BenQ EX3210U K / 144Hz compatible 31.5-inch IPS gaming LCD
Click here to post a comment for BenQ EX3210U K / 144Hz compatible 31.5-inch IPS gaming LCD on our message forum
Loobyluggs
I got a special place in my heart for BenQ, they got the esport market sewn up for sure, and I loved my 24" MPVA panel I had from them, excellent monitor.
And yet, this monitor is simply overpriced, by...400 bones?
Check this from Asus and take a look at the prices:
https://www.asus.com/uk/product-compare?ProductID=R_135832,R_134140&LevelId=Displays-Desktops-Monitors
Both of those panels are in supply right now, recently - stock levels are rising, finally.
I got ♥ for BenQ, but...I think this monitor is really gonna be down to personal choice of panel, versus a cost argument, because the "ROG Swift PG32UQ" is one serious panel...for 850 bones.
King Mustard
300 cd/m2 brightness really is rather low.
Silva
This is a 2021 panel and it was announced months ago, GURU3D is a bit late on the news (or desperately recycling).
That depends on user, I use all my panels with Brightness at zero.
Solid panel with good performance in my opinion, but the price is very far away from my pocket. Also don't want 32'' but for people who do, I'm very happy with my EX2510!
https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/af752999
ThermaL1102
samsung oddesy G7 32'' does 240hz , also 1440p 1ms 600 hdr , pricing 600 euro / 700 +- dollar
but don't buy it , mine just gave up , after a couple years , those local dimming zones start dimming on their own now when turning on hdr , half the screen is black but you can still see through it , like it's dimming for fuck all
Rich_Guy
On to my 3rd Benq monitor now (BenQ MOBIUZ EX3415R 34" Ultrawide), and can't fault em.
Loobyluggs
Yup - I truly think BenQ have got very high standards on test and rectification inside the factories.
Fair play to them.
Loobyluggs
1440P I know is popular, but, is an odd shape and resolution for me - it sorta feels like...why did you not just get a 2160p monitor instead? Seems like the logical thing to do.
yasamoka
Because 4K is 2.25x higher and therefore requires much more GPU horsepower?
Loobyluggs
...dude, I say this with great broness: Upscaling.
Even if you do not have the muscle, you got upscaling for gaming now...and, you do not have to use the resolution of the monitor as the resolution of the game. You could, in fact, use 1080P resolution on a 2160P monitor just fine, but, I think there is something about 1440P that people just kinda really warm too, and that's fine.
I just think that for the majority of the usage for the monitor, you can 'go native' and just use the 2160P at full res, and then downscale/upscale for gaming, if brute GPU is needed.
Venix
If you have warranty then send the screen for rma, from what it sound ... This most likely is the led array 🙁 so it will be tricky , there is a chance for some caps going bad (does not seem to be the case) . 🙁
Dragam1337
The pg32uq is still far from perfect though... either too slow to really be a 144 hz panel, or tons of overshooting. And so few dimming zones that they are really not worth the added latency.
Dragam1337
Far from all games support dlss though, and using lower than native res with anything other than dlss looks horrible. So if you are buying a monitor, and know that your gpu can't do more than 1440p native, then get a 1440p monitor.
DirtyDee
The native res on my 32" LG is 1440p, but with DSR enabled I have it running at 4k. It's definitely an improvement. The next monitor I plan on getting will be native 4k (32" OLED, 120Hz+).
Loobyluggs
It's 850 bones...and, is 150, not 144, albeit overclock...but it really was a price comparison I was illustrating.
But...if your GPU cannot 'do' 1440p, what is the difference between using 1440p on a monitor that can do UHD4K, and, using a monitor that can only do 1440p?
Over time your GPU will get better (as will upscaling tech) yet, your monitor is likely to be on your desk for many years.
Dragam1337
The difference is that on LCD screens, using non-native output res looks awful. Doing 1440p on a 1440p monitor looks significantly better than doing 1440p on a 4k monitor. Therefore : if you are the kinda guy that doesn't have the top range gpu at any given point, then you are better off using a monitor with a lower native res.
Regarding getting better gpu's over time - this is to a certain degree true, but games will also continue to become more demanding. And running a much higher pixel count will always be alot more demanding than running lower res.
If it was me who was budget minded, and not having top end hardware, i'd probably get a good 1080p monitor, or a maybe a decent 1440p monitor. Then you wont run into nearly as many performance issues.
Loobyluggs
I think you are overthinking my comparison on this. It was really a price argument, and I honestly do not think anything lower than 4KUHD is worth spending money on right now as an investment.
The difference in price here is so great, that the saving can be used to buy a better GPU anyway...y'see? It's a difference of 400 bones, with tradeins etc, and DLSS, and upscaling in general terms, and DX12 Ultimate using mesh shaders, UE5 not needing anywhere even close the the amount of draw calls to the GPU:
The glass ceiling for monitors has been smashed, giving us access to 4KUHD panels, for 400 bones LESS than a 1440P monitor.
That's the kind of math I like.
fry178
@Dragam1337
lol, yeah, no lower res content worked on 4k screens before DLSS, oh wait...
im running a 50in now, but it was the same for the 40 and 48in i had before,
anything not 4k, gets upscaled just fine.
i used a 32in (1440p), and couldn't even be less than 2.5ft asway from screen or see pixels,
which i barely see at 2ft using the 50in, and running games at lower res still looks better,
than running it native on a 32in-2K screen.
Dragam1337
Do you mean to say that you are using a tv as your screen? If so, you do understand that tv's have built in scalers, and pc monitors do not, right? -_-'
fry178
lol, the gpu does upscale, or why do you think we have settings for scaling, even prior to DLSS.
i do not game with upscaling on, as any processing adds latency, tv is in straight moni mode (even motion processing, which some brands dont really turn off).
same table, same seating distance, the 50in looks not only much bigger,
but better, when running (the same) games at non-4k res, and thats everyone that has used my 32in setup more than 10 time, to play a game.
Dragam1337
Yes, it uses bilinear interpolation through the drivers, which gives a very low quality image.
Tv's are in no way comparable to pc monitors - are you a complete tech novice or what? Take a pc monitor and run a non-native res on it, without using dlss - it looks awful...
