BenQ Releases 24-inch 16:10 IPS Monitor

[N.Broekhuijsen]

BenQ has released a sleek 24" IPS monitor that carries a business-like 16:10 aspect ratio.

BenQ Releases 24-inch 16:10 IPS Monitor : Read more

 

[DarkSable]

Now just give us a 1600p, 120Hz panel, and I'll pay whatever it takes to replace my current, $400 BenQ with that.

 

[EzioAs]

Seems pretty good. I really appreciate their effort in bringing a 16:10 display ratio and height-adjustable stand, something you can't/hard find among those cheap 1080p displays.

The pricing is something I find a little bit hard to justify though. I could spend a little more and get one of Dell's 2560x1440 monitor. Anyone has any feedback on BenQ (products and support)?

 

[DarkSable]

... apparently we can't quote people anymore by going to the forum posts. I really despise a lot of the "improvements" Tom's is making.

EzioAs, I've had experience with a LOT of monitors, and I can tell you that BenQ is one of the best companies out there. Their products are like chocolate to use, are always very solidly built, and they have fast, helpful customer service. (Though the language barrier can be difficult at times when trying to be technical.)

 

[DarkSable]

Seems pretty good. I really appreciate their effort in bringing a 16:10 display ratio and height-adjustable stand, something you can't/hard find among those cheap 1080p displays.

The pricing is something I find a little bit hard to justify though. I could spend a little more and get one of Dell's 2560x1440 monitor. Anyone has any feedback on BenQ (products and support)?

Oohhh! If you report someone (i.e. that dumb spammer) it'll send you to the forums like proper!

Ezio, check out my post above.

 

[Guest]

... apparently we can't quote people anymore by going to the forum posts. I really despise a lot of the "improvements" Tom's is making.

EzioAs, I've had experience with a LOT of monitors, and I can tell you that BenQ is one of the best companies out there. Their products are like chocolate to use, are always very solidly built, and they have fast, helpful customer service. (Though the language barrier can be difficult at times when trying to be technical.)

Well... New smileys! An improvement.
I agree as with you as well. What i don't like, is that i can't log in with my account in Firefox, with add-ons. I could before, but now i can only do it with internet explorer. It needs to be fixed!

 

[edogawa]

[citation][nom]DarkSable[/nom]Now just give us a 1600p, 120Hz panel, and I'll pay whatever it takes to replace my current, $400 BenQ with that.[/citation]

That's like a wet e-dream for us all I think. I wish so bad.

 

[aramisathei]

To follow up on what Dark said, I did a lot of research before putting my Eye of Infinity display together.
BenQ is one of the main sponsors of eSports and produces several tournament-class monitors.
I picked of three of their 120hz 1080p displays and couldn't be more happy.
Simply couldn't ask for better monitors.

 

[andy_newton]

Does it use a million-color or billion-color panel?

 

[ShadyHamster]

Can some one tell me whats so great about 1920x1200 res?
Is that extra 20 pixels really that helpful?

Forgive me for being naive, but couldn't you just auto hide the taskbar on a 1080p screen if you want a few more pixel.

Edit: ops meant 120 pixels lol.

 

[vmem]

BenQ, you know better than to make another 1200p and call it high end...

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]ShadyHamster[/nom]Can some one tell me whats so great about 1920x1200 res?Is that extra 20 pixels really that helpful?Forgive me for being naive, but couldn't you just auto hide the taskbar on a 1080p screen if you want a few more pixel.Edit: ops meant 120 pixels lol.[/citation]

Because the 16:10 provides more pixel real estate while still maintaining a smaller diagonal width? User preference?

Sometimes I miss my old 4:3 14" or 15" laptop. It appeared to have a bigger screen than my sister's recent 15.6" 16:9 laptop.

 

[cobra5000]

16:10 should be the standard for ALL monitors!

 

[maban]

[citation][nom]ShadyHamster[/nom]Can some one tell me whats so great about 1920x1200 res?Is that extra 20 pixels really that helpful?Forgive me for being naive, but couldn't you just auto hide the taskbar on a 1080p screen if you want a few more pixel.Edit: ops meant 120 pixels lol.[/citation]
Create a custom resolution and set it to 1920x972 (9/10 of 1080). Use only up to that resolution for a month. After the month is up set it back to 1920x1080 and be amazed.

 

[samwelaye]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Because the 16:10 provides more pixel real estate while still maintaining a smaller diagonal width? User preference?Sometimes I miss my old 4:3 14" or 15" laptop. It appeared to have a bigger screen than my sister's recent 15.6" 16:9 laptop.[/citation]

It probably did. As objects with the same diagonal length become more square, their surface area increases. So youre not crazy, it most likely WAS a bigger screen

 

[lockhrt999]

[citation][nom]ShadyHamster[/nom]Can some one tell me whats so great about 1920x1200 res?Is that extra 20 pixels really that helpful?Forgive me for being naive, but couldn't you just auto hide the taskbar on a 1080p screen if you want a few more pixel.Edit: ops meant 120 pixels lol.[/citation]

When I'm doing 1080p video compositing on my 1080p monitor I've wished several times that it had 1200 vertical res so that I could have playback controls in those extra 120 pixels (Not just 20 pixels) while still playing 1080p video at 100% size. And It's just one example of how you want to use those extra 120 pixels.

