Any good gaming monitors exist? Everything is crap!

Falkentyne said:
mls1995, how are you liking your new XL2720Z?
Click to expand...

So far, so good! I'm 99% sure I'm keeping it (I'm still a little tempted to order that new Dell and keep the BenQ for comparison). Great recommendation Falkentyne, thanks!
 
TFTCentral just published their review of the PG279Q, looks like it is NOT using the same AU Optronics AHVA panel as the XB270HU (M270DAN02.3).

The PG279Q is using M270Q008 V0... and in typical AUO fashion, the QC issues are still prevalent. Browsing the monitor thread over at overclock.net forums, EU folks are reporting that it's suffering the same problems as the PG278Q/XB270HU. Atomicus pretty much summed up my posts on the matter here.

Looks like the holy grail of gaming monitors is postponed yet again. :(

We really need gaming OLED monitors to come out already...
 
zone74 said:
Did you have AMA (overdrive) set to "Premium" ?
Click to expand...

No. I went through quite a bit of troubleshooting to no avail. There are others who have reported the same thing to varying degrees. I thought about getting a replacement, instead of a refund just to confirm... but I the AG coating was a little heavy, and the limited strobing convinced me to wait for something else. Now I'm waiting for whatever the true holy grail is, or maybe my patience will wear thin and I'll just buy an LG-MB85R and forget about freesync and 144hz for now.
 
You're right, it's all crap. It's all 16:9; a ridiculous aspect ratio for desktop use

Well, all except the few like Dell U2415, some LG's of the same size and the 30" monitors, the latter being crap for several other reasons (even besides price).

Better aspect ratio's like 3:2 are more common in the fake laptops, but they are crap for yet other reasons.
 
mls1995 said:
So far, so good! I'm 99% sure I'm keeping it (I'm still a little tempted to order that new Dell and keep the BenQ for comparison). Great recommendation Falkentyne, thanks!
Click to expand...

Have you experimented with blur reduction and vertical total tweaks?

Here are some VT tweaks to keep in mind for custom refresh rates, as the XL2720Z is a different panel (not just in size either) than the XL2420Z, so even though the scaler is the exact same (you can actually flash an XL2420Z firmware into the XL2720Z and get a "working" monitor, but the display will be **VERY** corrupted), some of the VT tweaks which were fine in the XL2411Z/XL2420Z would show frameskipping in the XL2720Z, while a VT of 1 or 2 higher or lower would be flawless.

Please note that Vertical total range of VT 1497-Vertical total 1502 all have the EXACT SAME amount of strobe crosstalk. They all send the same vertical signal to the monitor ("Vertical height: 1440, even though the physical vertical height remains 1080); this can be seen by using the "factory menu", so there's no loss or benefit to using another value--what we want is no frameskipping.

http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2467
(Unfortunately the XL2730'z's newer factory menu gives a lot more interesting information, but also unfortunately, VT tweaks and strobing <120hz don't work on XL2730Z):

For the VT 1497-1502 range:

60hz: modified timings (check masterotaku's thread on blur busters forum for "my settings so far").
61hz: VT 1502.
76hz (problematic, out of range on every other resolution switch).
85hz: VT 1501 (all other VT's in this range frameskip; Vt 1350 I -think- works here, you will have to test).
91hz: VT 1502
92-98 hz: VT 1500
100hz: VT 1500-1502.
120hz: VT 1499-1500 (VT 1502 will frameskip 25% of the time and will often skip when changing picture/gamer presets)
*NOTE* Over displayport, you will need modified timings or the panel will switch to 6 bits per channel color: HT 2001 and VT 1499 for 8 bits per channel color over displayport--pixel clock=359.94 mhz. 360 MHz is the limit for 8 bit color over displayport as this monitor does NOT support "High bit rate 2").

