BenQ BL3200PT Review: A 32-Inch AMVA Monitor At 2560x1440
Tags:
- BenQ
-
Display
-
Monitors
Last response: in Reviews comments
ceberle
August 25, 2014 11:56:42 PM
The extra pixel density of a 27-inch monitor sporting a native 2560x1440 resolution can make small text difficult to read. BenQ solves the problem by adding five extra inches to its BL3200PT. Today we test this jumbo 32-inch AMVA-based panel in our lab.
BenQ BL3200PT Review: A 32-Inch AMVA Monitor At 2560x1440 : Read more
BenQ BL3200PT Review: A 32-Inch AMVA Monitor At 2560x1440 : Read more
More about : benq bl3200pt review inch amva monitor 2560x1440
-
Reply to ceberle
npyrhone
August 26, 2014 8:21:47 AM
"Remember that 92 ppi number we mentioned at the beginning of today's story? That seems to be a sweet spot. It works fine at 24 inches if your screen is FHD. You won’t discern individual pixels, but you’ll be quickly wishing for more screen real estate. Moving up to 2560x1440 at 27 inches increases density to 109 ppi. That’s great for gaming and photo work. However, text and small objects become difficult to see for many users."
I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
-
Reply to npyrhone
m
2
l
kid-mid
August 26, 2014 8:24:26 AM
Related resources
- BenQ gaming monitor review - Forum
- My MLG Benq monitor review - Forum
- BenQ XL2420T gaming monitor - Review/competitive gaming discussion - Forum
moogleslam
August 26, 2014 8:34:10 AM
moogleslam
August 26, 2014 8:35:48 AM
Merry_Blind
August 26, 2014 8:39:23 AM
"The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small."
That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
-
Reply to Merry_Blind
m
0
l
animalosity
August 26, 2014 8:50:14 AM
Bondfc11
August 26, 2014 8:52:32 AM
I agree with npyrhone - there are ways to enlarge everything on your screen if the density is too low. Having said that - this is an interesting panel. However, I cannot wait for the days when not TNs, but also IPS and VA panels (in large formats) become standard at 120Hz. The hertz do make a noticeable difference in everything you do on the screen.
-
Reply to Bondfc11
m
1
l
ohim
August 26, 2014 9:04:07 AM
Merry_Blind
August 26, 2014 9:19:23 AM
Merry_Blind
August 26, 2014 9:20:44 AM
Chris Droste
August 26, 2014 9:34:08 AM
it's always depressing nowadays with monitors. I have a Samsung 23" with 2048x1152 (>1080p) and for like... $240 when i got it? now you can't have anything above 1080p unless you want 26+ inches and don't mind shelling out +$400 (nevermind korean grey-market monitors) i understand the whole film standard stuff but i LOVE just that small extra bit of real estate on ONE Monitor.
-
Reply to Chris Droste
m
0
l
Bondfc11
August 26, 2014 9:47:21 AM
animalosity said:
Why in God's green earth would you pay $1000 for a 1440p display at 60hz when you can get a 4K for way less than that now. Rather have UHD....Part of the reason people do comes down to one, the pixel density (if that matters) and two the GPU horsepower necessary to run it. 4K panels are cool, but I don't game on one at all. I have one, but it isn't my go to monitor due to the low refresh rate, lag, and blur. Is it pretty? Sure. But honestly right now that 28" 4K panel is dumb as a post.
-
Reply to Bondfc11
m
4
l
lelias2k
August 26, 2014 10:53:47 AM
I'll add my two cents regarding less PPI.
I'm always amazed how most people don't know you can adjust the size of pretty much every font inside of Windows. I've had people lowering the resolution of the screen and seeing everything blurred until I showed them that you can adjust the font sizes.
But for TH to make a comment like that? Did BenQ's marketing department sent you the text ready?
I'm always amazed how most people don't know you can adjust the size of pretty much every font inside of Windows. I've had people lowering the resolution of the screen and seeing everything blurred until I showed them that you can adjust the font sizes.
But for TH to make a comment like that? Did BenQ's marketing department sent you the text ready?
