BenQ E2200HD and E2400HD - 1080P FullHD LCDs
by Jarred Walton on November 4, 2008 5:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
BenQ E2400HD Specifications
| BenQ E2400HD Specifications | |
| Video Inputs | DVI with HDCP support HDMI Analog (VGA) |
| Panel Type | TN (Unknown Manufacturer) |
| Pixel Pitch | 0.276mm |
| Colors | 16.7 million (6-bit with dithering/interpolation) |
| Brightness | 300 cd/m2 |
| Contrast Ratio | 1000:1 10000:1 Dynamic |
| Response Time | 5ms, 2ms GTG |
| Viewable Size | 24" diagonal |
| Resolution | 1920x1080 (1080P) |
| Viewing Angle | 170 horizontal/160 vertical |
| Power Consumption | <57W max stated 43W max, 16W min measured |
| Power Savings | <2W |
| Screen Treatment | Matte (non-glossy) |
| Height-Adjustable | No |
| Tilt | Yes - 20 degrees back/5 degrees forward |
| Pivot | No |
| Swivel | No |
| VESA Wall Mounting | 100mm x 100mm |
| Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) | 22.94" x 17.76" x 7.77" (WxHxD) |
| Weight w/ Stand | 15.4 lbs. |
| Additional Features | None |
| Audio | 2 x 1W Speakers Audio in, Line out |
| Limited Warranty | 3-year limited warranty, M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM PST |
| Accessories | VGA cable, audio input cable, driver CD |
| Price | Online starting at ~$350 |
Déjà vu. Given the price, it should come as no surprise that this is also a 24" LCD with a TN panel. Once again, that means viewing angles are worse than other panel technologies, but with less input lag compared to S-PVA panels. The only difference other than price, size, and weight is power requirements, but that goes along with the larger backlight and panel.
The on-screen display (OSD) for the E2400HD is virtually the same as the E2200HD, with one or two minor differences. However, while most of the options are the same, the resulting functionality is different. Specifically, support for non-native resolutions was substantially better on the E2200HD for whatever reason. Perhaps the E2400HD we received didn't come with the latest firmware installed. Anyway, you get the same brightness, contrast, aspect ratio, color correction, and several preset viewing settings. Again we found that using the "Standard" viewing mode and "Normal" color gave the most pleasing experience, and we avoided using dynamic contrast. Let's look at the OSD menus.
All of the OSD functionality is the same, with only two changes we noticed. First, the E2200HD has a setting where you can enable/disable AMA (Advanced Motion Accelerator). AMA is supposed to improve pixel response times by overdriving state changes, resulting in a 2ms GTG (Grey to Grey) response time. We didn't notice any significant difference, but perhaps our eyes are just too old/slow [Ed: Go easy on him - he just turned 35 last week…]. The other change is in the scaling options, where the E2400HD offers "Full", "16:9", and "4:3" as well as the ability to enable an overscan mode on certain resolutions. Here is a summary of our resolution testing results for all three inputs:
| BenQ E2400HD Resolution and Input Notes | |||
| DVI | HDMI | VGA | |
| 800x600 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1024x768 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1152x864 | Yes | Wrong AR | Yes |
| 1280x720 | Wrong AR (Hor. Stretch), no Fill | Wrong AR (sometimes) | Always Fill |
| 1280x800 | Always Fill | Yes | Yes |
| 1280x960 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1280x1024 | 4:3 AR | 4:3 AR | 4:3 AR |
| 1440x900 | Always Fill | Hor. Stretch/Overscan | Always Fill |
| 1600x1200 | Interference / Non-functional | Yes | Yes |
| 1680x1050 | Always Fill | Hor. Stretch/Overscan | Always Fill |
| 1920x1080 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Clearly there are some differences in how the two LCDs handle non-native resolutions, and the E2200HD is by far superior. Native resolution worked without difficulty, naturally, but on the HDMI input quite a few of the resolutions were stretched horizontally. All the 16:10 AR resolutions would either fill the whole LCD or else overscan in the horizontal dimension -- so the left and right parts of the display weren't visible. Several other resolutions had an incorrect aspect ratio, for example 1280x1024 used a 4:3 ratio instead of 5:4, regardless of the choice of video input. On our DVI input, 1600x1200 failed to work properly on at least one system, with static and a message on the display indicating that the signal was out of range. Finally, quite a few resolutions didn't allow any changes to the aspect ratio setting, defaulting to filling the whole screen -- although that's not as bad as some of the other issues we encountered.
