BenQ XL2720T Gaming Monitor Reviewed
by Chris Heinonen on June 17, 2013 4:35 PM ESTLooking at the white uniformity of the BenQ XL2720T, we see a large drop-off in the upper left, and another drop on the right side that isn’t quite as drastic. I like to see everything stay within 5% of the center value ideally, which means 180-220 nits if the center is at 200 nits, but this one measurement drops down to 167 nits and is clearly darker. The right side only drops down to 172 nits, but that is still fairly low. Most of the display stays within that 5% threshold, but on the edges it has an issue.
With the black uniformity, we see some bright corners on the left side, and the surrounding numbers are much lower than they are, and with an all-black screen it is quite easy to tell the difference. The center actually has the highest black level of anywhere other than that one bright corner.
The contrast uniformity on the display varies by a lot. The center comes in at 795:1 (not quite the 820:1 we measured earlier, but the black reading changing by as little as 0.001 nits can influence this highly), but the rest of the monitor swings from as low as 754:1 to as high as 946:1. With contrast ratio higher is going to be better, but looking at the chart really shows that the overall uniformity of the white and black levels on the BenQ isn’t ideal.
The grayscale uniformity shows this as well. The center is still quite good, coming in at a dE2000 of 0.92. The reason for the higher value here than on the calibration page is that uniformity testing uses 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% values, not 0-100% in 5% increments. Since the 0% value is the highest, it has added weight here, but doing uniformity testing with all 21 values would be unreasonably time consuming to do. We see that the dE2000 rises up to 3.46 in that hot-spot on the left side of the screen, and has a few other areas above 2.0 as well. Most of the screen is still good, and as I said these numbers might be lower if I measured 21 points per location, but that’s still a large difference on the display.
With the colorchecker uniformity, we see the same issues, only worse. Since the colorchecker starts with a higher error than the grayscale, we see that many points on the screen have managed to rise above 3.0, which is considered not visible to the human eye when in motion. We also see that corners are measuring really well, while the center of the screen is further off. This is a bit strange, but overall the uniformity isn’t as strong as with other displays.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
mdrejhon - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
The XL2720T has better color quality than the VG248QE.Someone owns both monitors, and reported this.
The VG278H is actually pretty competitive to the XL2720T, despite its age.
What makes them really worth it, is the LightBoost.
Death666Angel - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
Wow, this review badly needs a table of the specs on the first page.brandonicus - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
I hate to be "that guy" but I found it really annoying you assumed we knew what the resolution was... unless I'm blind the only place it was mentioned was in the "Posted in" header and the seventh and eighth page. I feel like something that important should be mentioned upfront.blackoctagon - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
Thanks for the review, Chris, but WHY exactly did you choose to measure input lag using the Leo Bodnar test? Apart from the fact that it cannot measure the screen's performance at 120Hz (the refresh rate at which this screen is designed to be played), the test itself seems to not have undergone the same verification as, say, PRAD.de's use of an oscilloscope has...for a review that starts out with a discussion about input lag, and even mentions that you were "still in search of" the ideal test, I expected to hear your reasoning for choosing this methodology over others.cheinonen - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
I actually talked to TFT Central about this, as they have an oscilloscope method as well (which is beyond my means, unfortunately). They've tested multiple ways and feel the Leo Bodnar winds up as the most accurate version out there right now as well, other than a scope method. SMTT was working relatively well, but it has a license, and he stopped selling them. Our license expired, so I can't use it anymore.Searching for a totally accurate, and affordable, lag measurement device continues. I'll look into the Audrino solution that was mentioned here and see how that looks.
blackoctagon - Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - link
Thank you for the reply. Looking forward to seeing where this search leads youmdrejhon - Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - link
I'm the inventor of the Arduino Input Lag Tester, which runs via a USB cable connected to the computer.It features:
- Sub-millisecond accuracy
- Works at all computer resolutions and refresh rates.
- USB cable latency compensation (subtracts calculated USB cable latency)
- Costs only $40 to build.
It's currently undergoing beta testing, with custom software I have created.
Contact me at mark[at]blurbusters.com for more information about the Arudino Input Lag Tester.
blackoctagon - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link
Interesting. But is it 'Audrino,' 'Arduino' or 'Arudino' test? :)I see all three (mis-?)spellings on this page
mdrejhon - Thursday, June 20, 2013 - link
Apologies. It's a hard word sometimes.The correct spelling is Arduino, which refers to an easy-to-program hobbyist microcontroller:
http://www.arduino.cc/
It's a home made input lag meter involving (1) Almost any Arduino with a USB port, (2) a photodiode, (3) a resistor, and (4) some wires. It's an open source input lag circuit I've developed that is very easy to build (easier than building a computer -- no soldering iron required!). I'll be publishing some software that makes everything run as an accurate input lag tester (including USB cable latency/jitter compensation), since the assembly is connected to a PC displaying flashing squares.
Pastuch - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link
Honestly, this review is a huge let down. When I started reading this website 10 years ago the articles were always informed and well researched. This review is sorely lacking in that regard. The only reason people are still buying 120hz displays is for Lightboost capable 2d gaming. The CS, BF and Quake communities LOVE the CRT like motion response of Lightboost and this is one of the better models to have that capability. http://www.blurbusters.com/ has all the relevant info, Mark is an invaluable resource and I implore you to contact him for more info.You complain loudly about IPS color quality in a gaming review but you admit yourself that gaming isn't a hobby you’re interested in. Your conclusion argues that the money could be better spent on an IPS 2560 display. Do you know how many video cards it takes to run Planetside 2 at 2560 at 80FPS+? You need two Geforce 780s! Can I borrow $1200?
I used to own a 2560x1440 IPS for desktop work but I couldn’t play CS on it due to slow pixel response and horrible input lag. Once you try lightboost there is no going back. The motion clarity at 120fps + on a LB capable display genuinely changes the gameplay experience. I don't own a LB display yet but I've tried it at a lan party. I was blown away and I was hoping that Anand would provide a comprehensive review of the Benq 2720T. With the latest Nvidia drivers and LB enabled, gamers are reporting almost 1000 contrast ratio on the 2720 which is better than any other LB monitor. Lightboost is a genuine boon to the gaming market, there are Sony FW900 owners that say the motion clarity of LB is BETTER than the FW900. Do you have any idea how amazing that is? People have been waiting 10 years for a monitor that can replace the FW900 for twitch-gaming.
If you want to read solid monitor reviews go to http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/