Benq BL3200PT (32" 1440p)

silverwolf0 said:
There are no other 32" monitors which means it can price itself whatever it wants without competition. And it doesn't matter how much you think it is worth since it is subjective. I know most people are happy with their $70 Walmart bicycles, but every single bike forum on the internet will bash you for even touching those, and instead encourage (forcefully) to get a $500 minimum from a bike shop. The GW2760HS, for example, is a 27" monitor that, before the price drop for the BL32, was literally a quarter the price at around $220. You lose resolution and some screen size, but 27" is still pretty big and not everyone needs the QHD resolution, especially not for gaming. Is 5" more plus about 35% more pixel height and width worth quadrupling the price? You could buy four GW27 monitors and have yourself a nice command center. This forum is focused on gaming after all. If this were a professional CAD/spreadsheet/I definitely need more pixels forum, than it would be well justified. But it's not. And besides the extra pixels and larger size, the screen quality isn't much different than anything else. Doesn't have amazing response times either. If this was an OLED panel, I would glady pay even more than its asking price right now. But it's really just another VA panel, just bigger. The other angle is, I've gone through two televisions which are far bigger than this monitor, which is one of the reasons people are interested in it, for the size. They can be had for less than half the price for a far bigger monitor/TV. They have respectable input lag, and they use the same technologies as those on monitors with the same image qualities, but are way cheaper on a price per inch ratio, and easily available at your local big box store. 32" is my sweet spot though, and most of the 32" TVs are either really poor quality VA panels, or an LG IPS with horrible glow. If you go up to 40" or larger, the panels get far more respectable in quality.

It's just what your priorities are, and your budget. A $700 monitor is still a $700 monitor, regardless of how good you think the price/performance ratio is. That's rent right there for a lot of people. I bought my 32" Panasonic for $600 five years ago, and have been using it as a monitor since. In some ways, I will be paying more for a downgrade. Viewing angles for example. My TV has no IPS glow. I actually bought an HP 27xi a year ago for $240 and returned it. I checked just a few days ago and even after a year, the price actually went up to $295. It kind of sucks that monitors aren't really improving when it comes to price, and haven't really changed that much in half a decade. TVs have gotten amazingly cheap for how large they are, and smartphone and tablet displays are amazing how far they have advanced and how much the prices have been driven down. You can get a QHD 5.1" Amoled display on a $600 korean version of the Galaxy S5, or for $500 you can get a QHD 10.5" Amoled display on a Galaxy Tab S. The display is only a fraction of the cost, although the largest fraction. The iPad Air display can rival a lot of high end $1000+ monitors. Monitors are stagnating because its still just a niche enthusiast thing, even moreso now than a decade ago when everyone didn't have a notebook and tablet and had to buy a monitor for their computer. The only thing I can really say is IPS prices have been driven down, but those crappy glow heavy "AT-W too expensive and it sorta messes with colors so lets not use it!" crap ain't worth it.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't knew 27"-ers around 200-300 dollar even exist. For me, things are a bit different as I am a Mac user, I am used paying the 'Apple Tax', so when I see a screen around 600-700 dollars, I find it not that expensive compared to Apple's Cinema Display, which also falls short of its promises at that price point (my experiences: yellow tint, uniformity issues, dead pixels, awful glare, non-adjustable stand). But knowing that you could theoretically buy almost 3 27"-screens for the same amount of money as one BL3200PT is interesting. However, I am far more interested in one properly calibrated screen than 4 mediocre ones (and I need the pixels: coding, research, data analysis).
 
I paid almost the exact same for my 32" BenQ as I did for my 27" Asus PB278Q almost 18 months back. Truth is, a quality 27" is still roughly the same price as this 32" BenQ here in Europe.

I'm keeping it for at least 3 years and it works out less than .50 cent per day. In my opinion, the BenQ is priced to sell, is extremely competitive, and actually a bargain when you consider what you are actually getting. Best deal going by far, here in Europe anyway.
 
iLLucionist said:
Given IPS glow, I would not like to go beyond 24" with IPS. But what I don't get is, why do so many find the BL3200PT so expensive? Are there any other 30"-32" offerings that are less expensive (and worth your money)?
Click to expand...

I't not the price to stop me, but the pretty high input lag...
Then if I tried to use it maybe I could not even realize the problem and be happy for the purchase, but 600€ is too much for just a try. ;)
If they had not come out other monitors with the same panel, maybe I would have bought and tried the Benq in any case, but now I'd rather read the "cousins​​" reviews before to buy a new 32'' monitor.

