I thought it was significantly better as well but I wondered if it was because the U2412Ms were so old. Maybe they had worn out over time and I never noticed. Or maybe the BenQ is just much better. I think you can't go wrong for the price you paid. Like I said the only complaint I have is the random color banding. It seems like it only pops up in game load screens so I can't complain too much.
Yeah my U2412Ms are probably 5 years old, so age could be a factor. The BenQ also has 10-bit color, while the 2412M is 6-bit with FRC. I think the contrast and deep blacks from having a VA panel are also a big part of it. All around it feels like a big step up from the Dell in image quality. I like that it's easily readable without scaling, and it's a big step up from 24" 16:10 in terms of size. Actually the only issue I've had with this monitor is that it's so huge, I'm having trouble making room for it on my desk. All in all, nice monitor for a cheap price.
After using the BenQ for a month, I really like it. Great color and viewing angles, deep blacks, responsive enough for gaming, not fatiguing to use for long periods of time because it doesn't use PWM dimming. It also seems like it would be great for work as you can have two full sized windows side by side without an annoying bezel in the way. Also the pixel density is just perfect, totally readable and tons of screen real estate. I think if they made basically this monitor with a high refresh rate and adaptive sync, you would have the perfect monitor. This also has probably the highest quality stand of any monitor I've used. I'm 6'2" and this actually gets high enough for me without having to put anything under the monitor. The stand is also metal, heavy, and not wobbly. For anyone still using a 1080p monitor looking to step up to 1440p, the BenQ BL3200PT is a no brainer at its current price of $350 to $400.
I think the original price on this monitor was around $700 which is probably why the stand is so nice. 60Hz 1440p monitors might become relic pretty soon as people either jump to 4k or 144Hz monitors but it's still a pretty nice option.
4K is a few years away from being really viable for gaming. I tried some high refresh rate TN panel monitors a few years ago. I was a bit underwhelmed. Motion looked slightly smoother. There was less tearing. I didn't think it was anything to get too excited about. On those monitors I mostly just noticed how crappy TN looks compared to IPS or VA. High refresh rate is the kind of thing I would pay slightly more for, but I wouldn't pay a huge premium for it or go out of my way to get it. Maybe my perception of motion just isn't that great but I didn't think it made a huge difference.
1440p 144hz monitors are a brand new thing in the 32" panel or larger segment so we still have a ways to go. But with the way prices are now and how matured the market is with refresh rate and screen tearing elimination (G-Sync, Freesync) you have to be a real numbskull not to invest in a gaming monitor if you're a pc gamer.
Nah. I refuse to lock myself into a G-sync or Freesync system since I have no loyalty to either brand. The day Nvidia gives up and we only see Freesync is the day I'll consider it. I ran a 120Hz monitor for a while and didn't see the big deal and in my opinion, it didn't match the visual quality of better panels. For me, IPS and VA > than 144Hz but I'm also perfectly fine with FPS gaming at 40fps. I've also started getting into photo editing and a TN panel would be an issue for me.
G-sync monitors are also hilariously overpriced. The module itself can't be worth more than $50, yet G-sync monitors cost literally twice as much as similar monitors without G-sync. $800 to $1200 for a monitor is insane. Especially when you consider how cheap gigantic 4K TVs are these days. At $1200 you're already most of the way to a 55' 4K OLED. Or if you don't care about OLED you could get some 80 inch behemoth for that price. Does a dinky little 34" G-sync monitor really make sense at that price point? I actually think anything over about $400 is silly for a monitor with how cheap and gigantic TVs have gotten. I waited until WQHD hit a price I thought was fair (<$350) instead of spending $700-1000 back in 2011-2015 when just having a 1440p monitor was considered high-end. I will do the same with adaptive sync. Also a format war between G-sync and Freesync is not something I want to get involved in. People who buy stuff during a format war always seem to get shafted. Just ask anyone who bought an HDDVD player. I will wait it out and see who wins, then buy an adaptive sync monitor for $350 or less in a few years.
I can see why the G-Sync monitors command a high price. Once you've used it, it's very hard to go back. I've got an Acer XB271HU (1440p, 144Hz, IPS and G-Sync) that I bought about 1.5 years ago, and I absolutely love it. My laptop screen is G-Sync as well. I mean I guess it's just an adopter tax ultimately, but after trying it out, I'm not willing to go back at all, same thing with 144Hz, I don't think I could go back to a 60Hz monitor. With Nvidia maintaining momentum as king of the hill in graphics cards, I don't see this changing anytime soon. I'm looking to buy myself an ultrawide this summer, there's a new one that just came out called Acer Z35P which is 3440x1440p, 120Hz, VA panel with G-Sync.
G-Sync bothers me because because Nvidia could just as easily use FreeSync and not charge the adopters tax. There is really no reason for G-Sync to exist other than to make money off an already free and non-proprietary technology. And while Nvidia does dominate the enthusiast market Intel graphics dominate the PC market as a whole and Intel has decided to support FreeSync. I don't expect this format war to go away anytime soon.
Since when did Acer become something other than a ghetto/dumpster tier brand? $800 for anything from Acer? ROFL
Where have you been? Judging from his model number, that is an acer predator monitor. Those have been the highest end gaming display monitors in the market the last few years. Their equivalent were the Asus ROG displays which just used the same panels.
Acer makes basically the highest end gaming monitors, not sure what you're talking about. Beside, there's pretty limited choice when it comes to high end gaming panels with G-Sync. 27" TN 144Hz GSync - Dell S2716DG 27" IPS 144Hz GSync - ASUS PG279 and Acer XB271HU (they all use the exact same panel, same specs) 27" IPS 144Hz Freesync - ASUS MG279Q and Acer XF271 (same panel as above) 34" IPS 100Hz GSync - Acer X34 or Asus PG348Q (same panel) 35" VA 100Hz GSync - AOC model, HP Omen (maybe 1 more here, but all are same panel) 35" VA 120Hz GSync - Acer Z35P (same panel as above I think) Anyway, I've got the Acer XB271HU and I'm very happy with it, easily the best monitor I've ever owned. If you don't believe me, have a look at this list, you'll see it's mostly dominated by either Asus or Acer (which are the same panel underneath). My wife has two Asus MG279Q monitors and I prefer the exterior build finish on my Acer version. http://www.144hzmonitors.com/best-gaming-monitor/ The one other thing with GSync is that until recently, if you wanted a 34" Ultrawide with 100Hz (1440p), you had to get the G-Sync version, the Freesync alternative model is/was 75Hz (i.e. Acer XR34). And with the MG279Q or the XF271, the official Freesync range is like 35-90, I had to modify them with CRU to get them to 57-144. Nvidia does something where the panels for GSync are like picked for better frequency ranges or something, I'm not sure exactly what the deal is, but the technology is definitely better after using both, they're not equivalent in my eyes, at least not yet.
I mostly associate Acer with extremely crappy netbooks and throwaway laptops from the mid 2000s. They're kind of like HP where i Just automatically assume anything they make is garbage. They should probably change the name of their company if they want to focus on high-end products like G-sync monitors.
I see where you're coming from now. I used to own one of those throwaway laptops from mid 2000s and it was indeed quite terrible piece of hardware haha.
I bought a first gen Acer predator x34 and it was 60hz out of the box. you had to "overclock" it to 100hz. sounds ridiculous but I guess Acer didn't want to guarantee 100hz on those earlier 3440x1440 panels.