BenQ PG2401PT, 24-inch Color Accurate Monitor Review

BenQ PG2401PT Demonstrates Amazing Out-Of-Box Accuracy

We all know that when it comes to computer components, value is paramount. At some point in every discussion, the subject turns to price. It is true that most of the monitors we review at Tom's Hardware are on the costly end of their respective segments. But truth be told, that’s where the more advanced technology is found (and we know those same capabilities will find their way to lower-priced models eventually). We’ve already seen improvements in accuracy and performance in just the last 18 months at all price points.

What does £850 worth of PG2401PT get you? Hardware-wise, there’s the native Adobe RGB gamut courtesy of a GB-r-LED backlight. Even though it uses pulse-width modulation, a 16,500 Hz frequency is one of the highest we’ve seen. Fatigue and flicker should not be a problem for anyone. Then there’s 10-bit color courtesy of an 8-bit/FRC panel from LG. Plus, a 14-bit LUT is built-in. If you see banding artifacts on this monitor, they’re from your content and not a product of the display.

What’s missing? Well, I'd like a higher native resolution. FHD is today’s most common display type and BenQ does throw in the extra screen area inherent to a 16:10 aspect ratio with its additional 120 vertical pixels. If you really consider what the monitor is intended to do though, resolution is not necessarily a deal-breaker. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if BenQ added a 27-inch QHD panel to its line-up in the near future that includes the final one-percent of performance that this one sports.

The biggest flaw, at least in our press sample, is black screen uniformity. Even with the compensation feature enabled, it lags behind many other screens. Perhaps BenQ's saving grace is that every sample measures differently, and it’s possible that ours doesn't adequately represent the product. And speaking of uniformity compensation, it cut brightness and contrast by 44 percent, which in our opinion is too much for a slight improvement in uniformity.

The real star here is the PG2401PT’s class-leading accuracy. Our tests reveal a display that measures better in its stock state than most monitors do after calibration, and that includes the professional-grade products we've tested. When you narrow down the comparison to just those panels, £850 suddenly doesn’t seem unreasonable.

In all of our color, grayscale, and gamma tests, the PG2401PT is at or near the top. In the pre-calibration benchmarks, it leaves all other professional screens in the dust (at least the ones in our results database). And that is where you find value from BenQ. When you consider the cost of calibrating any monitor, the price difference between this PG2401PT and another brand costing less is erased because you really can pop open the box and go, even in a professional environment. Just choose your color gamut and set the brightness to taste.

Because BenQ's PG2401PT is the most accurate display we’ve tested to date, and because it is actually less expensive than most other true professional monitors, we’re giving it the Tom’s Hardware Smart Buy award.

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.