In addition, there are also interesting 4k monitor incoming like the Asus PA328Q which maybe will cost just a little more.

silverwolf0 said:
I dunno where you live, but sites like Amazon in the US have no questions asked return policies, and even next day UPS pickup so you literally don't have to do anything but answer the door. I've already gone through a 39LN5300 and a 42LB6300, both LG TVs that are pretty big. I probably won't be getting mine from them though, because I don't want to abuse them too much, and they make me pay sales tax.
Click to expand...

I live in Italy and unfortunately amazon.it don't have the Bl3200pt. :(
It seems to be avaiable only in some german shops, that would complicate things in case of return.
 
Bestio said:
I't not the price to stop me, but the pretty high input lag...
Then if I tried to use it maybe I could not even realize the problem and be happy for the purchase, but 600€ is too much for just a try. ;)
If they had not come out other monitors with the same panel, maybe I would have bought and tried the Benq in any case, but now I'd rather read the "cousins​​" reviews before to buy a new 32'' monitor.

In addition, there are also interesting 4k monitor incoming like the Asus PA328Q which maybe will cost just a little more.



I live in Italy and unfortunately amazon.it don't have the Bl3200pt. :(
It seems to be avaiable only in some german shops, that would complicate things in case of return.
Click to expand...

Are you a professional gamer? Do you take part in eSports events? If the answer is no then you will not notice any input lag. I had the HP zr24W which has an input lag of 10ms. Do I notice any input lag on the BenQ? No.

A 4K monitor will NOT "cost just a little more". Have you even consider the raw GPU horse power needed for 60fps minimum on 4K? When considering a 4K monitor you have to factor in the cost of dual GPUs too if you want a decent gaming experience.
 
Bloodflowerz said:
I paid almost the exact same for my 32" BenQ as I did for my 27" Asus PB278Q almost 18 months back. Truth is, a quality 27" is still roughly the same price as this 32" BenQ here in Europe.

I'm keeping it for at least 3 years and it works out less than .50 cent per day. In my opinion, the BenQ is priced to sell, is extremely competitive, and actually a bargain when you consider what you are actually getting. Best deal going by far, here in Europe anyway.
Click to expand...

You can get a quality QHD 27' for under $500 from over here from looking at newegg prices. It depends what you mean by quality though. 1080p is still the preferred gaming resolution, and a good 1080p 27" is less than half the price of a similar QHD version. You are paying a very big premium for resolution. I am more focused on panel quality, which is identical, or sometimes better, on a lower resolution monitor, because you are cramming less pixels together and there are advantages to that.
 
1080p is not "preferred", it's what's most common to most common displays people have. Given choice, right affordability, more powerful gpus at mainstream price level people would "prefer" to game now on 100" 8K displays :p
Also i guess that even many of gamers lot of time spend .. not in games. Be it browser, mail app, IM, watching movies, editing few docs. High res there is great feature. QHD - best thing about it - it's great compromise as of now. Not priced exorbitantly, most top and middle gpus have enough oumph to drive it, also not mere FHD that seems too low res for anything >24" when sitting near (TVs can get by being big & FHD, simply located/viewed from much further). For 4K you have to pay cosmic sums, same for gpus for it, current market choice is limited and not exactly best by many means .. but QHD now is simply at sweet spot.
 
Bloodflowerz said:
Are you a professional gamer? Do you take part in eSports events? If the answer is no then you will not notice any input lag. I had the HP zr24W which has an input lag of 10ms. Do I notice any input lag on the BenQ? No.

A 4K monitor will NOT "cost just a little more". Have you even consider the raw GPU horse power needed for 60fps minimum on 4K? When considering a 4K monitor you have to factor in the cost of dual GPUs too if you want a decent gaming experience.
Click to expand...

I love racing games and 10ms could make the difference on lap times.
When I was playing to GT Academy on PS3, and I switched from my maybe laggy TV to the PC monitor, I instantly gained almost 0,1s per lap and many positions in the world ranking.
"assetto corsa" and "P.Cars" are incoming, and I would not risk that the monitor is an obstacle to my career as a virtual pilot. ;)
 
Bloodflowerz said:
Are you a professional gamer? Do you take part in eSports events? If the answer is no then you will not notice any input lag. I had the HP zr24W which has an input lag of 10ms. Do I notice any input lag on the BenQ? No.

A 4K monitor will NOT "cost just a little more". Have you even consider the raw GPU horse power needed for 60fps minimum on 4K? When considering a 4K monitor you have to factor in the cost of dual GPUs too if you want a decent gaming experience.
Click to expand...

