bit-tech.net

BenQ XL2410T Zowie Special Edition Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 42

Reply
Blackmoon181 9th February 2011, 10:57 Quote
i don't see the point in being able to change the size and aspect ratio of the monitor for competitions

when the pro-gamers will presumably be moving from 120Hz to the standard 59/60Hz for their competitons.

In which case they will have to drop the refresh rate on the monitor anyway which is awful considering this

is the only thing it has going for it.


Actually, considering that 3D glasses warrant the need for a higher brightness level is 300cd/m2 even high

enough for this purpose ?
bogie170 9th February 2011, 11:13 Quote
1920 x 1080.... Yawn.... enough of these cheap screens already.

All you have to do is look at the 1920 x 1080 res and you know its gonna be crap.
andrew8200m 9th February 2011, 11:21 Quote
I think we are missing the point here.. its a 3D screen. yes compared to the Viewsonic IPS it has awful picture quality but its screen quality is not its sell point. The 3D facility is. I would personally have the IPS panel any day as 3D is not for me but if 3D is required the Viewsonic just cannot be considered.

A good review but a point well missed for such a good review site.

Review it against an Acer or ASUS 3D monitor and it will score far more admirably which is the whole point of the screen. Reviewing like for like.

If we want to go down that route why dont we review the U2410 against the viewsonic? The reason we dont is because the Dell will score far higher making the Viewsonic look awful when in reality its far from it.
Fanatic 9th February 2011, 11:25 Quote
These panels are actually pretty good when calibrated correctly - according to the far more in depth reviews available. Out of the box setup is naff and as this is predominately what this review is based on it doesn't accurately represent the panels capabilities.
Blackmoon181 9th February 2011, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew8200m
I think we are missing the point here.. its a 3D screen. yes compared to the Viewsonic IPS it has awful picture quality but its screen quality is not its sell point. The 3D facility is. I would personally have the IPS panel any day as 3D is not for me but if 3D is required the Viewsonic just cannot be considered.

A good review but a point well missed for such a good review site.

Review it against an Acer or ASUS 3D monitor and it will score far more admirably which is the whole point of the screen. Reviewing like for like.

If we want to go down that route why dont we review the U2410 against the viewsonic? The reason we dont is because the Dell will score far higher making the Viewsonic look awful when in reality its far from it.

+1. The context of its competition needs to be taken into account. We can trash 3D TN panels everyday comparing the colour accuracy against its expensive 2D IPS counterparts.
DbD 9th February 2011, 11:40 Quote
The recommendation of the viewsonic doesn't make sense. This is a gamers screen, which means it's designed for people to win computer games not admire the scenery. Hence sure better colours and contrast would be nice, but it's the responsiveness and 120hz refresh rate that are key. The 60hz viewsonic can't compete - it's not really even a competitor, they are designed with different users in mind
GoodBytes 9th February 2011, 11:52 Quote
I am tired of LCD at 1080p claiming they are 24inch when clearly they are 23inch. What they decide to count the frame on the 1080p displays or what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmoon181

+1. The context of its competition needs to be taken into account. We can trash 3D TN panels everyday comparing the colour accuracy against its expensive 2D IPS counterparts.
That's how you push the companies to do a better a job. :)
Guinevere 9th February 2011, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
I am tired of LCD at 1080p claiming they are 24inch when clearly they are 23inch. What they decide to count the frame on the 1080p displays or what?

Is that true? My Dell 24" (1920x1200) is exactly 24" of visible screen (on the diagonal), which is a hell of a lot better than the old CRT days when it was the tube sized they measured.

Anyone with a 1920x1080 screen care to take a tape measure to it?
Guinness 9th February 2011, 13:22 Quote
Perhaps BenQ's much raved about £170 VA panel would be a good monitor to review and compare to the Viewsonic?
A £350 3D monitor has a limited target audience, even among gamers. Whereas a quality, budget conscious 24" would probably appeal to far more Bittech/CPC readers.
Bauul 9th February 2011, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew8200m
I think we are missing the point here.. its a 3D screen. yes compared to the Viewsonic IPS it has awful picture quality but its screen quality is not its sell point. The 3D facility is.

Forgive my ignorance, but where does it say the main purpose of this monitor is that is does 3D? I'm looking down the BenQ website and the fact it's nVidia 3D ready is 3/4 of the way down the page and warrants a single sentence.

Surely it's main selling point is that it's an FPS gaming monitor? And as a gaming monitor, you'd be buggered if you played any night time levels (and that's even ignoring the fact that the number of people who would use it purely for FPS gaming is pretty small)
GoodBytes 9th February 2011, 13:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Is that true? My Dell 24" (1920x1200) is exactly 24" of visible screen (on the diagonal), which is a hell of a lot better than the old CRT days when it was the tube sized they measured.
You did not get me. It's not supposed to. But it's impossible (assuming each pixels are square and have the same distance between each other in all directions) that at 1920x1080 is the same size of your 1920x1200. I know what they do... they simply round up. But, the reality of things, that is cheating. It's 23inch.
Bauul 9th February 2011, 13:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Is that true? My Dell 24" (1920x1200) is exactly 24" of visible screen (on the diagonal), which is a hell of a lot better than the old CRT days when it was the tube sized they measured.
You did not get me. It's not supposed to. But it's impossible (assuming each pixels are square and have the same distance between each other in all directions) that at 1920x1080 is the same size of your 1920x1200. I know what they do... they simply round up. But, the reality of things, that is cheating. It's 23inch.