-
Reply to lelias2k
m
1
l
Quote:
"Remember that 92 ppi number we mentioned at the beginning of today's story? That seems to be a sweet spot. It works fine at 24 inches if your screen is FHD. You won’t discern individual pixels, but you’ll be quickly wishing for more screen real estate. Moving up to 2560x1440 at 27 inches increases density to 109 ppi. That’s great for gaming and photo work. However, text and small objects become difficult to see for many users."I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
Its not so much your apps that are the concern, because yes, most of them will give you some scaling options. The issue is that Windows does not scale very far. Your UI (icon text, folder names, Windows Explorer stuff) will be smaller at higher PPI.
-
Reply to oxiide
m
4
l
Patrick Tobin
August 26, 2014 11:43:33 AM
Quote:
"The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small."That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
Quote:
"The only complaint we’ve registered along the way involves font size. With a pixel density of 109 ppi, text in most Windows applications becomes pretty small."That's why I don't understand people saying 1080p is crap and has to go away. I've always find that even at 1080p, the fonts are really small, and icons and interfaces in general are very tiny. In my case, it's not even a case of not being able to read, it's just that everything looks so out of place and hideous, like, Windows wasn't meant for such resolutions.
I can't imagine 1440p. Must be ridiculous to look at. It's just aesthetically not nice.
Bring on the downvotes...
Windows 7/8/8.1 has gui scaling as does MacOSX. Non issue.
-
Reply to Patrick Tobin
m
-2
l
luissantos
August 26, 2014 11:44:44 AM
Quote:
I'll add my two cents regarding less PPI.I'm always amazed how most people don't know you can adjust the size of pretty much every font inside of Windows. I've had people lowering the resolution of the screen and seeing everything blurred until I showed them that you can adjust the font sizes.
But for TH to make a comment like that? Did BenQ's marketing department sent you the text ready?
I am one of the people to whom 1080p @ 24" renders things hard to see (not exclusive to text, mind you).
I am fully aware of Windows' high-DPI settings. But let me tell you, unless the applications you are running have good built-in support for it, Windows' high-DPI is not going to be a magic bullet.
You have 2 options: Win XP's high-DPI which will increase font size and leave every GUI element on screen looking highly unbalanced, OR the newest method that scales up the canvas surface upon which everything was rendered before "printing" it on screen, in which case you will also end up with blurriness.
Trust me on this. I have tried using high-DPI for extended periods of time, not just toggled it on and off so I could tell myself it's there and pretend it works fine. Unless you have a real disability like me though, you may have a hard time understanding where I'm coming from... so no hard feelings.
-
Reply to luissantos
m
2
l
anbello262
August 26, 2014 2:07:23 PM
In my case, I REALLY long for the exact opposite: Higher DPI monitors. After using a 120 DPI glossy one (18.4'' FHD), I haven't been able to get over its amazing sharpness and definition... At the moment I have a 24'' FHD anti-glare monitor, and I really, really miss the smaller one... My girlfriend has a 21'' FHD anti-glare monitor, and even that is better than my current one...
Basically, sharpness of a glossy (or anti reflect, just not anti glare) high DPI monitor is amazing, I just can't get over that... I don't understand why the market is moving away from that...
By the way, is there any monitor you can reccomend that has this specs? And one that is more than 60HZ?
Basically, sharpness of a glossy (or anti reflect, just not anti glare) high DPI monitor is amazing, I just can't get over that... I don't understand why the market is moving away from that...
By the way, is there any monitor you can reccomend that has this specs? And one that is more than 60HZ?
-
Reply to anbello262
m
-1
l
LordConrad
August 26, 2014 4:53:21 PM
My current monitor is a Dell UltraSharp IPS panel which has amazing color accuracy, but I've always liked the VA panels. Better blacks and faster response times then IPS panels, but better viewing angles than TN panels. I've owned two PVA panels, and while they weren't perfect, I thought they were a good cross between TN and IPS.
-
Reply to LordConrad
m
0
l
shiitaki
August 26, 2014 5:40:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
"Remember that 92 ppi number we mentioned at the beginning of today's story? That seems to be a sweet spot. It works fine at 24 inches if your screen is FHD. You won’t discern individual pixels, but you’ll be quickly wishing for more screen real estate. Moving up to 2560x1440 at 27 inches increases density to 109 ppi. That’s great for gaming and photo work. However, text and small objects become difficult to see for many users."I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
Its not so much your apps that are the concern, because yes, most of them will give you some scaling options. The issue is that Windows does not scale very far. Your UI (icon text, folder names, Windows Explorer stuff) will be smaller at higher PPI.