What if you run at 1440p or 1080p when playing games on the 4K? Would that experience be any different from having a native 1080p screen of the same size? (excluding differences in input lag, etc.)

This way, you can still take advantage of the extra real estate 4K gives on when using desktop applications.
 
Bestio: So. You care formost for low lag above else for competitive gaming. Then ultrafast TN monitors are your slice of bread. This and it's clones are with average lag, acceptable for 95%, you are within those 5% for which it isn't. Imho you are wasting your time lurking in threads about this or it's clones from samsung/qnic/aoc, i highly doubt for differences between them being radical enough to make difference for your specific needs.

kabobi: for picture quality sake i advise only run at evenly multiplied resolutions. For FHD that would be 4K, not QHD. 1.5x downscale = soaped up picture.
 
Maybe you are right, I would like a monitor with the responsiveness of a TN, The color accuracy of IPS and the black depths and no-glow of a VA, but it's impossible to have everything in a single monitor.
In fact I'm looking for the best compromise, and I also found it in the Crossover 2735amg if the strong glow effect had not ruined everything.
My only hope is a bypassed DVI-D only version of Qnix QX320QHD.
 
Church said:
1080p is not "preferred", it's what's most common to most common displays people have. Given choice, right affordability, more powerful gpus at mainstream price level people would "prefer" to game now on 100" 8K displays :p
Also i guess that even many of gamers lot of time spend .. not in games. Be it browser, mail app, IM, watching movies, editing few docs. High res there is great feature. QHD - best thing about it - it's great compromise as of now. Not priced exorbitantly, most top and middle gpus have enough oumph to drive it, also not mere FHD that seems too low res for anything >24" when sitting near (TVs can get by being big & FHD, simply located/viewed from much further). For 4K you have to pay cosmic sums, same for gpus for it, current market choice is limited and not exactly best by many means .. but QHD now is simply at sweet spot.
Click to expand...

I never said theoretical, pipedream specs. You miss the point. 1080p is still the only cost effective resolution right now. All my posts have bern to justify why people ate not jumping to blow money on this monitor, or any other QHD monitor for that matter, regardless of all the threads in this forum enamored over QHD and 4k. Thats why those korean panels are so popular. Its the price. For many people, the jump to QHD does not justufy the 4x price. These monitors are mostly marketed at professionals as well. Maybe you just live in a different income bracket where 4x the price is justified and not a "cosmic sum". There's also the point of diminishing returns. If you need to up the text dpi on a 4k monitor, you probably have been fooled by chasing specs.
 
QHD is 4x price jump vs FHD? Even when comparing same vendor, same panel size, same quality niche? I somewhat doubt comparing 27-32" QHD vs 24" FHD is apple to apple comparison. I don't earn very much, but price of this benq to me seems more then reasonable. 2/3rds of what i paid once for Dell 27", that this benq replaced.
 
Church said:
QHD is 4x price jump vs FHD? Even when comparing same vendor, same panel size, same quality niche? I somewhat doubt comparing 27-32" QHD vs 24" FHD is apple to apple comparison. I don't earn very much, but price of this benq to me seems more then reasonable. 2/3rds of what i paid once for Dell 27", that this benq replaced.
Click to expand...

Why are you arguing with me when you never bothered to read my first post about this? I already compared the GW2760HS to the "former" price of the BL3200PT. I wrote a whole paragraph about it. It IS four times the price. They are both BenQ monitors. Both are AMVA+ with color-shift free tech. Near identical. Only difference is resolution and size. I even asked about the GW2760HS in previous pages because, it is in essence, the little brother to the BL3200PT. Where are you getting this 24" size from? Are you confusing yourself? I have never once mentioned a 24" anything. Period. That is a monitor size in a completely different category IMO.

Let me make it simpler for you since you don't know what the GW2760HS is, as if the model number didn't clue you in:

GW2760HS
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G1R19564&cm_re=gw2760hs-_-24-014-373-_-Product

The price I checked last time was $220 BTW.

BL3200PT
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...4014372&cm_re=bl3200pt-_-24-014-372-_-Product

The price was $899 last time I checked.

899 / 220 = 4.086 therefore QUADRUPLE the price.