125hz: VT 1498 or VT 1502 (may frameskip 1 out of 10 times, usually stable. Higher chance of frameskipping if changing presets (this will be at 6 bits per channel over displayport).
128hz: VT 1502. This is the max refresh rate that can use normal timings. Higher must use LCD Reduced (VT 1098=default)

129hz (not guaranteed to work): VT 1497 or 1502. Getting 129 hz to work without an out of range error is very difficult and sometimes it will out of range anyway.

130-145hz (LCD Reduced, VT tweaks not possible).

Firmware is hard locked not not exceed 145hz.

The "VT 1350" tweak you heard about does not work--shows repeated frameskipping (even with blur reduction off) at 100hz.
Please use VT 1354 at 100hz (no frameskipping at all), but the 1497-1502 range will have even lower crosstalk.
(I did not test VT 1350 at 120hz). Monitor scaler reports 1600x1280 when VT 1340-VT 1370 is active (most Vts in this range frameskip at 100hz, 1354 is flawless).
--------------------------------------------------

AMA LOW (Undocumented AMA setting):
1) Enable blur reduction (FIRST).
2) Go to AMA. Move it to off or premium then back to high.
Alternatively if it's already on high, press enter once to "Highlight" the high setting in yellow, then press back (button #4) instead of enter. This reduces overdrive intensity by 50%. This setting is unusable at default contrast (40-50, with 43 being the best white delta) due to excessive black to white ghosting. Works best with a contrast of 10 and looks ok with 5-15.

AMA Low is best used for 2D side scrolling games with a lot of medium color transitions (not white to black) as medium transitions usually show the most inverse ghosting.

*DO NOT LOWER CONTRAST BELOW 40 unless using AMA low. intense spectral ghosting (black to white) will appear on black to white objects--very ugly. When using AMA low, keep contrast 0-15 for best results (10 seems to look good).

Panel is capable of 2560x1440@115hz over displayport only by using a VT of 1497 and Horizontal total (HT) of 2641 (display scaled via edid override). OSD will report 2560x1440. DVI (with clock patcher) can do 2560x1440@100hz. YMMV.

Here's AMA low with contrast 10 on test UFO alien invasion (short exposure).
awmJZBn.jpg
 
Last edited:
I know but it isnt classical IPS ie. LG IPS. Its a clone.

My new AHVA monitor has inferior viewing angle to my now quite old 2209WA which is LG e-IPS. It has a weird drop of contrast ratio when viewing at an angle, the angle doesnt have to be big either, My cheap asus monitor I brought about 18 months ago (advertised as IPS but no idea of panel in it) has the same weird issue. I dont know if that caused by LED backlighting or due to these newer panels.

My comment was more about the companies choosing AUO AHVA over LG IPS. LG havent stopped making IPS, but it does seem a lot less common in newer displays now.
 
chrcoluk said:
I know but it isnt classical IPS ie. LG IPS. Its a clone.

My new AHVA monitor has inferior viewing angle to my now quite old 2209WA which is LG e-IPS. It has a weird drop of contrast ratio when viewing at an angle, the angle doesnt have to be big either, My cheap asus monitor I brought about 18 months ago (advertised as IPS but no idea of panel in it) has the same weird issue. I dont know if that caused by LED backlighting or due to these newer panels.

My comment was more about the companies choosing AUO AHVA over LG IPS. LG havent stopped making IPS, but it does seem a lot less common in newer displays now.
Click to expand...
Nearly all new IPS panels have worse viewing angles. It have nothing to do with AUO panels but general change in technology where contrast ratio is maximized at expense of viewing angles.

Dell 2209WA is one of the last of 'old breed' IPS panels. It is advertised e-IPS but actually it is normal 8-bit H/P-IPS as used in every other high-end monitors of that time. It will have superior viewing angles to pretty much anything you can find today. It is not so much caused by LED (which itself is totally different issue) than change in technology that happened even back in CCFL days. Comparing two monitors, newer U2311H compared to older 2209WA have:
- 6-bit + A-FCR instead 8bit
- better measured contrast ratio
- worse viewing angles

6-bit aside (it doesn't really have anything to do with our issue here) new panels sacrificed viewing angles for contrast ratio. When viewed off angle new panels will deteriorate much quicker making IPS glow into far greater issue than it was in the past on older panels. Off angle new panels will have worse picture quality than old. Similar thing happened in VA panels when eg. Dell 2407wfp had much better viewing angles than 2408wfp but lower contrast ratio.

