BenQ EW2775ZH VA Full HD monitor

#5255115 Posted on: 04/08/2016 12:20 AM

---

A 1920 x 1080 monitor @ 60Hz?

Hey BenQ, 2010 called and wants their monitor back.

#5255120 Posted on: 04/08/2016 12:32 AM

---

Pretty sure it can OC easily to 75hz or higher, i got mine at 79hz@BenQ GW2760HE

It has an amazing response time too, in my experience when you OC a monitor you can notice input lag sometimes but not the issue for me.

#5255162 Posted on: 04/08/2016 02:15 AM

---

A 1920 x 1080 monitor @ 60Hz?

Hey BenQ, 2010 called and wants their monitor back.



While I thought it funny to see this article (thinking it's not very newsworthy), you realise the majority of people still use 60hz monitors? We're not all rich you know Here in Australia at least, things are very expensive, technology being no exception

#5255202 Posted on: 04/08/2016 05:39 AM

---

Also this monitor is aimed at a different market. I would much rather have one of these monitors than those cheap Korean monitors that people get with a higher resolution. I've had comments from a couple of people who have them about my monitor, and after using my monitor for a hour or two they actually prefer mine... which is basically an older version of the monitor in this article.

The other thing to consider is that this is aimed at the mainstream market. Anything higher than 1920x1080 still is NOT mainstream. It needs to be cost effective but also be of high quality and high quality picture, and for that, they've achieved. For a TYPICAL home user, not a more enthusiast orientated market like you see on this website, this monitor and the other related monitors from BenQ are ideal.

People really need to get over the attitude of 'anything less than 1440P or whatever is crap'. It's attitudes like this that will just drive more people to playing consoles. You don't hear a typical console users whining about the low resolution or frame rates of their games. Guess what? They only had to pay for the console, most already have their 'monitor'. 1920x1080 PC gaming is superior to console gaming, but what puts people off is the extra price of the hardware required. Going around insisting on 1440P+ 120 Hz monitors, and then the appropriate hardware to drive this (without dropping the quality settings like some idiots do and think it's the schizz), isn't going to encourage people to shift to PC gaming.

A couple of things about refresh rates and monitors. I would rather have a good VA panel at 60 Hz than a TN panel at 120/144 Hz. I would also prefer a good VA panel versus a cheap IPS Korean 'panel lottery' monitor that maybe can do 100 Hz, but possibly has backlight bleed, non-black blacks, colour uniformity issues, slow response times, or unintended blurring on fast motion scenes when displaying at the 120 Hz etc. Not to mention eye strain after 6 hours of gaming on those monitors because of the PWM backlight.

BenQ monitors like this are aimed at providing the best monitor for a great price, and overall I think they've achieved this with the best value for money monitors that don't compromise on quality. The last point is important because most of those 'better' monitors do make compromises elsewhere, and if they don't make these compromises they cost as much as some people spend on their whole rig.

In other words, to get good quality, non-compromise gaming at above 1080P with a higher than 60 Hz refresh, you have to spend considerably more on not only the monitor, but supporting hardware. For the typical person, these extra costs aren't justifiable. If people say it is necessary and all the crud like hapkiman was spinning, people will just think 'why the F would I want to spend so much money on a PC when I can get a console for a fraction of the price'. This is especially true when you consider that the same people insisting on higher than 1080P at 120+Hz are the same people who whinge that all games are console ports.

One the mainstream video cards can happily do 1440P or higher, and monitor technology because more cost effective, we will probably start to see high quality, value for money monitors for around the same price or not too much more than these monitors. These monitors will likely cost around US$210, give or take. Even if it is US$240, I still see it as a good buy.

#5255677 Posted on: 04/09/2016 10:08 AM

---

Also this monitor is aimed at a different market. I would much rather have one of these monitors than those cheap Korean monitors that people get with a higher resolution. I've had comments from a couple of people who have them about my monitor, and after using my monitor for a hour or two they actually prefer mine... which is basically an older version of the monitor in this article.

The other thing to consider is that this is aimed at the mainstream market. Anything higher than 1920x1080 still is NOT mainstream. It needs to be cost effective but also be of high quality and high quality picture, and for that, they've achieved. For a TYPICAL home user, not a more enthusiast orientated market like you see on this website, this monitor and the other related monitors from BenQ are ideal.

People really need to get over the attitude of 'anything less than 1440P or whatever is crap'. It's attitudes like this that will just drive more people to playing consoles. You don't hear a typical console users whining about the low resolution or frame rates of their games. Guess what? They only had to pay for the console, most already have their 'monitor'. 1920x1080 PC gaming is superior to console gaming, but what puts people off is the extra price of the hardware required. Going around insisting on 1440P+ 120 Hz monitors, and then the appropriate hardware to drive this (without dropping the quality settings like some idiots do and think it's the schizz), isn't going to encourage people to shift to PC gaming.

A couple of things about refresh rates and monitors. I would rather have a good VA panel at 60 Hz than a TN panel at 120/144 Hz. I would also prefer a good VA panel versus a cheap IPS Korean 'panel lottery' monitor that maybe can do 100 Hz, but possibly has backlight bleed, non-black blacks, colour uniformity issues, slow response times, or unintended blurring on fast motion scenes when displaying at the 120 Hz etc. Not to mention eye strain after 6 hours of gaming on those monitors because of the PWM backlight.

BenQ monitors like this are aimed at providing the best monitor for a great price, and overall I think they've achieved this with the best value for money monitors that don't compromise on quality. The last point is important because most of those 'better' monitors do make compromises elsewhere, and if they don't make these compromises they cost as much as some people spend on their whole rig.

In other words, to get good quality, non-compromise gaming at above 1080P with a higher than 60 Hz refresh, you have to spend considerably more on not only the monitor, but supporting hardware. For the typical person, these extra costs aren't justifiable. If people say it is necessary and all the crud like hapkiman was spinning, people will just think 'why the F would I want to spend so much money on a PC when I can get a console for a fraction of the price'. This is especially true when you consider that the same people insisting on higher than 1080P at 120+Hz are the same people who whinge that all games are console ports.

One the mainstream video cards can happily do 1440P or higher, and monitor technology because more cost effective, we will probably start to see high quality, value for money monitors for around the same price or not too much more than these monitors. These monitors will likely cost around US$210, give or take. Even if it is US$240, I still see it as a good buy.

All I hear is you trying to justify your peasantry and the peasantry of others. 1080p is for mouth-breathers who don't know any bettter.