My posts have always been whether the extra 5" and 35% in pixel width or height justifies paying four times the price. For a lot of people, it does not. Am I repeating myself? Yes. Yes I am. I should just copy and paste what I wrote above, if some people bothered to read it that is.
 
at 37 pages long what is the forum's verdict on this monster with regards to gaming? ghosting too much or tolerable? by range of tolerable lets say for a guy who usually goes barely above 1:1 k/d in casual fps matches, not trying to win tournaments on CS:GO here

also the monitor is 700 bux at TigerDirect as of this post
 
silverwolf0 said:
Why are you arguing with me when you never bothered to read my first post about this? I already compared the GW2760HS to the "former" price of the BL3200PT. I wrote a whole paragraph about it. It IS four times the price. They are both BenQ monitors. Both are AMVA+ with color-shift free tech. Near identical. Only difference is resolution and size. I even asked about the GW2760HS in previous pages because, it is in essence, the little brother to the BL3200PT. Where are you getting this 24" size from? Are you confusing yourself? I have never once mentioned a 24" anything. Period. That is a monitor size in a completely different category IMO.
Click to expand...
OK, i might have exagerated for argument sake as well comparing to 24" (it might be most common size for FHD res though) .. but "Only difference is resolution and size" is enough for me even if comparing relative to 27". It might be mere +5" to you, but i got used that in most pricelists even +3" for 30" costed much more, relative to those prices benq still stands as reasonably priced to me. I wish for bigger size at reasonable DPI. I'm willing to pay for that. I'm glad that benq released this product without pricing it extraorbitantly unlike what most vendors had done with 4K displays, even subpar 1st gen ones.
 
silverwolf0 said:
You can get a quality QHD 27' for under $500 from over here from looking at newegg prices. It depends what you mean by quality though. 1080p is still the preferred gaming resolution, and a good 1080p 27" is less than half the price of a similar QHD version. You are paying a very big premium for resolution. I am more focused on panel quality, which is identical, or sometimes better, on a lower resolution monitor, because you are cramming less pixels together and there are advantages to that.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is you seem to be adamant on a 1080p display. Why don't you just buy an equivalent TV from Samsung, LG, Sony and just call it a day? I really see no point in you remaining in this thread when you clearly have no desire for this BenQ monitor.

Church said:
Also i guess that even many of gamers lot of time spend .. not in games. Be it browser, mail app, IM, watching movies, editing few docs. High res there is great feature. QHD - best thing about it - it's great compromise as of now. Not priced exorbitantly, most top and middle gpus have enough oumph to drive it, also not mere FHD that seems too low res for anything >24" when sitting near (TVs can get by being big & FHD, simply located/viewed from much further). For 4K you have to pay cosmic sums, same for gpus for it, current market choice is limited and not exactly best by many means .. but QHD now is simply at sweet spot.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Could not have said it better. My brother is using a 32" 1080p TV as a desktop monitor and the res really hurts web browsing; you see less content and it's incredibly blurry. I've said it time and time again, 32" at 1440p is just damn perfect. The perfect compromise.

Church said:
QHD is 4x price jump vs FHD? Even when comparing same vendor, same panel size, same quality niche? I somewhat doubt comparing 27-32" QHD vs 24" FHD is apple to apple comparison. I don't earn very much, but price of this benq to me seems more then reasonable. 2/3rds of what i paid once for Dell 27", that this benq replaced.
Click to expand...

And my BenQ cost me 15 EUR more than the Asus PB278Q it replaced. The Asus and Dell 27” 1440p variants are two of the most popular 1440p 27” displays these past 2 years and they continue to sell well. The BenQ is priced to sell within the same price bracket.

silverwolf0 said:
I never said theoretical, pipedream specs. You miss the point. 1080p is still the only cost effective resolution right now. All my posts have bern to justify why people ate not jumping to blow money on this monitor, or any other QHD monitor for that matter, regardless of all the threads in this forum enamored over QHD and 4k. Thats why those korean panels are so popular. Its the price. For many people, the jump to QHD does not justufy the 4x price. These monitors are mostly marketed at professionals as well. Maybe you just live in a different income bracket where 4x the price is justified and not a "cosmic sum". There's also the point of diminishing returns. If you need to up the text dpi on a 4k monitor, you probably have been fooled by chasing specs.
Click to expand...

silverwolf - you only speak for yourself; for you 1080p is the only cost effective resolution, but you certainly cannot speak for me and others alike. And I absolutely have not "blown" my money on this monitor, it's quickly becoming one of THE purchases of the year.

I appreciate it if you find this too expensive to justify the cost. It just baffles me why you continue to post in this thread; which is in fact about the 32" 1440p BenQ? You are not convincing anyone else otherwise and simply wasting your time. If 1080p is your thing then good for you.

I kindly request you stop discouraging everyone else in this thread and quit derailing the thread. It's their own money, let it be. Do you also plague the Apple forums on their overpriced hardware?