What's somewhat odd is that resolution support is dependent upon more than the LCD panel and scaler, and there were other systems where we encountered different resolution issues. For example, a couple laptops refused to support higher resolutions using HDMI. We're hesitant to blame BenQ on issues like that, but using the same test systems we did feel the E2200HD was the better option for resolution support.
Outside of resolution support problems, the built-in resolution scaler works well, just like the E2200HD. Again, results are better for resolutions that are at least 33% lower than the native resolution -- so 1440x900 and lower look decent. Overall, the VGA input offered the best support for non-native resolutions, but that's the least desirable input choice for signal quality. Whatever the cause, BenQ should look into applying some of the firmware microcode from the E2200HD to the E2400HD.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
10e - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - link
If the last MVA panel from BenQ/AUO is any indicator, input lag should be low. I had the FP241VW with December 2007 firmware and it was 7.9ms behind a CRT, with only 5% of the time it being 2 frames behind. The other times it was only 1 frame behind, or none at all.It's good to see that our crying over on another forum has kept BenQ and AUO from abandoning the non-TN market altogether
The only tiny issue with it was dark greys shifted more than (say) my Dell 2709W (S-PVA). Good luck with the review.
Jorgerr - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Did you check the Samsung T220P? looks that have the same specs as the Benq. Seems to be a very interesting competitor as well.I would appreciate to read your comments about it.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Looks like that was an Asian release only? I'm not sure... spec-wise, it's actually a 1920x1200 LCD, and I haven't seen any of those in 22" trim over here in the US. Weird. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung makes the panel in the BenQ LCDs; then again, it's either Samsung, AU Optronics, or Chi-Mei so I have a 33% chance of guessing right. ;-)Jorgerr - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Thanks :-) In Israel the Samsung T220P is available, and we belongs to Asia.Good luck with the new president! No matter who will be I wish you the best.
NARC4457 - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
[quote]We are only aware of one other 22" LCD manufacturer that offers native 1080P support (ViewSonic), and we feel this is an untapped market.[/quote]Check out Dell's new 2209W, it is a Full HD 22" LCD
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displa...">http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod...mp;dgc=C...
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
I edited the conclusion for you - I should have known better than to make an assumption without a bit more research. Probably HP has a similar display too - or it's in the works. Obviously, where one LCD company goes plenty will follow, and if there aren't more 22" 1080P LCDs right now I expect that to change. The Dell 2209W appears to lack HDMI input, however, so that's a big advantage for the BenQ and ViewSonic options IMO.NARC4457 - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - link
True enough, I was surprised that they didn't have the same amount of inputs that many of their existing monitors already have.Wasn't looking for an update to the article, just wanted to send it your way in case you were looking for more monitors to review. :) Thanks jared, good information in the review.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - link
Probably all use the same LCD panel - once the panel becomes available, the usual suspects will all build a display around it.Flyboy27 - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
I know I want to step up to 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 so that means a 24" monitor. They seem to be the sweet spot right now as you can get a video card these days to run those resolutions in almost every game for a very reasonable price. However, there's no reason for me to upgrade my HD3850 until I get a bigger monitor since it runs all games just fine at 1440x900. I'm sure there are many other folks out there that are in the same boat.Now, it's easy to figure out comparatively which video card to get by reading Anandtech and other such sites but harder to find info on 24" monitors. Not too hard to compare FPS in a certain resolution and find a video card to get the best bang for your buck. However, for a guy that is a gamer, movie watcher, internet browser, and avid Photoshop user what monitor is the best bang for the buck. I don't want to sacrifice panel speed for colors. My idea with colors and Photoshop is just get me "close enough" and I'll be happy. I'm also on a budget (that's why I'm not looking at 30" monitors). Where is the happy medium here guys? -Thanks
JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
I have a BenQ MVA panel up next for review, along with a couple other 24" LCDs. I'm going to be very interested to see if the MVA panel can offer colors and viewing angles equal to S-PVA but with processing lag equal to S-IPS/TN. Stay tuned....