BenQ EW2420 Monitor Review

by Chris Heinonen on 10/13/2011 12:00 AM EST
Comments Locked

47 Comments

Back to Article

  • XtAzY - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Can you guys review the new Samsung SA950? Heard it was a great 120hz monitor with very good colors for a TN panel.
  • Operandi - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    I'll throw my 2 cents in by saying please don't bother reviewing any TN panel.
  • EnzoFX - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Agreed!
  • wicko - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Next time you should keep your 2 cents.
  • GeorgeH - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    This. TN panels have their place, especially in a market overflowing with 120Hz IPS screens.

    Next time try replacing 'TN' with '27" 1080p'. ;)
  • Sunrise089 - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Here's a universal review for any TN panel: buy the cheapest panel in your desired size. It will suck. If you don't notice it s
  • jkostans - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Yeah unless you're talking 120Hz which is a completely different story. There are people out there that aren't satisfied with 60Hz for gaming.
  • wicko - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Yeah because there is only one quality of TN panel: crap.

    We get it, you're a panel snob, move along.
  • dqniel - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll ask- What 120Hz IPS screens?
  • dqniel - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Some people require 120Hz panels for competitive gaming. Not everybody's needs will be met with a PVA or IPS panel.

    I'd also love to see some 120Hz panel reviews/comparisons.
  • cheinonen - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    The SA750 is on hand and up for review soon, though probably behind a couple of other panels that are already here, one of which is TN.
  • JMS3072 - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Can you speak to the volume of the headphone jack when using high-impedance (32Ω or greater) headphones?
  • cheinonen - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    I can't right now but I can try to hook them up tomorrow and give it a quick listen. The headphones I have on hand are 32 ohm (Grado SR60) or AKG K701s that are a huge pain to drive, and I'm certain it won't be able to do a decent job on at all. I will try with the Grado's and see how it does, though. I focused more on the speakers than on the headphone output.
  • cheinonen - Friday, October 14, 2011 - link

    I got a chance to hook up my Grado SR60s to the BenQ, playing back a Blu-ray over HDMI. Even with the volume cranked all the way up it really wasn't that loud, much quieter than I would expect. If I had headphones that were hard to drive, I certainly wouldn't count on it putting out a decent volume level.
  • ncomben - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    What is it with all these 16:9 monitors - can we have at least have reviews of proper monitors for PC users who do more than just watch films or play console games?

    I believe the panel makers are doing the public a great injustice in the name of reducing costs and standardising across markets. I can almost understand reviewing below 24" at 16:9 since the headline resolution sounds better than a 16:10 screen much better but at 24", come on...

    I'm a developer and, I would argue that the 22" 1680x1050 monitors I am currently using are vastly superior to use than the newer tiny 22" 1920x1080 screens that my company buy for new developers.

    I use a 16x10 24" at home for gaming, development, films &, browsing and it's perfect.
    We recently got a 27" in the office to try out... it's going back because nobody could read the fonts!

    Then again, perhaps it's just me?
  • cactusdog - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    That makes no sense.....

    "I'm a developer and, I would argue that the 22" 1680x1050 monitors I am currently using are vastly superior to use than the newer tiny 22" 1920x1080 screens that my company buy for new developers."

    Absolutely no sense when you have less verticle resolution. I'm getting a bit sick of hearing this debate 16:10 vs 16:9, Sure, some people will prefer the extra verticle resolution of 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 but the ratio argument fails if you prefer a 1680x1050 over a 1920x1080.

    Resolution matters, ratio does not. It makes no sense to prefer a smaller res just to get 16:10.

    And I agree about testing the SA750/SA950. They are very nice monitors and have better colour reproduction than mainstream IPS monitors.
  • Rick83 - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    The real problem isn't 16:10 or 16:9.
    the real problem is, that 4:3 and 5:4 are dead, especially in larger than 19 inch screens.
    I'm looking for an excellent 1600x1200 screen to get three of, and use them in portrait mode, but it's almost impossible, because the Eizo s2100k is apparently the only high quality display that's not costing an arm and two legs, while still offering reasonably thin bezels and usb-auto-calibration. Sadly, that screen hasn't seen a refresh for more than 6 years, and only old stock is being sold.

    At that size and resolution it's also unpractical to go for single displays, and even a good 30 incher is already more expensive - and also going the way of the dodo.