CompletelyClueless said:
at 37 pages long what is the forum's verdict on this monster with regards to gaming? ghosting too much or tolerable? by range of tolerable lets say for a guy who usually goes barely above 1:1 k/d in casual fps matches, not trying to win tournaments on CS:GO here

also the monitor is 700 bux at TigerDirect as of this post
Click to expand...

Huh? Ghosting? I see none. This monitor is beastly, indeed.
 
having had 2 units of this monitor, i can say that it is very good. my experience wasn't good i had to return both of them (1st had quite a bad banding issue and the 2nd had a full vertical row of bad pixels 4 days in).

after getting a 27" i found out that the 32" size is a tad too big for the distance i sit at. this doesn't make the monitor bad though, i still think it's one hell of a screen, not for everyone though.
 
skuko said:
after getting a 27" i found out that the 32" size is a tad too big for the distance i sit at. .
Click to expand...

Ask yourself again a year later having used the 27".:p

I thought the same with my 27" until it magically began to look small and odd on my desk after 12 months. :D
 
Got the monitor last night. Have not had much time to play with it so far but so far so good. No vertical bands, no dead pixels that are obvious, but I need more testing. I will run my colormunki smile later tonight and also test more games. I already tested on a heavily modded Skyrim and I must say it was glorious! I expect it to be more so once I complete calibration. I noticed zero input lag or ghosting. At $700.00 shipped this monitor is a very good deal imo. I look at it as the best purchase I have made so far this year. More to come later.
 
jzodda said:
Got the monitor last night. Have not had much time to play with it so far but so far so good. No vertical bands, no dead pixels that are obvious, but I need more testing. I will run my colormunki smile later tonight and also test more games. I already tested on a heavily modded Skyrim and I must say it was glorious! I expect it to be more so once I complete calibration. I noticed zero input lag or ghosting. At $700.00 shipped this monitor is a very good deal imo. I look at it as the best purchase I have made so far this year. More to come later.
Click to expand...

Your sentiments echo my own. Really pleased for you. At $700 it's now in line with EU pricing. Congrats! :)
 
Hi, all--

Long-term lurker. I'd decided to pick up this monitor largely from this thread as well as from the TFTCentral review.

Ordered from Amazon back in mid-June for ~$740 w/ free shipping. Delivery was supposed to be back-ordered until August, but they must have gotten a shipment in since I got a "order shipped" notice on July 4 and it arrived last night! Packing quality was good, and it comes with every type of cable that it can connect to (yay!), but the cables were really short. Even the power cord itself is way too short-- seems to be 1 meter long. Well, I've got longer IEC cables around, so no big deal. Connected everything, verified that all of the input types works OK.

First impression was "oh my god is it bright" at 100. Cranked brightness down to 25 and set gamma to 1, and then went by http://www.lagom.nl to do some finer adjustments and use the test patterns to check for stuck pixels and the like. No issues, the monitor seems to be pixel perfect. I had to tweak the red and blue levels down to ~95 or so in order to clearly see the difference between 30/31/32 on contrast, but the black levels around 1/2 were very clear and distinct. The later black level test really showed off the deep blacks and great contrast available.

Fired up Skyrim. Glorious.
(Just as the folks above have said.)

In particular, the red-gold-yellow color of fires and forges just leapt out in comparison to my older 24" 1920x1200 TN panel. Shadow detail was most obviously improved, also alpha-blended effects like smoke and mist from waterfalls were also noticeably improved, creating a haze with a feel of depth but no signs of banding or dithering.

No input lag; no significant signs of ghosting, although if I do a rapid 360-spin, I do notice a touch of soft blurring.
I didn't see any of the vertical banding some other folks have mentioned, and color/brightness uniformity seems to be fine.

My 670 notices the higher rez and is running at 70+ C unless I crank the fan curve up, but so far I've still been able to run with everything max quality and 16x aniso + 8xCSAA (or high FXAA, depending) and get 50 - 60 FPS. Ran through some benchmarks with Batman: Arkham City and AO with PhysX set to high, and they were likewise coming in at ~55 FPS.
 
cswiger said:
Hi, all--
Click to expand...

Thanks for the positive impressions and congratulations on the purchase. :D

I too feel the same way about the colours; for me I was comparing it to my IPS PB278Q and this BenQ is so much better at producing colours and at a sane brightness level. The blacks just make everything so rich, inky, it's simply beautiful to look at! :)

Remember to set the Sharpness to 5.

Yeah, the cables are the only downside, far too short.

I'm currently replaying Dragon Age but may be tempted to get back into Skyrim just for this screen. ;)
 
Bloodflowerz said:
What I don't understand is you seem to be adamant on a 1080p display. Why don't you just buy an equivalent TV from Samsung, LG, Sony and just call it a day? I really see no point in you remaining in this thread when you clearly have no desire for this BenQ monitor.