My comment was more about the companies choosing AUO AHVA over LG IPS. LG havent stopped making IPS, but it does seem a lot less common in newer displays now.
Click to expand...
AUO is the first company to release 144Hz IPS-like panel to market.
Not that LG or Samsung panels couldn't work at these speeds but releasing eg. 120Hz monitor with panel rated at 60Hz could end badly for monitor manufacturer. For example if those panels started to break after some time and/or if only portion of them work at such speed, among other possible failures, all thatmean huge money loss and damage to brand. As an example Korean IPS monitors can be OCed but different units with even the same panel behave differently. AUO as panel manufacturer that make 144Hz panel guarantee its proper operation at those speeds and that it is finetuned to them, have no difference in gamma, proper A-FCR operation, etc, etc.

LG need to release 120/144Hz panel and if they do that then 120/144Hz monitors using them will follow
 
Last edited:
Do you want a large 16:10 monitor with 4K resolution, 160Hz, OLED colors, contrast, response time and viewing angles, ULMB-level motion clarity, all with no risk of dead pixels and having no scaling, as every resolution is native?

Well, a monit or like that exists. It's called the Sony GDM-FW900.

See this thread for more information: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
 
rabidz7 said:
Do you want a large 16:10 monitor with 4K resolution, 160Hz, OLED colors, contrast, response time and viewing angles, ULMB-level motion clarity, all with no risk of dead pixels and having no scaling, as every resolution is native?

Well, a monit or like that exists. It's called the Sony GDM-FW900.

See this thread for more information: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
Click to expand...

I don't want a CRT, you are literally the only one
 
Falkentyne said:
Have you experimented with blur reduction and vertical total tweaks?

Here are some VT tweaks to keep in mind for custom refresh rates, as the XL2720Z is a different panel (not just in size either) than the XL2420Z, so even though the scaler is the exact same (you can actually flash an XL2420Z firmware into the XL2720Z and get a "working" monitor, but the display will be **VERY** corrupted), some of the VT tweaks which were fine in the XL2411Z/XL2420Z would show frameskipping in the XL2720Z, while a VT of 1 or 2 higher or lower would be flawless.

Please note that Vertical total range of VT 1497-Vertical total 1502 all have the EXACT SAME amount of strobe crosstalk. They all send the same vertical signal to the monitor ("Vertical height: 1440, even though the physical vertical height remains 1080); this can be seen by using the "factory menu", so there's no loss or benefit to using another value--what we want is no frameskipping.

http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2467
(Unfortunately the XL2730'z's newer factory menu gives a lot more interesting information, but also unfortunately, VT tweaks and strobing <120hz don't work on XL2730Z):

For the VT 1497-1502 range:

60hz: modified timings (check masterotaku's thread on blur busters forum for "my settings so far").
61hz: VT 1502.
76hz (problematic, out of range on every other resolution switch).
85hz: VT 1501 (all other VT's in this range frameskip; Vt 1350 I -think- works here, you will have to test).
91hz: VT 1502
92-98 hz: VT 1500
100hz: VT 1500-1502.
120hz: VT 1499-1500 (VT 1502 will frameskip 25% of the time and will often skip when changing picture/gamer presets)
*NOTE* Over displayport, you will need modified timings or the panel will switch to 6 bits per channel color: HT 2001 and VT 1499 for 8 bits per channel color over displayport--pixel clock=359.94 mhz. 360 MHz is the limit for 8 bit color over displayport as this monitor does NOT support "High bit rate 2").

125hz: VT 1498 or VT 1502 (may frameskip 1 out of 10 times, usually stable. Higher chance of frameskipping if changing presets (this will be at 6 bits per channel over displayport).
128hz: VT 1502. This is the max refresh rate that can use normal timings. Higher must use LCD Reduced (VT 1098=default)

129hz (not guaranteed to work): VT 1497 or 1502. Getting 129 hz to work without an out of range error is very difficult and sometimes it will out of range anyway.

