BenQ XL2720T Gaming Monitor Reviewed
by Chris Heinonen on June 17, 2013 4:35 PM ESTLooking back at the data, the BenQ XL2720T actually scores pretty well. The pre-calibration numbers are decent, and post calibration they come out far better, though not as good as some recent IPS panels. The design is nice and ergonomic, and the OSD has been radically improved to be one of the best on the market. It also has the quick access buttons to change modes which could appeal to many if you want to easily switch between settings for gaming and work, or even different settings for a console.
However, when it comes down to my subjective impressions, I’m just not a huge fan of the BenQ XL2720T. The 1080p TN panel just has a washed out, slightly soft look to it. After spending years with IPS displays most of the time, going back to TN was much harder than I expected it to be. The only other 120 Hz display I reviewed previously, the S23A750D from Samsung, had a really bad ergonomic design, a poor OSD, and a really glossy finish, but it also had a screen that I enjoyed looking at more than I do the BenQ. I don’t think TN panels should really get up to 27” as the color and contrast shifts are easy to see at that point, and are distracting.
From a gamer point of view, I can somewhat see the value in having a 120 Hz display, but at the cost of $480, I am really not sure. The LG 29EA93 I reviewed previously lists for $600 right now, which is only $120 more than the BenQ. It offers an IPS panel instead of TN, higher resolution, a wider field of view, internal calibration with an optional meter, and lower measured input lag. I find the wider field-of-view to be a bigger advantage than the higher refresh rate for gaming, and the LG is much easier to look at on a day-to-day basis.
It is entirely possible I’m just not in touch enough with the hardcore gamer to see the benefits of the BenQ, but to me those benefits don’t outweigh the negatives that are offered up by using a lower resolution, TN panel in the display. If it was more affordable, perhaps in the $350-400 range, I can see recommending it more easily. As it is, I’d be far more likely to say make the jump up to the LG monitor, or drop back down to the 24” model that comes in at $90 less but still has the same resolution and won’t have as many TN related issues since the viewing angle will be smaller.
It’s unfortunate that BenQ seems to get so much right aside from the TN panel itself, but hopefully they can either find an IPS panel that can work at 120 Hz in the future, or perhaps switch to a glossy finish next time if it helps to improve the overall look of the display. As it is now, I looked forward to finishing this review so I could get back to my IPS display, and I can’t really recommend the XL2720T based on my experience with it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
metril - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
Now that others have pointed out, I see the 1080p tag. I agree that a table would have been beneficial. I guess, I'm so used to see tables like in the other reviews that I've come to expect one in any review. It provides a quick overview before I go and read the review. Nonetheless, thanks for the review. :)brucek2 - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
The list of tags right under the article's title includes "1080p", and then there's the discussion on the next to last page how all current 120hz monitors are 1080.Of course the table is a good idea. I feel like there usually is one? Maybe something got lost in the editorial pipeline?
thwaak - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
I agree, this was a major oversight. I had to skim the article till the second last page to determine that it was 1080p, and even then it's really not even directly stated.Rob94hawk - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
Yeah had to read it a few times to figure out what the resolutions was.r3loaded - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
Are there any 120Hz IPS monitors? I'm sure many people would want one.jackstar7 - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
Overlord is one of the places you can get the closest thing to 120Hz IPS (at 1440p). Takes some gfx horsepower, but is worth it.Rob94hawk - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
No offense but 2560x1440, 2560x1600 gaming is where it's at. Reviewing a 1080p monitor is like reviewing socket 775 all over again.birru - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
That's a complete exaggeration. High resolution gaming is awesome, and there's real value there, but 1080p is absolutely relevant. Especially when you factor in trying to maintain 120fps or 144fps to keep up with these high refresh LCDs while avoiding tearing. Even with my GTX 780 I've found that with some recent titles I have to scale back the eye candy a touch to keep the experience at a solid 60fps. And that's at 1080p. So with a top of the line single GPU you'd certainly have to reduce visual fidelity a bit more at higher resolutions. And of course it gets worse with triple screens if you want to go that route. 3x1080p is feasible with one GPU. 3x1440p and you're looking at SLI or Crossfire.Resolution costs money; how sharp do you want to go?
sxr7171 - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
Same issue here. 780GTX and I need to turn settings down in Crysis 3. This is at 1080p. Can't imagine how that would work out at 1600p. I guess SLI is a must with those resolutions along with all the problems.brucek2 - Monday, June 17, 2013 - link
Per Steam, 1080p and under is something like 98%+ of all gamers (and this is billed as a "gaming monitor" review.)Sure I'd expect that the percent of newly purchased monitors may be somewhat higher, but I bet it's still well south of 10%.