The more monitors we test, the more we can see that off-axis viewing performance is dependent not only on pixel structure (IPS, PLS, TN, etc.), but the backlight technology as well. And we can see that the anti-glare layer makes a difference too.
Off-axis image quality remains the weak point of TN screens. In our composite photo, you can see an obvious color shift towards red in the horizontal pictures. Even in the head-on shot, there is a slight tint due to the wide-angle lens on our camera. The vertical images don’t show any color issues, but detail in the 11-step grayscale pattern is almost non-existent. It’s very difficult to distinguish the brightness levels from one another.
Since gamers typically sit close to their monitors, 27 inches really does seem to be the practical size limit for a TN panel. If it were any larger, you’d see color tint and detail loss in the sides of your display, even from dead center.
Screen Uniformity: Luminance
To measure screen uniformity, zero and 100-percent full-field patterns are used, and nine points are sampled. First, we establish a baseline measurement at the center of each screen. Then the surrounding eight points are measured. Their values are expressed as a percentage of the baseline, either above or below. This number gets averaged. It is important to remember that we only test the review sample each vendor sends us. Other examples of the same monitor can measure differently.
First up is black field uniformity.

We haven’t tested many TN screens, but the two in this group acquit themselves very well. BenQ’s result is the lowest we’ve recorded to date. There’s certainly no uniformity compensation look-up table needed here!
Next is the white field measurement.

The white field result is right about average for the displays we’ve measured. In the XL2720Z’s case, the center of the screen is slightly hotter than the surrounding zones. It’s extremely hard to see with the naked eye, though. If you could reduce that hotspot to equal the rest, the result would be closer to three percent.
Screen Uniformity: Color
To measure color uniformity, we display an 80-percent white field and measure the Delta E error of the same nine points on the screen. Then we simply subtract the lowest value from the highest to arrive at the result. A smaller number means a display is more uniform. Any value below three means a variation that is invisible to the naked eye.

The XL2720Z has excellent grayscale tracking, and that performance holds up at all points on the screen. There is no visible color tint anywhere, just a smooth white tone at all brightness levels.
- BenQ XL2720Z 27" 144 Hz Monitor, Anchoring Your Gaming Rig?
- Packaging, Physical Layout, And Accessories
- OSD Setup And Calibration Of The BenQ XL2720Z
- Measurement And Calibration Methodology: How We Test
- Results: Brightness And Contrast
- Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response
- Results: Color Gamut And Performance
- Results: Viewing Angles And Uniformity
- Results: Pixel Response, Input Lag, And Blur Reduction
- BenQ XL2720Z: Speed And Features For Gamers

