Are these expensive TN panels any better than the ones in $150 monitors, or do they still have terrible colors and viewing angles? Or, are you paying an extra $400 just for the refresh rate?
It is a 6 bit TN panel (I thought these had stopped being made), so expect both colors and viewing angles to be atrocious. With extensive color banding as well. 6 bit + FRC does not output 8 bit colors, more like ~6.5 bit ones.
6-bit + FRC is largely equal to an 8-bit color depth display.
TFTCentral has already made reviews on AU Optronic's 240hz 1080p 24.5" TN panels, they make no mention of any ill effects caused by the modern FRCs used in these AU Optronics panels.
"An 8-bit display would offer a colour palette of 16.7 million colours. They offer a 'true' colour palette, and are generally the choice of manufacturers for colour critical displays over 6-bit panels. On the other hand modern 6-bit screens use a range of Frame Rate Control (FRC) technologies to extend the colour palette from 262,144 colours to around 16.7m. In fact on many modern panels these FRC are very good and in practice you’d be hard pressed to spot any real difference between a 6-bit + FRC display and a true 8-bit display. Colour range is good, screens show no obvious gradation of colours, and they show no FRC artefacts or glitches in normal everyday use. Most average users would never notice the difference and so it is more important to think about the panel technology and your individual uses than get bogged down worrying about 6-bit vs. 8-bit arguments."
Any argument against usage of FRCs is largely asinine internet banter that really doesn't amount to anything. The fact of the matter is that you shouldn't care about 6-bit + FRC or 8-bit unless you have golden eyes and have historically worked with various color depth displays in a professional environment for professional image or video work, in which case *NEWS FLASH* this isn't a display intended or marketed for professional image or video work.
Hell, you could be typing on a 6-bit + FRC display right now and you wouldn't know unless you actually dismantled the display looked up the panel's specifications online.
Honestly, the dynamic range of a 6-bit + FRC becomes a huge issue when those colors ranges are needed in the same image. The window of available colors simply results in a duller image on a TN vs. a true 8-bit. I have one of the latest TN ultra wide viewing angles with 6 bit+FRC and while color production is sigifnicantly improved it still can't compare my IPS displays from 2002 / 2010 etc.
Quite seriously, the high refresh-rate TN screens still have hugely worse response rates (CRTs have basically none) and lower input lag than CRTs. So if this was a big issue you'd be using one of those.
The difference between actual pixel response between regular TN screens and the pricey high priced gaming ones isn't much, especially if you compare to a CRT which redraws the entire picture from blank completely for every frame.
Oh, sure, I'm not saying that refresh rate doesn't matter. I understand why some people want it. I was just curious if that's all you get for an extra $400. It seems steep to me, but I'm not the target market. I play games, but not competitive FPS games. I thought maybe these also had better color accuracy or viewing angles than cheap TN panels. I guess not.
The maximum possible reduction in button-to-pixel latency in going from a <$200 144hz display and this $550 240hz one is 2.78ms. You'll excuse me if I don't believe that will ever matter in the real world, much less to the tune of over $300. Never mind that you can now get some 144hz 1080p VA panels (with FreeSync even) for under $400 that might at least have somewhat acceptable colors and viewing angles.
"ULMB reduces motion blur by inserting a black image between each frame of video and thus reducing time each frame is displayed. "
ULMB works by pulsing the backlight once for a short period for every frame (rather tahn the normal technique of keeping the backlight illuminated cosntantly). All 'inserting a black frame' does is allow for padding the framerate number, and has nothing to do with ULMB itself.
The difference is duty cycle: If you're pulsing the backlght for 1ms per frame, achieving the same effect using 'black frame insertion' would require 1000Hz panel updating.
And for the same effect, just go buy an OLED display. And since I don't see a response rate spec on this "gaming" monitor, ditch this nonsense and go buy an OLED display.
I feel the same way about anything below 120hz. Have you ever tried testing the input lag on that setup, when ive hooked up friends 4k tvs to my computer before the input lag made games unplayable.
"For some reason, with the ZOWIE XL2546, BenQ continues to ignore AMD’s FreeSync and NVIDIA’s G-Sync dynamic refresh rate technologies."
The reason is simple: This is for high fps competitive gaming and anti-blur (ULMB) and G-sync is an either or. You can't run both at the same time. The market this display target clearly doesn't care about g-sync or freesync. So it makes sense to save money by not supporting them.
That's certainly one option, but I'd argue that it's closer to the truth that you don't need the higher refresh-rate if you're using adaptive sync. When your running a really high refresh-rate you're mostly trying to avoid seeing tearing from the lack of vsync or vsync update halving from underrunning the sync rate. Syncing your monitor refreshes to your frame rate fixes the issue, so does having a high refresh monitor. The biggest difference is that over-rendering frames for the higher refresh-rate monitors requires more hardware.