Exactly. Could not have said it better. My brother is using a 32" 1080p TV as a desktop monitor and the res really hurts web browsing; you see less content and it's incredibly blurry. I've said it time and time again, 32" at 1440p is just damn perfect. The perfect compromise.



And my BenQ cost me 15 EUR more than the Asus PB278Q it replaced. The Asus and Dell 27” 1440p variants are two of the most popular 1440p 27” displays these past 2 years and they continue to sell well. The BenQ is priced to sell within the same price bracket.



silverwolf - you only speak for yourself; for you 1080p is the only cost effective resolution, but you certainly cannot speak for me and others alike. And I absolutely have not "blown" my money on this monitor, it's quickly becoming one of THE purchases of the year.

I appreciate it if you find this too expensive to justify the cost. It just baffles me why you continue to post in this thread; which is in fact about the 32" 1440p BenQ? You are not convincing anyone else otherwise and simply wasting your time. If 1080p is your thing then good for you.

I kindly request you stop discouraging everyone else in this thread and quit derailing the thread. It's their own money, let it be. Do you also plague the Apple forums on their overpriced hardware?



Huh? Ghosting? I see none. This monitor is beastly, indeed.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I never claimed it was anything but my opinion. I respect everyone who is buying this monitor for what it is. But that doesn't mean this monitor is free of criticism or debate, including it's price and value assessment for different people. You addressed my post about it with a counter-argument. I did the same to yours. Than you go fanboy and give me the tired argument that anyone who isn't kissing this monitor's ass and saying only positive things about it should not post at all, and gradually get more belligerent and self-righteous about your opinion, which you seem more to infer as ironclad fact.
 
Last edited:
silverwolf0 said:
Sigh. I never claimed it was anything but my opinion. I respect everyone who is buying this monitor for the QHD resolution and gaming. I have been trying to explain WHY I don't want to pay the price for it, and for me, it IS blowing money in some respect. I never claimed it was a universal fact or that it invalidates anyone else's opinion. Why am I trying to explain it? BECAUSE SOMEONE ASKED ME. Why don't you go look back at the post above in which I REPLY to someone who asked me, among others, the question why some people are hesitant? There is more than one person here who isn't buying the monitor because of the price, and all I am doing is giving a reason WHY. But for some reason you didn't like my response and were too stubborn to accept people who aren't in it for the resolution, doesn't fully see the value, or doesn't worship this monitor like its god, There is nothing to derail. Talking about monitor value is a part of the conversation. You are just too high minded and stubborn to see it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there is no point beating on about it like dead wood or an old nagging women. You've made your point now move on to another thread. Spend your time elsewhere, somewhere that is actually beneficial to you. Again, you have no interest in buying this monitor, you have made your point, why are you still here? :rolleyes:

If the specs of this monitor does not meet your requirements, for example 1440p is too much for you, then again, why are you here? Why do you remain here? You being here is not going to change what the monitor actually is now, is it? And you call me stubborn? Foolish.
 
silverwolf0 said:
Sigh. I never claimed it was anything but my opinion. I respect everyone who is buying this monitor for what it is. But that doesn't mean this monitor is free of criticism or debate, including it's price and value assessment for different people. You addressed my post about it with a counter-argument. I did the same to yours. Than you go fanboy and give me the tired argument that anyone who isn't kissing this monitor's ass and saying only positive things about it should not post at all, and gradually get more belligerent and self-righteous about your opinion, which you seem more to infer as ironclad fact.
Click to expand...

You don't even own this monitor, never have, AND I DO. You have zero weight, no grounding, and your argument is based on assumption making your entire logic false and flawed. And money, price value is a personal thing, it has no bearing on the quality of the monitor, which is what we should be discussing right?

I will no longer address you. Begone already.
 
Bloodflowerz said:
Yeah, but there is no point beating on about it like dead wood or an old nagging women. You've made your point now move on to another thread. Spend your time elsewhere, somewhere that is actually beneficial to you. Again, you have no interest in buying this monitor, you have made your point, why are you still here? :rolleyes:

If the specs of this monitor does not meet your requirements, for example 1440p is too much for you, then again, why are you here? Why do you remain here? You being here is not going to change what the monitor actually is now, is it? And you call me stubborn? Foolish.
Click to expand...

Just wow.
 
Bloodflowerz said:
Thanks for the positive impressions and congratulations on the purchase. :D
Click to expand...

I figured that there are probably more lurkers, and some are wondering whether or not to get this BenQ monitor. They'd probably like to hear more feedback from folks who have gotten one.