It's still an interim monitor, though. What I really want is a large affordable WQHD or UHD IPS gaming monitor.
especially on a large 27" screen?
In the early 2000s it might have been ok to have such resolution, but nowadays
it is no longer usable. Even for a 24" screen the minimal resolution is
1920x1200.
Until they are not making these 27" screens to have more pixels, they are not
seeing any cash out of me. I rather buy el-cheapo monitors from Ebay as a mail
order from Korea.
Monitor manufacturers, please stop living in the 80s and stop hustling us with
your prices!
sometimes I feel like nobody is listening... or just trying to sell me a bridge for the low low.
decent review, but if youve got the gpu for 144Hz. 2160p @60 is just a cootie shot away
sometimes I feel like nobody is listening... or just trying to sell me a bridge for the low low.
To add offense to injury, in 2008 I bought my first LCD (24" Samsung with 1920x1200 pixels) for 330Euros. Now a 24" Samsung would cost me 400 Euros, and it has only 1920x1080 pixels.
What on earth have happened? Why did prices go up, and resolution went down?
Why are there no 30" 2560x1600 TN panels out there for gamers for 700 Euros?
I guess that would allow people to look through a screen door with no motion blur or ghosting? I would need QHD or better at anything 24" and above.
especially on a large 27" screen?
In the early 2000s it might have been ok to have such resolution, but nowadays
it is no longer usable. Even for a 24" screen the minimal resolution is
1920x1200.
Until they are not making these 27" screens to have more pixels, they are not
seeing any cash out of me. I rather buy el-cheapo monitors from Ebay as a mail
order from Korea.
Monitor manufacturers, please stop living in the 80s and stop hustling us with
your prices!
This monitor is made for gaming, true gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution. We are in it for the refresh rates and the response time. Ive been gaming on a old CRT monitor till last year with a change to the Asus VG248QE. Even though its still much slower than my old CRT it works. I have 2 computers 1 for gaming and one for everyday and video work. Gaming machine is set up around a single R9 290X, 4770K, and a Asus VG monitor. My other computer is a crossfired 295s, 3930K, and 3 IPS 4k monitors.
A single card is better for latency, 4770K is more than enough to push data to the 290X and the monitor has a fast refresh rate. Its better at gaming than my extremely high dollar build. Peripherals are set up differently as you can imagine gaming computer has razer and a 7.1 headset. The other is mostly set up for 2.1 but i do have a 7.1 headset for room sound.
"This monitor is made for gaming, true gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution"
You meant, online multiplayer gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution.
I prefer to play single-player FPS, where I do want to have all the eye candy,
and I want to see the vegetation, desert, sky etc. The only advantage of a PC is
that it can provide better graphics, that is the main point.
Otherwise I could just go out, buy an 1080p TV, a Crapbox1, Crapbox360, or PlayStopper 4, and game on that thing in 1080p.
I think monitor technology is not moving forward (in fact moving backwards) exactly because people are happy to buy their 1080p crap for 500 Euros.
especially on a large 27" screen?
In the early 2000s it might have been ok to have such resolution, but nowadays
it is no longer usable. Even for a 24" screen the minimal resolution is
1920x1200.
Until they are not making these 27" screens to have more pixels, they are not
seeing any cash out of me. I rather buy el-cheapo monitors from Ebay as a mail
order from Korea.
Monitor manufacturers, please stop living in the 80s and stop hustling us with
your prices!
This monitor is made for gaming, true gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution. We are in it for the refresh rates and the response time. Ive been gaming on a old CRT monitor till last year with a change to the Asus VG248QE. Even though its still much slower than my old CRT it works. I have 2 computers 1 for gaming and one for everyday and video work. Gaming machine is set up around a single R9 290X, 4770K, and a Asus VG monitor. My other computer is a crossfired 295s, 3930K, and 3 IPS 4k monitors.
A single card is better for latency, 4770K is more than enough to push data to the 290X and the monitor has a fast refresh rate. Its better at gaming than my extremely high dollar build. Peripherals are set up differently as you can imagine gaming computer has razer and a 7.1 headset. The other is mostly set up for 2.1 but i do have a 7.1 headset for room sound.
I get the impression that you were looking for an excuse to brag here...
You don't need a top tier $4000 gaming rig to be successful in competitive online play. I've had personal success, never had the best stuff, and never felt like I was "missing the edge" or anything.
When do monitor manufacturers understand, that 1080p resolution is a JOKE,
especially on a large 27" screen?
In the early 2000s it might have been ok to have such resolution, but nowadays
it is no longer usable. Even for a 24" screen the minimal resolution is
1920x1200.
In the early 2000s CRTs were still the standard. 4:3 was the standard aspect ratio. There were no 1080p LCD monitors let alone large 1080p LCD monitors, and I paid ~$1200(NZD) for a 17" 1280x1024@60Hz (16ms) LCD display in 2003. That's how bad it was back then.
Most 120+Hz TVs take 60Hz input and pulse their backlight 2-5X per frame to reduce blur during display refreshes and perceivable flicker.
Serious question. Why not just buy a quality HDTV with 120 (or greater) Hz for your gaming monitor? Especially if you'll be gaming at 1920x1080. A neighbor has his PC hooked up to a quality HDTV and it looks great to me. I've played Battlefield on it with no issues at all. It's pretty awesome!
Try searching for a 120HZ HDTV in my country. See what comes up.
http://pricespy.co.nz/category.php?k=107
"This monitor is made for gaming, true gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution"
You meant, online multiplayer gamers don't care a grate deal about resolution.
I prefer to play single-player FPS, where I do want to have all the eye candy,
and I want to see the vegetation, desert, sky etc. The only advantage of a PC is
that it can provide better graphics, that is the main point.
Otherwise I could just go out, buy an 1080p TV, a Crapbox1, Crapbox360, or PlayStopper 4, and game on that thing in 1080p.
I think monitor technology is not moving forward (in fact moving backwards) exactly because people are happy to buy their 1080p crap for 500 Euros.
It has absolutely nothing to do with people being happy with buying them. The reason monitors are being made at 1080p or 1440p is because of media. Media companies set the standard of 16:9 which is why you see the majority of monitors now only being built at 16:9 instead of 16:10. So blame the media companies for basically forcing the monitor manufacturers into 16:9 because there are far more TVs/Monitors that are sold at 16:9 than at 16:10 (this is why there are also so few TVs/Monitors at 2.35 - True Letterbox).
Also, you don't understand why having a monitor refresh above 60Hz is useful, even if you play single player games like FPS. There are two aspects to having a monitor above 60Hz, one is 3D so you can play true 3D (ie, there's true depth of image vs. pseudo-depth where the illusion of 3D is provided through 2D) capable games at a respectable frame rate of 60 or 72 (depending if your monitor is 120Hz or 144Hz) and the second (which has been mentioned) is smoothness in turning (with a 60Hz monitor at 60 FPS, each will only show an arc of 6 degrees if you make a full revolution within one sec where as a 120 Hz monitor at 120 FPS will have an arc of 3 degrees if you make a full revolution within 1 sec).
There is a very noticeable difference when playing between a 120+ Hz monitor and a 60 Hz monitor. It's not something that can be really imparted well through explaination, it's more something you have to see yourself. After spending a few years gaming on a 120Hz monitor, I really can't go back to 60Hz without getting some level or motion sickness due to the fluidity of movement on a 120Hz monitor where I can notice the "jerkiness" in a 60Hz monitor.
I'm assuming this was either a typo or sarcasm was being used.