BenQ XL2720Z VS Acer XB270HA

[Jrv01]

I know I've made a lot of these comparison threads but there is always more to know

The only real difference I see here is that the Acer is newer, cheaper and has G-Sync but lacks some of the control seen in the BenQ(?) I am also only wanting a 27 inch monitor and because along the XB270HU this will be my gaming/competitive monitor, so 1080p is no problem.

Sound it off below.

[vembutech]

I think BenQXL2720Z is a better.

[Falkentyne]

If you want gsync then clearly the XB270HU or HA (Whatever that is) is what you want, IF you can win the panel lottery.  If you don't want gsync, then blur reduction capability at 60 to 144 hz refresh rates (even 50hz single strobe works with custom vertical totals only!) is much much more powerful and useful for gamers.

[Guest Strangerbob]

Isnt the acer a 1440p Gsync with IPS?

 

And the benq a 1080p nosync TN?

 

Thats quite a night and day difference in favour of the acer.... making the benq look like garbage.

[Falkentyne]

 

 

 

Isnt the acer a 1440p Gsync with IPS?

 

And the benq a 1080p nosync TN?

 

Thats quite a night and day difference in favour of the acer.... making the benq look like garbage.

The OP asked for comparisions between the two monitors and you started bashing the Benq instead of answering his question.

Completely tasteless toxicity.

 

Yes the Acer is an IPS and the Benq is a TN.

There are benefits to each one.

 

Anyone here who has ever used a CRT knows just how good and useful motion blur free gaming is.

The Benq can give that to you at 60 to 144 hz refresh rates.  In 1 hz increments..

No other monitor on the market besides CRT's can do that.

The Benq can even strobe at 50hz, but the flicker is maddening, and you will have 25 ms more input lag unless you set the strobe phase to a point where there is too much strobe crosstalk at the top of the screen.  And there ARE Benefits to strobing at 50hz.  Some console game emulators run at 50 hz (50 FPS) and trying to run at 50hz even on a gsync LCD is going to be a horrible blurry mess.

 

So yes, (assuming you win the panel lottery with the Acer--acer admitted to QA problems and will fix them in upcoming batches btw!), image quality wise, the Acer wins.

Yes. Image quality wise.

The acer also has less overdrive artifacts and a more pleasant image at the ULMB refresh rates of 85 and 100hz refresh rate.

 

But blur reduction wise and flexibility-the benq wins.

Also you can't use ULMB or Gsync on an AMD Card so that's always something to keep in mind (although most people who ask about gsync already own Nvidia).

 

maybe you don't care about strobing.  But that doesn't give you the right to call a monitor "garbage."  Just ruins your credibility to give objective reviews.

[Guest Strangerbob]

The OP asked for comparisions between the two monitors and you started bashing the Benq instead of answering his question.

Completely tasteless toxicity.

 

Yes the Acer is an IPS and the Benq is a TN.

There are benefits to each one.

 

Anyone here who has ever used a CRT knows just how good and useful motion blur free gaming is.

The Benq can give that to you at 60 to 144 hz refresh rates.  In 1 hz increments..

No other monitor on the market besides CRT's can do that.

The Benq can even strobe at 50hz, but the flicker is maddening, and you will have 25 ms more input lag unless you set the strobe phase to a point where there is too much strobe crosstalk at the top of the screen.  And there ARE Benefits to strobing at 50hz.  Some console game emulators run at 50 hz (50 FPS) and trying to run at 50hz even on a gsync LCD is going to be a horrible blurry mess.

 

So yes, (assuming you win the panel lottery with the Acer--acer admitted to QA problems and will fix them in upcoming batches btw!), image quality wise, the Acer wins.

Yes. Imag

But blur reduction wise and flexibility-the benq wins.

Also you can't use ULMB or Gsync on an AMD Card so that's always something to keep in mind (although most people who ask about gsync already own Nvidia).

 

maybe you don't care about strobing.  But that doesn't give you the right to call a monitor "garbage."  Just ruins your credibility to give objective reviews.e quality wise.

The acer also has less overdrive artifacts and a more pleasant image at the ULMB refresh rates of 85 and 100hz refresh rate.

 

I think i descibed the differeces pretty accurately, without writing an essay.

 

Now that we have native 144hz IPS, you can stop pretending that TN is not completely obsolete.

 

And dont tell me that you take the advertised response times seriously? do you take the advertised contrast ratios seriously too?

 

You can always pretend TN has some advantages if you like... there are people who still are 100% sure that black and white TV`s have some too.

[Falkentyne]

I'm 2 seconds from putting you on my permanent ignore list.

Where did I talk about response times or contrast level?

I didn't.

I gave the advantages of both.

And this is a forum.  I'm not here to please you.  I gave an essay.  Why?  Because that is answering the OP's question.  if you have attention deficit disorder and just want to flame--i'll just throw you on my ignore list.

FYI I have a 2720Z and I'll tell you right now. If someone offered me an Acer IPS or a 2720Z for my gaming purposes, I would take the XL2720Z, every time.

I come from the CRT crowd and no motion blur gaming is far more important to me than an IPS.

 

If you don't like what I say, then you shouldn't be here.  Don't take my objective arguments and turn them into personal attacks.

[Jrv01]

Guys, I own the Acer XB270HU. This is the IPS, 144Hz, G-Sync 800$ monitor. The XB270HA that I'm talking about here is its little brother. Also a 27 inch, 1080p, TN, 144Hz. HU and HA

Let me add to the question, please still keep it on the earlier question by all means, but is the Eizo FG2421 any sort of reasonable choice? I know they sponsored ESEA(?) so at least they have some gaming background. It is still a VA meaning a bit slower. But personally, the XB270HU being similar times also does its job really nicely, and due to very low overshoot, is a blast to use.

[Falkentyne]

I would avoid the Eizo FG2421 unless you can test it locally before buying.

 

It's an even bigger panel lottery than the Asus ROG Swift (inversion issues, some ship with 1.7 gamma, etc) and the Acer you already have (bleed, excessive ips glow, dirt behind polarizer, etc).

 

The eizo IS a wonderful screen if you can get a fully working pristine one.  The problem is, it was proven (someone on hardforum found out about it) that the Eizo FG2421 was using discarded parts that didn't pass QA for their $4,000 satellite panel.  The panels have the exact same specifications to the letter.  So if you get the Eizo, you may get any number of issues, like checkerboard artifacts, issues with strange color shifting, and all sorts of other little problems--or you may get a pristine panel that will look like the best thing you ever used.

 

For more information, you need to check the hardOCP forum thread about that panel.  More people have done RMA's on the Eizo than even on the ROG, due to QA issues and getting panels that were clearly distracting to use.