130-145hz (LCD Reduced, VT tweaks not possible).

Firmware is hard locked not not exceed 145hz.

The "VT 1350" tweak you heard about does not work--shows repeated frameskipping (even with blur reduction off) at 100hz.
Please use VT 1354 at 100hz (no frameskipping at all), but the 1497-1502 range will have even lower crosstalk.
(I did not test VT 1350 at 120hz). Monitor scaler reports 1600x1280 when VT 1340-VT 1370 is active (most Vts in this range frameskip at 100hz, 1354 is flawless).
--------------------------------------------------

AMA LOW (Undocumented AMA setting):
1) Enable blur reduction (FIRST).
2) Go to AMA. Move it to off or premium then back to high.
Alternatively if it's already on high, press enter once to "Highlight" the high setting in yellow, then press back (button #4) instead of enter. This reduces overdrive intensity by 50%. This setting is unusable at default contrast (40-50, with 43 being the best white delta) due to excessive black to white ghosting. Works best with a contrast of 10 and looks ok with 5-15.

AMA Low is best used for 2D side scrolling games with a lot of medium color transitions (not white to black) as medium transitions usually show the most inverse ghosting.

*DO NOT LOWER CONTRAST BELOW 40 unless using AMA low. intense spectral ghosting (black to white) will appear on black to white objects--very ugly. When using AMA low, keep contrast 0-15 for best results (10 seems to look good).

Panel is capable of 2560x1440@115hz over displayport only by using a VT of 1497 and Horizontal total (HT) of 2641 (display scaled via edid override). OSD will report 2560x1440. DVI (with clock patcher) can do 2560x1440@100hz. YMMV.

Here's AMA low with contrast 10 on test UFO alien invasion (short exposure).
awmJZBn.jpg
Click to expand...

I haven't yet but thanks for the tips.
 
rabidz7 said:
Do you want a large 16:10 monitor with 4K resolution, 160Hz, OLED colors, contrast, response time and viewing angles, ULMB-level motion clarity, all with no risk of dead pixels and having no scaling, as every resolution is native?

Well, a monit or like that exists. It's called the Sony GDM-FW900.

See this thread for more information: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
Click to expand...

160 Hz is only a much lower resolutions
4K it can't even do ;)

And too bad they aren't made new anymore.
 
quakelive at 960x600@ 160hz on the FW900 has to be seen to be believed.

low res on a good CRT is a completely different animal than low res on an LCD.

When I play pretty single player games, I use 1920x1200 @ 85 hz, and the image is absolutely stunning.
 
jcvjcvjcvjcv said:
You're right, it's all crap. It's all 16:9; a ridiculous aspect ratio for desktop use

Well, all except the few like Dell U2415, some LG's of the same size and the 30" monitors, the latter being crap for several other reasons (even besides price).

Better aspect ratio's like 3:2 are more common in the fake laptops, but they are crap for yet other reasons.
Click to expand...

It's amazing people think "widescreen" is actually a positive thing! People are always amazed when they see my 4:3 CRT... They very quickly go from "why are you using that old, heavy thing" to "that's the best display I've ever seen". 4:3, 3:2 and 16:10 are best for PC use.
 
Yes. Too bad all 16:10 there is is either only 1920x1200 or $1K and stupid on other things. Take my Dell U3014 for example; some intern that wrote the overdrive spec thought "more is better". Overshoot is ridiculous on that thing.

But I enjoy the 2560x1600. Would have preferred 2560x1920 though.

Apple got it right with the screens on the MBP though. Too bad PC manufacturers are only copying all the other things that Apple has wrong, like gutted keyboard layout, flat keys, etc.

@rabidz7; Like I said (or intended to say anyway); it only gives 160 Hz on very low resolutions. The same with my Dell P1230
 
mls1995 said:
I don't want a CRT, you are literally the only one
Click to expand...