    Seems like screen real estate isn't that sought after anymore :(
  • bobbozzo - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Dell is still selling their 20" model 2007 LCD which is 1600x1200, but it's $399, i.e. the same price as a Dell 1920x1200 24" IPS monitor.
  • imaheadcase - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    It does make sense in a personal experience aspect. Once you use a 24inch 1920x1200 using a x1080 just "feels" wrong. You fill ripped off. Games especially. It just feels the screen is tearing.
  • kmmatney - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    " I'm getting a bit sick of hearing this debate 16:10 vs 16:9, Sure, some people will prefer the extra verticle resolution of 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 but the ratio argument fails if you prefer a 1680x1050 over a 1920x1080."

    Well, you going to keep hearing it - 16:9 sucks. I work in 1920 x 1200, but if I had a choice, I'd pick a 22" 1680 x 1050 screen over 1080p (for work). It makes sense if you spend all day trying to work with the 2 resolutions.
  • dcollins - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    That makes absolutely no sense. How could less resolution in the same size possibly be worse for working? You get more vertical and horizontal space.
  • mi1stormilst - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    It seems to me that it is really hard to make choices about which monitors are the best for gaming and photo editing below $400.00. What I want is a good IPS or VA based monitor that is great on color reproduction, but fast enough to game with and then pair it with two decent TN based panels (sides) for some fun eyefinity stuff. I need to replay Deus Ex in triple portrait mode soon or I am going to go crazy ;-P
  • LordSojar - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    The choice is actually very easy....

    The ASUS PA246Q is by far the best gaming and photo editing monitor available, period. Turn off trace completely for gaming and you've got one wicked gaming monitor... and it's 98% Adobe RBG space. I own one, and will NEVER go back to any TN garbage nor will I ever "upgrade" to a 16:9 monitor that has an IPS panel. Blasphemy!
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    That monitor should be a few bucks over $400 though.
  • mobutu - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    People really should educate themselves and never ever buy crappy TN.
    In notebooks/laptops/nettops/ultrabooks too. Crappy TN with crappy Glossy ... yuck!
  • dcollins - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    I don't do print or serious color work, don't play first person shooters, and only use my monitor sitting in the same spot at my desk.

    I can get a 23" Acer TN panel monitor for $150 that serves my needs. Why waste $200 on features I do not need?
  • cactusdog - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    People should educate themselves about changes in the computer industry and changes in technology, instead of regurgitating old out of date information from 2004.

    120Hz is the new must have for gamers and will be standard kit within the next year or so. Only people who never tried a 120Hz say they will only use 60Hz IPS.

    I know guys selling their U2711's for SA950's thats how good they are.
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    "The BenQ EW2420 has LED backlighting but still only covers the standard sRGB colorspace"
    That reads a bit strange (though not wrong). As far as I know, normal LED backlighting has inferior color range than CCFL (which is used in most wide-gamut and professional monitors). The only way for LED to offer competitive color range is to use RGB LEDs. Your statement above makes it sound as though LED generally has superior color range, but just this one monitor doesn't make use of it. :-) Or am I wrong?

    Otherwise, I don't see the appeal in 1080p @ 24". But good review!
  • cheinonen - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Correct. I know many people that see LED backlighting and think "Oh, it has a wider color spectrum then!" since many of the initial LED displays did use RGB LEDs to have that larger spectrum, or at least promoted it as a major feature of being LED based. I just wanted to be clear that it wasn't the case here. It's always a fine line between assuming too much or too little when you try to figure out how detailed to be on every point.
  • dingetje - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    no thanks BENQ....16:9 panels are crap
  • Lyrick_ - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    They're perfect with swivel, I could not function without it. 16:9 for media consumption and gaming. 9:16 for document reading and developing.

    16:10 is going away, hopefully forever.
  • TegiriNenashi - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    "16:10 is going away, hopefully forever. "

    People would eventually get tired looking the world through short embrasure even faster than they got bored with 3:4. Many people living rooms have limited widths to the only way for TVs to go bigger is getting more height.
  • kmmatney - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    16:10 is still better for gaming.
  • TegiriNenashi - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    For me ideal AR is 16:11 -- compromise between 4:3 and 16:10. Thank you hollywood for ridiculous letterbox (2.55:1!). F..king "Director Artistic Intent"
  • IceDread - Friday, October 14, 2011 - link

    16:10 is superior for work and gaming so yeah.
  • IceDread - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    I appreciate anandtech continues testing of screens and that input lag is tested.