You cannot realistically justify the price. Stuff like this should now be ultra cheap and we're just being ripped off. You know it, I know it, mobutu knows this and so does the oem. "It cost x to make so we'll charge... Y (starts to laugh)"
I imagine it's largely in part due to demand and [lack of] competition in the display market. They are not going to incorporate these features into low end budget displays, and the demand for these features is pretty low, which means they are not going to produce a large number of them. Nonetheless I'm sure there is a good margin, but I'd guess you're probably also underestimating the cost to develop and manufacture.
Seriously. I stopped reading about this monitor when I saw 1080p. I outfitted the execs at my office with 24" Acers G257HU, they say they can't work from their home computers anymore because it feels cramped. At this point we should be able to buy decent 1440p monitors for 200$.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
40 Comments
Back to Article
cfenton - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
Are these expensive TN panels any better than the ones in $150 monitors, or do they still have terrible colors and viewing angles? Or, are you paying an extra $400 just for the refresh rate?Santoval - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
It is a 6 bit TN panel (I thought these had stopped being made), so expect both colors and viewing angles to be atrocious. With extensive color banding as well. 6 bit + FRC does not output 8 bit colors, more like ~6.5 bit ones.Lord of the Bored - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Six and a half bits? Really? Six AND A HALF bits?StevoLincolnite - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
He isn't wrong though. FRC doesn't magically add bits. It's improvement is pretty marginal.JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
6-bit + FRC is largely equal to an 8-bit color depth display.TFTCentral has already made reviews on AU Optronic's 240hz 1080p 24.5" TN panels, they make no mention of any ill effects caused by the modern FRCs used in these AU Optronics panels.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift...
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/aoc_agon_ag251...
Additionally, TFTCentral has this section in their FAQ:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/faq.htm#colour_depth
"An 8-bit display would offer a colour palette of 16.7 million colours. They offer a 'true' colour palette, and are generally the choice of manufacturers for colour critical displays over 6-bit panels. On the other hand modern 6-bit screens use a range of Frame Rate Control (FRC) technologies to extend the colour palette from 262,144 colours to around 16.7m. In fact on many modern panels these FRC are very good and in practice you’d be hard pressed to spot any real difference between a 6-bit + FRC display and a true 8-bit display. Colour range is good, screens show no obvious gradation of colours, and they show no FRC artefacts or glitches in normal everyday use. Most average users would never notice the difference and so it is more important to think about the panel technology and your individual uses than get bogged down worrying about 6-bit vs. 8-bit arguments."
Any argument against usage of FRCs is largely asinine internet banter that really doesn't amount to anything. The fact of the matter is that you shouldn't care about 6-bit + FRC or 8-bit unless you have golden eyes and have historically worked with various color depth displays in a professional environment for professional image or video work, in which case *NEWS FLASH* this isn't a display intended or marketed for professional image or video work.
Hell, you could be typing on a 6-bit + FRC display right now and you wouldn't know unless you actually dismantled the display looked up the panel's specifications online.
Jedi2155 - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link
Try to make the image like this look the same on a 6 bit + FRC TN versus an IPS then I say you'd go mad. I tried lol.https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ysumqH8rUDo/VbezIHAMNQI...
Honestly, the dynamic range of a 6-bit + FRC becomes a huge issue when those colors ranges are needed in the same image. The window of available colors simply results in a duller image on a TN vs. a true 8-bit. I have one of the latest TN ultra wide viewing angles with 6 bit+FRC and while color production is sigifnicantly improved it still can't compare my IPS displays from 2002 / 2010 etc.
Santoval - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
p.s. That price is a proper rip-off, really.ridic987 - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
I own the XL2540 and its about the same image quality as a 150 dollar tn. It really is just the refresh rate.nerd1 - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Play any competitive FPS game and you'll INSTANTLY notice why refresh rate matters.I have multiple high-res IPS monitors with 100% adobe coverage but I play game on my 144hz TN monitor.
Flunk - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Quite seriously, the high refresh-rate TN screens still have hugely worse response rates (CRTs have basically none) and lower input lag than CRTs. So if this was a big issue you'd be using one of those.The difference between actual pixel response between regular TN screens and the pricey high priced gaming ones isn't much, especially if you compare to a CRT which redraws the entire picture from blank completely for every frame.