Well, I just measured my 1920x1080 24 inch monitor and the screen is precisely 24" in diagonal. Each pixel is perfectly square too, so I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I'm afraid it's not right.
KayDat 9th February 2011, 13:47 Quote
120Hz and monitor stand aside, it looks suspiciously like a G2420HD. Heck, if you put them side by side (without the XL2410T's stand) you'd really struggle to differentiate the two.
Xir 9th February 2011, 13:48 Quote
Yawn, oh look, another overpriced monitor test.
I vote for a low-end-of-the market-test.
The "El-Cheapo" gamer special so to speak.
Quote:
there’s a DisplayMode feature that replicates the screen size of smaller screens pixel for pixel
Actually, this is quite handy when compared to a screen that auto-scales or interpolates.
GoodBytes 9th February 2011, 13:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Well, I just measured my 1920x1080 24 inch monitor and the screen is precisely 24" in diagonal. Each pixel is perfectly square too, so I'm not sure where you got your information from, but I'm afraid it's not right.

BenQ site shows the correct dimensions: 23.6"
Actually you are kinda right... it's because they have a huge 0.2715 dot pitch, and not the traditional and proper (for an up-close screen) 0.265 dot pitch. Text will be hard to read on the BenQ screen (assuming you use is a desktop monitor, so you are up close to it).
John_T 9th February 2011, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
Forgive my ignorance, but where does it say the main purpose of this monitor is that is does 3D? I'm looking down the BenQ website and the fact it's nVidia 3D ready is 3/4 of the way down the page and warrants a single sentence.

Surely it's main selling point is that it's an FPS gaming monitor? And as a gaming monitor, you'd be buggered if you played any night time levels (and that's even ignoring the fact that the number of people who would use it purely for FPS gaming is pretty small)

Beat me to it, that was pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes

...But it's impossible (assuming each pixels are square and have the same distance between each other in all directions) that at 1920x1080 is the same size of your 1920x1200. I know what they do... they simply round up. But, the reality of things, that is cheating. It's 23inch.

Different monitors have pixels of different sizes, they're not all the same. I've seen 1920x1080 monitors advertised at 22", 23" & 24" in almost every online shop I've looked at. Then there are laptops with smaller screens at the same resolution...
GoodBytes 9th February 2011, 14:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T

Different monitors have pixels of different sizes, they're not all the same. I've seen 1920x1080 monitors advertised at 22", 23" & 24" in almost every online shop I've looked at. Then there are laptops with smaller screens at the same resolution...

Yes, I agree... if the resolution is high for a small screen, that's perfect. In fact better (sharper and smoother image). But doing the reverse... is not good... it make things blurry.

My point was that 24inch monitor.. is 24inch... a 23.6inch monitor or 23.1inch monitor is 23inch, or 23.6.. NOT 24. I don't know.. for me it's very important information, and allows you to know if the monitor will be a good or not in term of sharpness and readability level of text.
Phoenixlight 9th February 2011, 14:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie170
1920 x 1080.... Yawn.... enough of these cheap screens already.

All you have to do is look at the 1920 x 1080 res and you know its gonna be crap.
What the hell are you talking about? And it looks like my Alienware OptX Aw2310 is still the king of gaming monitors
ripmax 9th February 2011, 14:45 Quote
Monitor reviews seems to be one of Bit-Techs weaknesses, and I'm just left with a bunch of questions. Why couldn't you review the normal BenQ XL2410T instead of the Zowie edition? Why are you not comparing it to other 120hz monitors? Why didn't you test it's 3d capability? Why are you comparing it to an IPS?
andrew8200m 9th February 2011, 15:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripmax
Monitor reviews seems to be one of Bit-Techs weaknesses, and I'm just left with a bunch of questions. Why couldn't you review the normal BenQ XL2410T instead of the Zowie edition? Why are you not comparing it to other 120hz monitors? Why didn't you test it's 3d capability? Why are you comparing it to an IPS?

All of my points in a nice concise little paragraph :)
The issue is, people who know no better will look at this and go "oh dear, thats rubbish". Stick it up against any other 3D monitors and all of a sudden the screen quality gap is reduced significantly. I look forward to the day such reviews happen and also when IPS CAN be compared to a 120hz 3d monitor (thats when IPS is 120hz too!)
SlowMotionSuicide 9th February 2011, 16:01 Quote
Lost interest @ TN panel.
GoodBytes 9th February 2011, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew8200m
(thats when IPS is 120hz too!)
You mean this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/mitsubishi-mdt231wg-monitor-is-23-inches-of-120hz-gaming-goodnes/
:)
DbD 9th February 2011, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew8200m
(thats when IPS is 120hz too!)
You mean this:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/16/mitsubishi-mdt231wg-monitor-is-23-inches-of-120hz-gaming-goodnes/
:)

It's really just another 120hz tv - it takes a 60hz input just like all the other 120hz tv's. No good for pc fps gamers.
general22 9th February 2011, 16:48 Quote
Every slightly serious FPS gamer I know will profess the benefits of 120Hz so I don't think you guys have really commented enough on the main feature here which is the refresh rate. An image quality comparison would make sense between 120Hz screens, not with a 60Hz IPS unit.
Cupboard 9th February 2011, 20:06 Quote
Review actually says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Review
Viewable screen size 23.1in

Why are people producing so many 16:9 screens at the moment? I want more vertical space damnit!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums