BenQ PG2401PT, 24-inch Color Accurate Monitor Review

Results: Pixel Response, Input Lag, And Blur Reduction

To perform these tests, we use a high-speed camera that shoots at 1000 frames per second. Analyzing the video frame-by-frame allows us to observe the exact time it takes to go from a zero-percent signal to a 100% white field.

The pattern generator is placed at the base of the monitor so our camera can capture the precise moment its front-panel LED lights up, indicating that a video signal is being received by the monitor. With this camera placement, we can easily see how long it takes to fully display a pattern after pressing the button on the generator’s remote. This testing methodology allows for accurate and repeatable results when comparing panels.

Here’s a shot of our test setup. Click on the photo to enlarge.

The brighter section of the camera’s screen is what actually appears in the video. You can see the lights of the pattern generator in the bottom of the viewfinder. We flash the pattern on and off five times and average the results.

BenQ does't market its PG2401PT to gamers, and gamers probably won't spring for such a pricey 24" display. But this is one of the fastest IPS-based screens we’ve tested, even still.

Here are the lag results:

The lag result also lands on the faster end of the IPS-based field we've measured. Speed is not the PG2401PT’s primary purpose. However, compared to our other pro-class screens, only the Samsung achieves lower input lag.

This thread is closed for comments
5 comments
    Your comment
  • blackmagnum
    Most accurate computer display tested on Tom's is a BenQ. Say what!?
  • Xan13x
    So, maybe it's because I've sort of been out of the game for a while, but back when I got my current monitor, Samsung 27" something or other, 1920x1200 was kind of the standard for a decent monitor. I suppose that's changed? I've had no desire to get a new one since, so again I don't keep up with them, but it seems strange that four years later that resolution/aspect is no more.
  • mapesdhs
    Xan13x, alas it's the result of general consumer supply & demand,
    mixed with the convenience for manufacturers of making mostly
    1080 screens. When I hunted for a 2560x1600 screen last year,
    I was shocked at the prices, because the same thing has happened
    at 2560, ie. the market has narrowed in on 1440 height instead of 1600,
    so the latter are now expensive (assuming one can find them at all),
    eg. the Iiyama XB3070WQS-B1 is about 700 UKP, and the HP Z30i
    is more than 1000 UKP.

    At the least one positive from all this is that good 1200-height IPS
    panels are now much more affordable. My first 1920x1200 IPS was
    an HP LP2475W which cost about 450 UKP, but today the Dell U2412M
    costs less than half that much (is the Dell better? Well, yes & no,
    different feature set, etc., but the screen is nice).

    I gave up on finding an affordable IPS 2560x1600, and meanwhile it
    was obvious review sites had settled on 1440 height anyway (a few
    years ago many sites were still testing wtih 1600 screens, but not
    now), so I bought a Dell U2713HM instead which works pretty well,
    except for its irritating resolution limitation over HDMI (watchout for
    that if you buy a new screen, some models only support their max
    res via DVI or DP - the Dell I bought can't do more than 1080 via HDMI).

    Ian.
  • martel80
    Quote:
    Most accurate computer display tested on Tom's is a BenQ. Say what!?

    In case you didn't know, BenQ is the parent company of AU Optronics, which is one of the largest panel manufactures in the world. Other companies (Samsung, Dell, Apple, etc.) use AUO panels in some of their products.
  • knowom
    16:10>16:9 for anything other than movies that extra pixel height for gaming is a major difference maker in a competitive MOBA game like LoL among other games. It's too bad cheap 1920x1200 displays got phased out for 1080p same with some of the other now odd ball display resolutions that were once much more common.