I too feel the same way about the colours; for me I was comparing it to my IPS PB278Q and this BenQ is so much better at producing colours and at a sane brightness level. The blacks just make everything so rich, inky, it's simply beautiful to look at! :)
Click to expand...

I can only agree. I've got both an Apple 30" Cinema display and a new 27" Apple Thunderbolt display on my desk at work, so I'm able to compare at least reasonably high-quality IPS panels versus this new VA panel.

1) The BenQ has a semi-glossy antiglare coating falls in between the super-glossy 27" TB display and the fairly matte 30" Cinema display. Actually, I think I prefer the heavier matte coating to what the BenQ has, but it's a close second.

2) The contrast, black level, and dark colors from the BenQ are clearly better than the IPS panels. Yes, there is a bit of gamma shifting and "black crush" with the VA panel, but it's hard to notice unless you really look for it.

3) For pure white, white saturation tests like http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php and bright colors, the BenQ seems comparable with the IPS panels, but I can't say that one obviously stands out as being better. Perhaps some of that is because the displays at work are viewed in daytime with fluorescent lighting.

Remember to set the Sharpness to 5.
Click to expand...

Sure; that seemed to be the default for all picture modes?
 
I played around some more last night. I used the TFT settings along with calibration with a colormunki. I have to say the calibrated monitor is a pleasure to work with.

I still have found no issues so far to complain about. I set ama to premium and then loaded up Skyrim and watchdogs. I have yet to notice overshoot and I was looking hard for it. A guy who works at microcenter told me that these latest batches of panels is a revision? I have to check the back of the panel to see what I see. I have yet to overclock, but I will try that soon. I don't have much confidence that this panel won't skip frames though.

Can anybody else test setting ama to premium and look for overshoot? It feels smoother with that setting.
 
Hello. Quick question: I use a 24" Dell IPS monitor for work and a Samsung 1080p 32" HDTV (6300) for gaming with my PC, my PS4 and watching movies. My system is based on a 4770 CPU and two GTX 780 at SLI. I know that for my HDTV 1080p resolution the two 780 are overkill. My question is: If I were to buy this monitor as a substitute to my Samsung HDTV for all my said uses, would I get a better image quality, better colors, better contrast and better response times/lag? Getting use of said 1440p resolution sounds good but only if I would get better results overall not only for PC gaming but for my other uses. Thank you very much for your responses.
 
jzodda said:
I played around some more last night. I used the TFT settings along with calibration with a colormunki. I have to say the calibrated monitor is a pleasure to work with.

I still have found no issues so far to complain about. I set ama to premium and then loaded up Skyrim and watchdogs. I have yet to notice overshoot and I was looking hard for it. A guy who works at microcenter told me that these latest batches of panels is a revision? I have to check the back of the panel to see what I see. I have yet to overclock, but I will try that soon. I don't have much confidence that this panel won't skip frames though.

Can anybody else test setting ama to premium and look for overshoot? It feels smoother with that setting.
Click to expand...

A new revision, eh? Interesting! If so, they must have noticed something during the initial production run that they needed to tweak...

Anyway, I've got a decent camera, so sure-- I should be able to fire up testufo or PixPerAn and take some pictures to compare AMA high vs premium.
 
jzodda said:
I set ama to premium and then loaded up Skyrim and watchdogs. I have yet to notice overshoot and I was looking hard for it. [...] Can anybody else test setting ama to premium and look for overshoot? It feels smoother with that setting.
Click to expand...
This is my experience too. Unlike the people at TFT Central, I think the AMA Premium setting isn't useless at all. I do notice overshoot occasionally, but I don't really mind it, because the difference between 'High' and 'Premium' is quite extreme. Gaming is a lot smoother.

AMA High -> Not as smooth; more blur. No overshoot.
AMA Premium -> Smoother; less blur. Some overshoot.

After weeks of testing, my recommendation is still the same:

Fast (FPS) Games: AMA Premium.
Slow (RTS) Games: AMA High.
Desktop Environment: AMA High.
Movies/Television: AMA Premium.

By the way, if you want to see what overshoot looks like, drag windows around on your desktop with the AMA Premium setting on. Overshoot is not always obvious in games, but it surely is on the desktop.

A guy who works at microcenter told me that these latest batches of panels is a revision? I have to check the back of the panel to see what I see.
Click to expand...
No need to check the back of the monitor, you can check the revision in the service menu. You can enter that hidden menu as follows:

1.) Power the PC on as usual. Press the monitor power button and turn it off.
2.) Now press and hold the 4th - from left to right - touch sensitive button.
3.) Press the monitor power button and turn the screen on again.
4.) Wait till you have picture. Release the touch sensitive button.
5.) Press the 4th touch sensitive button to get the service menu.