    However, it's really annoying with all these small screens.. I really would like to see more 30" screens on the market! This is of course nothing you can do something about, I'm just frustrated that my dream 120 Hz 16:10 30" is still no where near the market. Not even a small 16:9 30" 120 Hz screen...
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    The market appears to be abandoning 30" now and going for 27" 2560x1440 displays -- and ironically, the 27" panels cost just as much or more than some of the older 30" displays! As for your dream of a 120Hz 30" LCD, that's a difficult thing to provide, as you need more bandwidth than even dual-link DVI can provide. I'm not even sure of DisplayPort can send that much data, but I suppose using two DL-DVI links to drive the panel might be possible. Problem there is that you'd have to have some form of new connector, or use two DVI connectors on a graphics card, and I'm not convinced everything would work out well if we go that route (e.g. driver bugs and such).
  • cheinonen - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Technically DisplayPort 1.2 has just enough bandwidth to do 2560 x 1600 x 30 bits x 120 Hz, but I'm not sure when we would see such a beast. I'd love to get a look at one if someone wanted to make it though. It seems that moving to 16:9 from 16:10 is more cost effective for the manufacturers, even if we aren't really seeing that being passed along to the consumer.
  • ggathagan - Friday, October 14, 2011 - link

    The only reason that 16:9 is more cost effective than 16:10 is due to consumers .
    If buyers stayed away from 16:9 panels, they would not be so prevalent in the market.
    This is one of many markets that rely on buyers' lack of discrimination.
  • Zolcos - Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - link

    The most frustrating thing about the lack of higher res 120hz monitors is that the technology has been around for some time now.
    - Anandtech reviewed a 120hz 1080p LCD over a year ago
    - 120hz at resolutions higher than 1200p requires DisplayPort 1.2, and AMD video cards supporting it have been around for a year.

    The tech is not only available, but in gamers' rigs right now. If only someone would actually make a true 120hz lcd at some 16:10 or 4:3 resolution greater than 1200p I'd drop 2 grand on it right now, I don't even care about the color accuracy.
  • cz - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    This is one of my two 24" 1900x1200 monitors on my desk. It has DVI and HDMI inputs also it has mic array, speakers and Webcam. I am watching Comcast cable on this monitor in 1080 mode right now.
  • vailr - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    The BenQ XL2410T monitor
    http://promotions.benq.us/gaming/xl2410t-monitor.h...
    has a $75 off coupon available via Benq's facebook page.
    Features:
    120 MHz refresh rate
    LED backlit
    nVidia 3D ready
    2 ms GTG
    FPS "Shooting Game mode settings are co-developed by HeatoN, SpawN & BenQ engineers."
    Picture-by-picture, for displaying two side-by-side screens within a single monitor, from 2 different video sources.
  • vailr - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    Shopping link: http://shop.benq.us/ProductDetail.aspx?id=56
  • elevants - Thursday, October 13, 2011 - link

    I need 120hz. Does anybody know any PVA/IPS 120hz lcd's?
  • rickon66 - Friday, October 14, 2011 - link

    After using several 24" and a 26" 1920 x 1200 monitors for the past few years, I added a 27" 1080p to my stable and it lasted about a week. I could not stand the loss of 120 lines of resolution so it went back to the store and was replaced by a U3011. If I was going to consider 1080, I would just as soon get a quality 32" TV and use it as a monitor. Computer monitors need to be at 16:10 and no less!!
  • svojoe - Saturday, October 15, 2011 - link

    I didn't think my needs were bleeding edge. I've been looking for a

    16x10
    LED
    IPS (or VA)
    2x HDMI (DVI is fine, but I like simplicity)

    Thats it, I don't really care about the resolution, anything between 21-27" is fine.

    It looks like there is a half dozen or less choices out there, most of which are crazy expensive. I figured this would be on its way to being fairly standard!

    Any recommendations?
  • jah1subs - Monday, October 17, 2011 - link

    Reality check. 16x10 ratio is going away because manufacturers can cut more panels out of a single sheet of glass with 16x9 than with 16x10. This information is now 2-3 years old. I saw it on Digitimes that long ago. IIRC, 16:9 enables manufacturers to get about 5% more panels more sheet than 16:10. It is only about money.

    That said, I recently started using a 5 year old Dell Latitude D810, which has a 1280x800, i.e. 16x10 display. The extra height of the display, in this case 80 pixels, makes a real difference when dealing with a laptop. Because of the vertical space consumed at the top and bottom of the screen, this extra 80 pixels is more than the arithmetic 11.1% of the usable area.

    Yes, 16x10 is better for working, but it loses out to economics and movie standards.

    That is the end of this repeat of the reality check.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now