This is like saying that all cars are far too slow and then, when someone suggests to try a better car, you don't want anything over two cylinders.
 
mls1995 said:
XL2720Z is 144hz. It is not gsync, but everything I had that was gsync was garbage anyway.
Click to expand...

You are correct on that. SINKs are just marketing gimmincs, whether they be F-SINKs or G-SINKs.
 
mls1995 said:
I don't want a CRT, you are literally the only one
Click to expand...

I want CRT's too. He's not the only one. The biggest knock on them (other than size, but that's a bunch of over blown bullshit)... Is their unknown age.

Seriously - my GDM-F520 has accurate colors (it's hardware calibrated), and a little over 10,000:1 static (yes - static) contrast ratio. Who the hell wouldn't want that as their display?

Edit - and for fucks sake, it's 2015. The only thing newer monitors really beat the old GDM monitors on is outright resolution. They are inferior in many other regards.

I'm really looking forward to computer OLED monitors and/or quantum dot monitors. I'd be content with a good display that had 5000:1 contrast ratio, IPS viewing angles, hardware LUT, and strobing. Said monitor would be almost on-par enough with my current setup that I wouldn't feel like I was downgrading.
 
Last edited:
It's also a joy being able to use all 10 bits of LUT precision that the DAC on nvidia geforces allows, something that not many non CRT users can enjoy. Means you get to preserve 256 distinct luminance levels across a wide variety of gamma functions.

p.s. until quantum dots are used as the primary emissive component of a display, there's nothing super special about them for the purposes of this discussion.

Here's an excellent video from earlier this month that goes into quite some detail about quantum dots. The guest being interviewed is extremely well informed (he even pronounces metamerism correctly :) )
 
XoR said:
Nearly all new IPS panels have worse viewing angles. It have nothing to do with AUO panels but general change in technology where contrast ratio is maximized at expense of viewing angles.

Dell 2209WA is one of the last of 'old breed' IPS panels. It is advertised e-IPS but actually it is normal 8-bit H/P-IPS as used in every other high-end monitors of that time. It will have superior viewing angles to pretty much anything you can find today. It is not so much caused by LED (which itself is totally different issue) than change in technology that happened even back in CCFL days. Comparing two monitors, newer U2311H compared to older 2209WA have:
- 6-bit + A-FCR instead 8bit
- better measured contrast ratio
- worse viewing angles

6-bit aside (it doesn't really have anything to do with our issue here) new panels sacrificed viewing angles for contrast ratio. When viewed off angle new panels will deteriorate much quicker making IPS glow into far greater issue than it was in the past on older panels. Off angle new panels will have worse picture quality than old. Similar thing happened in VA panels when eg. Dell 2407wfp had much better viewing angles than 2408wfp but lower contrast ratio.


AUO is the first company to release 144Hz IPS-like panel to market.
Not that LG or Samsung panels couldn't work at these speeds but releasing eg. 120Hz monitor with panel rated at 60Hz could end badly for monitor manufacturer. For example if those panels started to break after some time and/or if only portion of them work at such speed, among other possible failures, all thatmean huge money loss and damage to brand. As an example Korean IPS monitors can be OCed but different units with even the same panel behave differently. AUO as panel manufacturer that make 144Hz panel guarantee its proper operation at those speeds and that it is finetuned to them, have no difference in gamma, proper A-FCR operation, etc, etc.

LG need to release 120/144Hz panel and if they do that then 120/144Hz monitors using them will follow
Click to expand...

thanks then shame on tftcentral then.

I agree general observations are both my newer monitors have better contrast ratio alongside worse viewing angles which I did put down to the LED.

tftcentral also claim new ips panels (Specifically these ahva panels) has no contrast shift, yet contrast shift is my guess of what I am seeing, this benq has it worse than the asus tho, on the asus the loss of contrast is a rolling bar so never the entire screen and disappears at extreme angles. On the benq (AHVA) it doesnt disappear at extreme angles and affects the entire display, it also doesnt need much of an angle to see it, e.g. if I start to stand up but not fully stand up, I see the shift. I would say claims of 178/178 to match traditional IPS are bullcrap personally, its still clearly better than TN but its not in the same league as my 2209WA.