 

[acerace]

[citation][nom]cobra5000[/nom]16:10 should be the standard for ALL monitors![/citation]

I'm a heavy video watcher (movies, TV-shows, etc), so that's a no for me.

Unless, the video industry start to make 16:10 as standard, than I can accept it.

 

[eric4277]

16:10 sucks for gaming imo. You see the same your vertical FOV is the same as 16:9, but your horizontal FOV is smaller than 16:9. Everyone still swears by it though. I don't get it.

 

[dthx]

[citation][nom]acerace[/nom]I'm a heavy video watcher (movies, TV-shows, etc), so that's a no for me.Unless, the video industry start to make 16:10 as standard, than I can accept it.[/citation]
If you're a heavy video watcher, then you should know that 16:9 is a format that was typically created for television, but as far as movies go, unless a crappy Pan&Scan was applied to your Blu-Ray during mastering, you'll also get some black bars at the top & bottom of your 16/9 screen. I agree 1920x1200 is of no use on a television of for playing with a console, but on a PC, especially if you use spreadsheets, word processing or photo/video editing softwares, this little 120px extra room is priceless :-D

 

[Hupiscratch]

1600p? Nah, let's advance quickly and go to the new standard UHD (3840x2160). The faster this resolution become the main form factor, the quicker content will be produced natively for UHD.

 

[jn77]

It is interesting how quickly the market went from CRT to LCD, and LCD went from traditional pixel ratio's to 1920x1200 and then 1080p (which is horrible for a computer).

And yet, going from LCD, to LCD +LED has taken so long, and then LCD+LED to LCD+LED and 10 or 20 point multi touch transparent panels...... with 4k resolution...... :-(

I guess I am not buying another monitor for a while.... What I am looking for is a 24inch 4k, transparent, 20 point multi touch, with Displayport, Dual Link DVI, and HDMI.

 

[Lefturn]

[citation][nom]ShadyHamster[/nom]Can some one tell me whats so great about 1920x1200 res?Is that extra 20 pixels really that helpful?Forgive me for being naive, but couldn't you just auto hide the taskbar on a 1080p screen if you want a few more pixel.Edit: ops meant 120 pixels lol.[/citation]

Actually, it's 230,400 extra pixels. But who's counting anyway?

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]cobra5000[/nom]16:10 should be the standard for ALL monitors![/citation]
While I completely agree, the popularity of movie formats has all but killed it for the rest of us. Personally I like 16:10 because it is a good compromise between gaming, productivity work, wide screen, and full frame without the need for specific use monitors. Sadly, the advent of 2K/4K/8K isn't going to help anything, but at least 4K will have more vertical resolution which is what is important for most things like web viewing and work.

What kills me is the lack of 'cheap' large monitors these days. 5 years ago I was able to get a 28" 1920x1200 monitor for $350. Yes, it was a cheap, poor quality monitor where the backlight is a little uneven, and the colors change pitch a little bit moving left to right (granted you would only ever notice it if you were looking for it). But now that I have a cell phone the low resolution for a monitor that size is starting to drive me a little crazy, and it has been 5 years, so I am starting to look around.
But here's the rub. 5 years later I can get a smaller version of my same screen for $100 less, or for the same price I can get a monitor of the same size, lower resolution (1080p), but of vastly higher quality. The minute you start talking about a monitor that can do 1440p or 1600p then you are talking about $600+ and $1000+ respectively.

*sigh* why don't screens drop in price the same way that most other electronics do?

 

[acerace]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]While I completely agree, the popularity of movie formats has all but killed it for the rest of us. Personally I like 16:10 because it is a good compromise between gaming, productivity work, wide screen, and full frame without the need for specific use monitors. Sadly, the advent of 2K/4K/8K isn't going to help anything, but at least 4K will have more vertical resolution which is what is important for most things like web viewing and work.What kills me is the lack of 'cheap' large monitors these days. 5 years ago I was able to get a 28" 1920x1200 monitor for $350. Yes, it was a cheap, poor quality monitor where the backlight is a little uneven, and the colors change pitch a little bit moving left to right (granted you would only ever notice it if you were looking for it). But now that I have a cell phone the low resolution for a monitor that size is starting to drive me a little crazy, and it has been 5 years, so I am starting to look around.But here's the rub. 5 years later I can get a smaller version of my same screen for $100 less, or for the same price I can get a monitor of the same size, lower resolution (1080p), but of vastly higher quality. The minute you start talking about a monitor that can do 1440p or 1600p then you are talking about $600+ and $1000+ respectively.*sigh* why don't screens drop in price the same way that most other electronics do?[/citation]

Maybe the manufacturers use the same shenanigans trick as the HDD manufacturer.

 

[10tacle]

If you've never used a 16:10 aspect monitor, you wouldn't understand missing the extra height of the screen real estate with a 16:9 monitor.

In any event, it's nice to see LCD makers still cranking out 16:10s, because they are on their way out eventually. LCD manufacturers love the 16:9 because it's a lot less expensive to manufacture. This means markup can be higher percentage wise while still offering low, everyday-consumer-friendly monitor prices. The retail going price for a 1920x1200 IPS from the likes of Dell, HP, and a few others is around $350-$400. So this monitor has some competition. Hopefully it will set itself apart somehow. I'd like to see it compared with the others.