering LED white? I'm curious how it will look with better calibration. And besides the deeper blacks, is it any better than your Samsung S-PVA?

I currently have a NEC S-PVA, which I am not expecting to live more than a couple of weeks... so am sort of scoping out possible replacements. The blacks on mine look pretty decent, nice colors... only thing I dislike is the coating, which isn't terrible, but it's the standard sort of matte coating. Based on what you have said so far, the coating on the BenQ sounds pretty much the same, no real improvement.
Click to expand...

I will try and put up the 244T next to it tonight. If not tomorrow.

I would say text is clearer with the BenQ over the 244T. Ghosting and Input lag are definitely better with the BenQ over the 244T.

I will do more comparing of panel uniformity.

The coating really is very similar to the 244T. I would not call it a Semi Gloss. I would call my Samsung Plasma Semi Gloss. That said it is not horrible. Whites are definitely white lol.

cerbul said:
I kind of have the same feeling as you for LED monitors. I would like you to try a little test if you don't mind, might solve your issue:

Also, please make a comparison from ghosting point of view, easiest way to compare is to check how well you can read in diablo 3 the text of the items on the ground while moving around.

Thank You
Click to expand...

Thanks I will try your suggestions.

I will try that in diablo III and pay more attention to it. I did not notice anymore ghosting than the LG has which I have been happy with for the past 2 years.

Outbreaker said:
I hate fog over blacks would never keep such Monitors.
Click to expand...

Hence why I am trying to find a replacement lol


Looking back at it now I wonder if this LG really is P-MVA or if something is wrong with it.



Could the awesome contrast levels measured in the playwares review be specific to the 27" model? This 24" does have much higher contrast but I dont know if it really is what the playwares review shows.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for coating info. Comparing against a plasma or LCD TV is a decent way to check it. If any Samsung PLS (or 650) owners eventually get this monitor, it may be another way, as the Samsungs are stated as having semi-glossy coating.

On my S-PVA, whites are white too ... although there is a touch of sparkle to them. So I consider that standard matte. On the U2412 I used to own, they really sparkled and white never looked white.

Clear text compared the the 244T is a plus. The ghosting/lag is also good, although for myself it's not a biggie, since I rarely game on my PC.

And yeah, after seeing pics of that LG, I wondered too if that's really a VA panel. It looks like a low end IPS, or something.... a lot of fog/glow or whatever you want to call it. Or maybe its settings are way off.

@CoolColJ

What model Eizo is that?
 
Ok I swapped the LG and Samsung around so I can compare the 244T to the GW2450HM tonight.

Before I did that I did some more quick comparisons. The lag is a bit worse than I thought. Playing Diablo III text on the ground is quite readable. However it does dim a little. Turning off AMA makes it quite blury but it is still readable.

However I noticed the ghosting on the ground that I havent seen since gaming with my 244T. Its not bad with AMA on premium but it is there.

More evidence that makes me think my LG is not a P-MVA panel. It's ghosting is quite different then these other two MVA panels. Text doesn't dim on it and the ground trailing is not there at all. I think I need to do some more research into this monitor. EDIT: confirmed it is a P-MVA panel. And a review with actual measurements says "Measured response time was 17.8 ms rise and 8.8 ms fall with 20% overshoot which caused notable bright shadow"

So that makes me think this 24" BenQ does not perform like the 27" playwares reviewed (since I can see ghosting on it compared to my LG). Gah now I want to return it and order the 27" version.
 
Last edited:
MMM that would be stange if the 24" model had more ghosting than the 27" model i planing to buy a 27" model but this would be interesting to know.
 
GW2450HM next to my 244T (244T is on the left this time)

dsc0094yps.jpg


Note pictures are with all lights off. Only light in the room is the monitors themselves.

Played around with it some more. And paying more attention the ghosting is actually about the same as my 244T, which isn't that great. (and the 244T ghosting is less harsh in some ways)

And as you can see from the picture the black levels are not really any better than the 244T.

Either playwares review is very off or the 24" is not the same as the 27"

Brightness = 60
Contrast = 80
Red = 90
Green = 80
Blue = 72
Gamma = 4

Best settings I could come up with in a short time.

Also monitor start up time is faster than my LG but slower than the 244T.

Is it better than the LG? Overall I would say yeah but only because the LG has the fog of blacks.

Is it better than the 244T? No. Except it has very little input lag where as the 244T has tons.

Am I keeping it? I haven't decided yet. Try the 27"? Try the samsung A-MVA panel?

I am at odds.

Oh and now that i have the 244T beside it I can say the coating if very similar. Whites look almost the same and consistency across the screen is about the same.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again for the comparison.

In the screenshots, the BenQ does seem to have better blacks. But I'm not sure if in-person they are more or less the same, or if the angles of the monitors affected the photos. The 244T isn't quite as 'foggy' as the LG, anyway.

So basically, besides less input lag, there is no improvement at all over the 244T? How do still images look, generally? More or less the same on each monitor? Would you say the BenQ is worse than the 244T in any way?

The coating thing is rather disappointing. My current monitor is probably very similar to your 244T, but in 21" form (think it uses the same panel). I was hoping the BenQ would be a decent upgrade, with much less AG coating. Based on what you have said, it's not much of an improvement, and same exact coating.

As for what to do next... I wouldn't think the 27" model would really be any different than the 24" one, but who knows...

The Samsung 650 could be worth a shot. It supposedly has a semi-glossy coating, similar to the PLS models. Color coverage on it isn't the greatest, however. Then again, the BenQ could have the same or worse color coverage for all we know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top