Also I may be revising my rating of the display lag, but at the moment this is by no means a final word, I need to do some testing on my 2209wa. I noticed on games with 30FPS I seem to be seeing significant ghosting, however at 60FPS ghosting is way smaller and only noticeable if looking for it, now is it because the monitor is bigger and making it easy to notice? or is the display simply slower enough to notice? as I played multiple games at 30FPS on my 2209WA and this never caught my attention on it, thankfully I left the dvi cable plugged into my gpu and the end of it is right next to me sitting loose so it shouldnt be a headache to get my 2209wa connected for some 30fps testing to get a conclusion on this. I am still happy with all other aspects tho, such as extra space on desktop, colours, contrast ratio etc. contrast ratio for sure beats the 2209wa. Also this BENQ has a smooth coating on the display like my tv, whilst the dell and my cheap asus have a rougher coating, not only is this smooth coating I think be easier to clean but text is easier to read like on my laptop.

Also my comment also applied to 60hz displays, mine is 60hz but is a ahva.
 
Last edited:
chrcoluk said:
I noticed on games with 30FPS I seem to be seeing significant ghosting, however at 60FPS ghosting is way smaller and only noticeable if looking for it, now is it because the monitor is bigger and making it easy to notice? or is the display simply slower enough to notice? as I played multiple games at 30FPS on my 2209WA and this never caught my attention on it, thankfully I left the dvi cable plugged into my gpu and the end of it is right next to me sitting loose so it shouldnt be a headache to get my 2209wa connected for some 30fps testing to get a conclusion on this.
Click to expand...
Do you have Blur Reduction (strobing) enabled?
When you are strobing, your framerate must be equal to the refresh rate.
If you are displaying 30 FPS at 60Hz on a strobed monitor, you will end up with double-images.
I believe that you need to make a change in the service menu to enable "single strobe" mode on most of BenQ's monitors, which may explain why you see this with 60 FPS games too. (assuming you are running at 60Hz)
 
jcvjcvjcvjcv said:
You're right, it's all crap. It's all 16:9; a ridiculous aspect ratio for desktop use

Well, all except the few like Dell U2415, some LG's of the same size and the 30" monitors, the latter being crap for several other reasons (even besides price).

Better aspect ratio's like 3:2 are more common in the fake laptops, but they are crap for yet other reasons.
Click to expand...

16:9 vs 16:10 doesn't really matter for 1440p and beyond resolutions. I moved from a 30" 16:10 to 27" 16:9 and don't miss the extra pixels. There's plenty of vertical space always available. For lower res than 1440p 16:10 is undoubtedly better since there's not much vertical space when you add in any toolbars or taskbars.
 
kasakka said:
16:9 vs 16:10 doesn't really matter for 1440p and beyond resolutions. I moved from a 30" 16:10 to 27" 16:9 and don't miss the extra pixels. There's plenty of vertical space always available. For lower res than 1440p 16:10 is undoubtedly better since there's not much vertical space when you add in any toolbars or taskbars.
Click to expand...

Nope. 16:9 is trash regardless of resolution.
 
zone74 said:
Do you have Blur Reduction (strobing) enabled?
When you are strobing, your framerate must be equal to the refresh rate.
If you are displaying 30 FPS at 60Hz on a strobed monitor, you will end up with double-images.
I believe that you need to make a change in the service menu to enable "single strobe" mode on most of BenQ's monitors, which may explain why you see this with 60 FPS games too. (assuming you are running at 60Hz)
Click to expand...

no idea :) but you have my interest I will google it.

But I have an update.

First it seems on displayport the affect is very reduced, its still there but not as evident.
Second it is also on my dell I just think i didnt notice before, bu tthe dell is at the same level or maybe a bit less than the benq displayport.

I also noticed the displayport has more sharpness when on non native resolution.