-
Reply to shiitaki
m
0
l
soldier44
August 26, 2014 7:11:06 PM
soldier44
August 26, 2014 7:12:34 PM
Quote:
animalosity said:
Why in God's green earth would you pay $1000 for a 1440p display at 60hz when you can get a 4K for way less than that now. Rather have UHD....Part of the reason people do comes down to one, the pixel density (if that matters) and two the GPU horsepower necessary to run it. 4K panels are cool, but I don't game on one at all. I have one, but it isn't my go to monitor due to the low refresh rate, lag, and blur. Is it pretty? Sure. But honestly right now that 28" 4K panel is dumb as a post.
This is why I went with the Asus 32 inch 4K display worth every cent of its $2400 cost too.
-
Reply to soldier44
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
August 27, 2014 3:37:10 PM
1600P for me or bust. I want TALLER not wider. Web pages etc are not made for such wide screens, I'd rather SCROLL up and down FAR less than now. If I blow up the pages to use that extra width the scrolling vertically just gets even worse. It's also getting tougher to get 3 of these side by side on your desktops being so wide. I'd always rather have 3 taller (we're not talking much, just 1600p) side by side that can actually fit. At some point they'll be so wide on these larger screens you'll be swiveling your head all day just to see all the real estate...LOL.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
1
l
hixbot
September 1, 2014 4:50:52 AM
Windows DPI scaling is terrible. Applications inconsistently behave with non-default DPI, leading to inconsistent fonts amongst application and windows dialogues. You are right that a display with a higher PPI is best, but only if the OS and all applications can be accurately and consistently adjusted to your preference. Failing that, simply choosing a display with comfortable PPI for windows defaults is better in my opinion.
-
Reply to hixbot
m
0
l
hixbot
September 1, 2014 6:43:02 AM
The Kasafist
September 2, 2014 4:53:38 AM
laststop311
September 5, 2014 7:15:03 PM
Quote:
"Remember that 92 ppi number we mentioned at the beginning of today's story? That seems to be a sweet spot. It works fine at 24 inches if your screen is FHD. You won’t discern individual pixels, but you’ll be quickly wishing for more screen real estate. Moving up to 2560x1440 at 27 inches increases density to 109 ppi. That’s great for gaming and photo work. However, text and small objects become difficult to see for many users."I can't understand why I would need a monitor with lower pixel density? Why not just zoom the text a notch in your word processor or whatever software you are using? Of two otherwise similar monitors I would always choose the one with higher PPI, even if I used it only for word processing.
Because a lot of software doesn't scale properly and windows has problems scaling too. The fact you can use this at normal 100% scaling and still read everything without killing your eyes is a really awesome feature. If i didnt have a 16:10 dell u3014 I would probably buy this but I love my 16:10 too much.
-
Reply to laststop311
m
0
l
laststop311
September 5, 2014 7:20:47 PM
This article says the price is 800 dollars. Actually amazon has this for 649 dollars no tax and free shipping. 649 in the mail out the door price that is a hell of a deal for this 32 inch behemoth with incredible contrast, viewing angles, uniformity, accuracy. You really can't ask for more for 649 dollars.
-
Reply to laststop311
m
0
l
laststop311
September 5, 2014 7:21:13 PM
This article says the price is 800 dollars. Actually amazon has this for 649 dollars no tax and free shipping. 649 in the mail out the door price that is a hell of a deal for this 32 inch behemoth with incredible contrast, viewing angles, uniformity, accuracy. You really can't ask for more for 649 dollars.
-
Reply to laststop311
m
0
l
buzz243
September 12, 2014 7:46:12 PM
davy rockstar
September 16, 2014 11:06:06 AM
Quote:
I rather have the 27" QNIX Evo II 1440p for $300 or the ROG Swift for $600.The days of 60Hz are almost over with..
for who?? not all people who uses a pc are gaymers... also with such overdrive, you must have an overdrive for response time too which meand that your monitor is sacrificing colour quality and contrast.. it wold be better to improove technology like G-sync for gaming stead overdrive the monitor
-
Reply to davy rockstar
m
0
l
!