Flunk - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Obviously I meant higher input lag.wsjudd - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
CRTs are hard to take to LAN parties though, and no new ones are being made (that I know of) :)cfenton - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Oh, sure, I'm not saying that refresh rate doesn't matter. I understand why some people want it. I was just curious if that's all you get for an extra $400. It seems steep to me, but I'm not the target market. I play games, but not competitive FPS games. I thought maybe these also had better color accuracy or viewing angles than cheap TN panels. I guess not.lowlymarine - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
The maximum possible reduction in button-to-pixel latency in going from a <$200 144hz display and this $550 240hz one is 2.78ms. You'll excuse me if I don't believe that will ever matter in the real world, much less to the tune of over $300. Never mind that you can now get some 144hz 1080p VA panels (with FreeSync even) for under $400 that might at least have somewhat acceptable colors and viewing angles.Lolimaster - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
If you care about being competitive you should play with a CRT <0.01ms of response time.Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link
IPS still got sh*tty contrast with the horrid IPS glow, at least VA fixes that.Flunk - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
If you care about colour accuracy, the high refresh-rate TN screens are not for you.edzieba - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
"ULMB reduces motion blur by inserting a black image between each frame of video and thus reducing time each frame is displayed. "ULMB works by pulsing the backlight once for a short period for every frame (rather tahn the normal technique of keeping the backlight illuminated cosntantly). All 'inserting a black frame' does is allow for padding the framerate number, and has nothing to do with ULMB itself.
Diji1 - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
Aren't you both saying the same thing? A black frame is one where the back light is turned off.ridic987 - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
He is clarifying that it is not 120 frames and 120 black frames per second. It is instead the monitor turning the backlight off between frames.edzieba - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
The difference is duty cycle: If you're pulsing the backlght for 1ms per frame, achieving the same effect using 'black frame insertion' would require 1000Hz panel updating.Frenetic Pony - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
And for the same effect, just go buy an OLED display. And since I don't see a response rate spec on this "gaming" monitor, ditch this nonsense and go buy an OLED display.Flunk - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Benq actually claims 1ms response on this panel, but that's G2G, so basically meaningless.SanX - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
After using for 2 years 50" Samsung 4K TV as a PC monitor I look at anything smaller than that like on a junk no matter what else in specs were addedridic987 - Saturday, July 22, 2017 - link
I feel the same way about anything below 120hz. Have you ever tried testing the input lag on that setup, when ive hooked up friends 4k tvs to my computer before the input lag made games unplayable.Samus - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Never associated benq with quality. Still don't.beginner99 - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
"For some reason, with the ZOWIE XL2546, BenQ continues to ignore AMD’s FreeSync and NVIDIA’s G-Sync dynamic refresh rate technologies."The reason is simple: This is for high fps competitive gaming and anti-blur (ULMB) and G-sync is an either or. You can't run both at the same time. The market this display target clearly doesn't care about g-sync or freesync. So it makes sense to save money by not supporting them.
nerd1 - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
Freesync and g-sync are only necessary for weak systems that cannot maintain top refresh rate stably.Flunk - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
That's certainly one option, but I'd argue that it's closer to the truth that you don't need the higher refresh-rate if you're using adaptive sync. When your running a really high refresh-rate you're mostly trying to avoid seeing tearing from the lack of vsync or vsync update halving from underrunning the sync rate. Syncing your monitor refreshes to your frame rate fixes the issue, so does having a high refresh monitor. The biggest difference is that over-rendering frames for the higher refresh-rate monitors requires more hardware.inighthawki - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
High refresh rate is for reducing latency and improving the smoothness of the image, not for avoiding tearing.mobutu - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
tn crap @550usdwhat a joke
ridic987 - Sunday, July 23, 2017 - link
You are clearly not its target audience. Its for Esports where people don't care about image quality just about Hz.damianrobertjones - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
You cannot realistically justify the price. Stuff like this should now be ultra cheap and we're just being ripped off. You know it, I know it, mobutu knows this and so does the oem. "It cost x to make so we'll charge... Y (starts to laugh)"inighthawki - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
I imagine it's largely in part due to demand and [lack of] competition in the display market. They are not going to incorporate these features into low end budget displays, and the demand for these features is pretty low, which means they are not going to produce a large number of them. Nonetheless I'm sure there is a good margin, but I'd guess you're probably also underestimating the cost to develop and manufacture.Lolimaster - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
For me I just want a 120-144Hz 2560x1440 28-32" Glossy AMVA+ monitor, is that much to ask?euler007 - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link
Seriously. I stopped reading about this monitor when I saw 1080p. I outfitted the execs at my office with 24" Acers G257HU, they say they can't work from their home computers anymore because it feels cramped. At this point we should be able to buy decent 1440p monitors for 200$.Lolimaster - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Currently running a 2003 19" usable CRT @1600x1200 100Hz.BrokenCrayons - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Zowie... Their marketing and branding people ought to be replaced.JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
>For some reason, with the ZOWIE XL2546, BenQ continues to ignore AMD’s FreeSync and NVIDIA’s G-Sync dynamic refresh rate technologies.Uhhh, the XL2540 actually does support FreeSync, and I would imagine the XL2546 does also.
https://pcmonitors.info/benq/benq-xl2540-240hz-ful...
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/monitors/102025-benq...
http://techreport.com/news/30926/benq-zowie-xl2540...
As techreport states, it doesn't advertise it, not even on BenQ's site, but it actually does support it for whatever reason.
Lolimaster - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link
How to scam with horrid TN panels, put 144-240Hz on them marketed to gamers.You're getting a $120 TN quality panel "pimped" with Hz.