Sadly the displayport bug is nasty but I have found a workaround at least, by when turning my monitor back on I can disconnect and reconnect the displayport cable, the pc makes the plugnplay sound and the port comes alive. So at least for now I am on displayport with the issue improved, will look for that setting tho. Wonder why its service menu only? I also notice a lot of the options are greyed out as well. e.g. on hdmi I can choose between limited and full rgb, but on displayport its ghosted out, I had to keep switching between the 2 ports doing some tests to make sure displayport is using full rgb, which it seems to be luckily.

--edit-- cannot find how to get service menu on my model (gw265ht) also tftcentral says it doesnt have blur reduction feature. :(

Ok got into the service menu, nothing there to do with strobing but managed to disable the power on logo. Also was settings for what I think is hot plug detection which is on for hdmi and off for dvi and DP, enabled for DP to see if fixes the power cycle issue, sadly doesnt.
 
Last edited:
zone74 said:
Do you have Blur Reduction (strobing) enabled?
When you are strobing, your framerate must be equal to the refresh rate.
If you are displaying 30 FPS at 60Hz on a strobed monitor, you will end up with double-images.
I believe that you need to make a change in the service menu to enable "single strobe" mode on most of BenQ's monitors, which may explain why you see this with 60 FPS games too. (assuming you are running at 60Hz)
Click to expand...

His monitor does not have blur reduction. It's not a Benq Z series. it's a much different class of monitor.
 
chrcoluk said:
no idea :) but you have my interest I will google it.

But I have an update.

First it seems on displayport the affect is very reduced, its still there but not as evident.
Second it is also on my dell I just think i didnt notice before, bu tthe dell is at the same level or maybe a bit less than the benq displayport.

I also noticed the displayport has more sharpness when on non native resolution.

Sadly the displayport bug is nasty but I have found a workaround at least, by when turning my monitor back on I can disconnect and reconnect the displayport cable, the pc makes the plugnplay sound and the port comes alive. So at least for now I am on displayport with the issue improved, will look for that setting tho. Wonder why its service menu only? I also notice a lot of the options are greyed out as well. e.g. on hdmi I can choose between limited and full rgb, but on displayport its ghosted out, I had to keep switching between the 2 ports doing some tests to make sure displayport is using full rgb, which it seems to be luckily.

--edit-- cannot find how to get service menu on my model (gw265ht) also tftcentral says it doesnt have blur reduction feature. :(

Ok got into the service menu, nothing there to do with strobing but managed to disable the power on logo. Also was settings for what I think is hot plug detection which is on for hdmi and off for dvi and DP, enabled for DP to see if fixes the power cycle issue, sadly doesnt.
Click to expand...

BTW you mentioned on OCUK that your monitor won't wake up if you power off when connected to displayport.

You have the displayport firmware bug issue.
this same bug existed on benq XL2420Z and XL2720Z. It was fixed (finally) in v4 firmware for XL2420Z and XL2720Z.

you will have to contact Benq to have your firmware upgraded. It will require you sending the panel in.

If you can convince Benq that you can do the firmware upgrade yourself and you have the hardware capable of it (PLEASE DONT MENTION Linux Ubuntu, that's 100% fully unsupported even if it works) they can send you the firmware directly, but you will have to convince them that you have an Mstar ISP flash device (the same device Benq uses in house to upgrade their own firmwares).

This is the one I have.
http://www.cart100.com/Product/5278188206/LCD_driver_development_tools___LCD_drive

it even works on the Asus VG248QE and many other monitors and some LCD TV's that use flash chips made by mstar (VG248QE has a winbond flash type but the chip is stil made by mstar).
 
wow, if thats a display bug, how on earth did it past quality control, I mean its an extremely basic thing to test right, turning the monitor on and off?

It does work fine on my integrated intel gpu via motherboard display port.

I just ordered a duali link dvi cable, if it has the same characteristics as displayport then I will stick with that, otherwise I will put up with the problem using the workaround, or revert to hdmi 1.4 but lose some display quality.
 