My monitor:

Vender: Qisda
Panel: AUM320DVN01.0
Scaler: MST 9687D
F/W Version: V01/20140124
 
Bloodflowerz said:
I'm not sure to be honest. I ran through the Sharpness calibration which confirmed setting 5 is the correct setting to be used.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/sharpness.php
Click to expand...
Yup, I can confirm that the sharpness setting should be at 5.

Sharpness aside, I also have a question about this monitor's gamma. Bloodflowerz, you have your gamma setting at 1 right, like TFT Central recommends? Are you sure your gamma is at the 'ideal' 2.2 target with that setting? I'm asking, because I had my gamma setting initially at 1 too, but with that setting, I noticed that this gamma test page is entirely off. Only with my gamma setting at 2, do I approach the 2.2 target.

My current monitor settings:

Brightness - 17
Contrast - 50
Sharpness - 5
Gamma - 2
Color Temperature - User Define (R 100, G 94, B 99)
Hue - 50
Saturation - 53
AMA - High for desktop environments, premium for most games and movies.
Picture Mode - User
 
[X]eltic;1040950167 said:
Vender: Qisda
Panel: AUM320DVN01.0
Scaler: MST 9687D
F/W Version: V01/20140124
Click to expand...

My info is exactly the same. Maybe check the model info on the back of the panel to see if that's changed:

Model ID: BL3200-B Type: BL3200PT
Rating: 100 - 240VAC 50/60 Hz 1.2A
Mfg Date: May 2014
Rev: 00-120-BA
P/N: 9H.LC3LB.QBA
S/N: ETR5300xxxxxx
 
cswiger said:
My info is exactly the same. Maybe check the model info on the back of the panel to see if that's changed:

Model ID: BL3200-B Type: BL3200PT
Rating: 100 - 240VAC 50/60 Hz 1.2A
Mfg Date: May 2014
Rev: 00-120-BA
P/N: 9H.LC3LB.QBA
S/N: ETR5300xxxxxx
Click to expand...

hmm this is interesting....this is listed on one of my local web shops:
Monitor BenQ BL3200PT Flicker Free (9H.LC3LB.QBE)

wonder what the difference is between P/N QBA and QBE at the end?
 
[X]eltic;1040950198 said:
Bloodflowerz, you have your gamma setting at 1 right, like TFT Central recommends? Are you sure your gamma is at the 'ideal' 2.2 target with that setting? I'm asking, because I had my gamma setting initially at 1 too, but with that setting, I noticed that this gamma test page is entirely off. Only with my gamma setting at 2, do I approach the 2.2 target.
Click to expand...

Hello mate

Yes, I have the gamma set to 1. I checked the link in your post and ran the gamma test. If I set gamma to 1 the first two boxes have no colour visible whereas the third box does. However, gamma setting 2 shows colour in both the 2nd and 3rd boxes for me. I think both gamma settings 1 and 2 are viable depending on one's calibration of course. Both look good to me.

:)
 
Does anyone know if there is a possibility for a PLP (portrait-landscape-portrait) setup with this 32 inch as the middle landscape monitor?

I know it's currently only done with the Dell 30'' atm, but maybe with 32 inches at 1440, there is another solution to get something as beautiful as this?

plp2007fpu30113.jpg
 
You may try to search some 18" 1440x900 displays. They seem close width to 3200PT's height wise. No clue if there is any worth buying among such size/res displays, as that res and that size might mean some old display models with possibly not so good color output/not competitive lag.
BTW, have you thought of 3x32" in portrait mode?
I myself would rather use single benq 32" for now, and replace it in 2-3 years with single 50" 4K in future, as by then there probably will be wide and good enough selection among 4K displays and gpus of that time of next or one after next gen will have enough oumph to drive them even at reasonable budget level.
 
Church said:
You may try to search some 18" 1440x900 displays. They seem close width to 3200PT's height wise. No clue if there is any worth buying among such size/res displays, as that res and that size might mean some old display models with possibly not so good color output/not competitive lag.
BTW, have you thought of 3x32" in portrait mode?
I myself would rather use single benq 32" for now, and replace it in 2-3 years with single 50" 4K in future, as by then there probably will be wide and good enough selection among 4K displays and gpus of that time of next or one after next gen will have enough oumph to drive them even at reasonable budget level.
Click to expand...

Yea, you're probably right, just gonna wait for 4k then probably after this display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top