Last edited:
kasakka said:
16:9 vs 16:10 doesn't really matter for 1440p and beyond resolutions. I moved from a 30" 16:10 to 27" 16:9 and don't miss the extra pixels. There's plenty of vertical space always available. For lower res than 1440p 16:10 is undoubtedly better since there's not much vertical space when you add in any toolbars or taskbars.
Click to expand...

More like you value the $500 in pocket more than you miss the 160 pixels.

All in all it does matter. No such thing as a nice looking PLP setup with the middle being a 27" 16:9

I know someone that went from 30" to 27", but very soon after that he bought a 2nd 27", and that one now is used in the portrait position to solve the stupid height issue of 16:9
 
16:9 is a bit wide I think 16:10 is superior but with that said a 16:9 1440p monitor is still about 40% more height than a 16:10 1050p monitor which I came from.
 
chrcoluk said:
16:9 is a bit wide I think 16:10 is superior but with that said a 16:9 1440p monitor is still about 40% more height than a 16:10 1050p monitor which I came from.
Click to expand...

Should've gotten a 30". Or FW900.
 
rabidz7 said:
You are correct on that. SINKs are just marketing gimmincs, whether they be F-SINKs or G-SINKs.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. It isn't a marketing gimmick. Eliminating v-sync lag and being able to run emulators at the original hardware's native refresh rate with no stuttering is incredible.

I'll never buy another fixed refresh flat panel monitor again. Fuck OLED and any other future flat screen technology that doesn't have G-Sync or FreeSync.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
I want CRT's too. He's not the only one. The biggest knock on them (other than size, but that's a bunch of over blown bullshit)... Is their unknown age.

Seriously - my GDM-F520 has accurate colors (it's hardware calibrated), and a little over 10,000:1 static (yes - static) contrast ratio. Who the hell wouldn't want that as their display?

Edit - and for fucks sake, it's 2015. The only thing newer monitors really beat the old GDM monitors on is outright resolution. They are inferior in many other regards.

I'm really looking forward to computer OLED monitors and/or quantum dot monitors. I'd be content with a good display that had 5000:1 contrast ratio, IPS viewing angles, hardware LUT, and strobing. Said monitor would be almost on-par enough with my current setup that I wouldn't feel like I was downgrading.
Click to expand...

well, resolution AND size
 
kasakka said:
16:9 vs 16:10 doesn't really matter for 1440p and beyond resolutions. I moved from a 30" 16:10 to 27" 16:9 and don't miss the extra pixels. There's plenty of vertical space always available. For lower res than 1440p 16:10 is undoubtedly better since there's not much vertical space when you add in any toolbars or taskbars.
Click to expand...

chrcoluk said:
16:9 is a bit wide I think 16:10 is superior but with that said a 16:9 1440p monitor is still about 40% more height than a 16:10 1050p monitor which I came from.
Click to expand...

I agree with kasakka about the height at 1440 and above.
If you really need the desktop real-estate, 4k has the most by far.
For gaming, 16:9 at 120hz - 144hz+ (with variable hz), playing at 100fps-hz and higher, is the way to go. That is, at least until high resolution, hi refresh rate 21:9's become common.. and of course keeping an eye on VR gaming going forward.
So as it's been for years, you are probably much better off using two different monitors if you can afford to - one for desktop/app static image real estate (and usually greater uniformity), and a different one for gaming (motion excellence).

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction
5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations

Desktop real-estate:
4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg
 
Last edited:
All I want is a 46-50" Ultra Wide 3440x1440 Curved 144hz IPS with G-Sync. Is that too much to ask for?
 
chrcoluk said:
I also notice a lot of the options are greyed out as well. e.g. on hdmi I can choose between limited and full rgb, but on displayport its ghosted out, I had to keep switching between the 2 ports doing some tests to make sure displayport is using full rgb, which it seems to be luckily.
Click to expand...

This is probably because afaik there are no limited RGB devices running Displayport. It's mainly something you need to deal with games consoles and TVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top