We looked at a couple of BenQ LCDs last year and were generally pleased with their features, pricing, and performance. The E2200HD and E2400HD were among the first 21.5" and 24" 1080p computer LCDs to hit the market, and since that time we have seen a veritable deluge of similar displays. Pricing has dropped even further, and if you're not super concerned with image quality you can basically grab any of the current crop of 21.5" to 24" LCDs and walk away pleased with your purchase. The short summary of what you get is:

  • A reasonably large LCD
  • Pricing of under $200 for 22" or under $300 for 24" (and less during sales)
  • Limited extras - usually no height adjustment, portrait mode, or other extras beyond USB ports
  • Good processing speed - little to no image lag relative to other LCDs
  • Decent (average) color accuracy
  • Mediocre color gamut
  • Poor vertical viewing angles

The last four items in that list can be summarized with one simple statement: these inexpensive LCDs all use TN panels. There tend to be two types of display users, those that care a lot about image quality and those that really have no idea what image quality means. The latter are not necessarily wrong or uninformed; they just don't care enough about such things to worry about low-level details and they will usually be happy with any current LCD purchase. These are the type of users that give 5-star reviews to pretty much every LCD on Newegg, as an example. I say good for them and enjoy your inexpensive LCD. In truth, I use TN panels on a regular basis (pretty much every laptop out there uses a TN panel), and while I might notice the difference initially it will fade from conscious thought after a few minutes.

For those that want something better, the choices are far more limited… and far more expensive. Upgrade from a TN panel to a similarly sized PVA or IPS panel and you can usually count on spending 50% to 100% more - or more! - on the purchase. That might be perfectly acceptable if the PVA/IPS panels were all universally better, but that's not always the case. Color accuracy is almost random it seems, with some IPS panels scoring exceptionally well, PVA panels running the gamut from great to average, and TN panels that likewise fall anywhere from excellent to mediocre. Viewing angles always favor IPS and PVA panels over TN panels, especially in terms of vertical viewing angles. Color gamut is tied to the backlight used in the panel, so you can have poor or great color gamut with any panel technology. Last but not least is image processing speed, and here's where things get interesting.

To date, the fastest panels in terms of image processing speed (frequently referred to as "input lag") are all IPS or TN panels. These displays are essentially equal and very few people would notice any lag. PVA panels are a different story, unfortunately, with lag ranging from 20 to 50 ms in testing. That means if you purchase a PVA display, you should plan on your display running 1 to 3 frames behind your current input. Most people associate this lag with gaming, and it can certainly affect your performance in fast-paced, competitive games. If what you see is actually three frames behind the current action - and add in networking lag and other types of lag and it could be delayed five or more frames! - you could end up with a competitive handicap. However, it's not just a problem with gaming. Even in general computer use, a laggy display can make it seem like your mouse is sluggish. Personally, PVA panels with 40+ ms of processing lag feel like the early wireless mice, where there was a small but perceptible delay between moving the mouse and seeing the result on screen. Doing precise image editing, as another example, is an area where faster display processing times are desirable.

The vast majority of LCDs these days are TN panels, and the trend appears to be moving even more in that direction. With a soft economy, many are looking for any way to save money, and even those who really like quality displays may be willing to settle for a less expensive TN panel. S-PVA panels all come from Samsung (they hold the patent on the technology), while IPS displays come from a couple manufacturers. Similar to PVA is a lesser-seen panel type called MVA (A-MVA), and these panels also come from one source: AU Optronics. Some users prefer PVA/MVA images over IPS, for whatever reason, so while my personal preference tends to IPS I was excited to finally have an opportunity to look at an A-MVA panel.

BenQ is one of the retail arms of AU Optronics; they shipped me their FP241VW several months back, and I began testing. Before I could finish with the review, unfortunately, I was informed that the model was being discontinued. However, while that makes the review of the FP241VW less meaningful, AU Optronics still has A-MVA panels and these show up in other displays. That being the case, I felt it would be good to discuss some of the highlights of the A-MVA panels and show limited testing results for the BenQ FP241VW. Why would that even be useful? As you might have guessed there are some interesting performance characteristics to discuss.

Let's Talk Panel Technologies
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Gazz - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    I am useing a samsung 2493HM and have no problems at all with the monitor plays games fantastic although I have the speakers disconected Too small for what I am useing
    BUT it is hard to find one anymore so I checked out the Samsung site and found a range of monitors T220R,T240R,T260R with out speakers but it does not say what pannels they use
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link

    The http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3...">2493HM is a TN panel, so you really can't get any "worse" in terms of panel type. There are better and worse TN panels, of course, and the 2493HM was actually good as far as TN goes. Like other TN, it also doesn't have any perceptible lag, which is another plus. If you're happy with the 2493HM, you should be okay with most other displays, provided they do well in other areas.
  • fredsnotdead - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    "... an apparently single-minded focus on reducing costs and pricing ..."

    Unfortunately, that seems to be all we Americans are interested in.
  • Geraldo8022 - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    I am someone who lives "off the grid". I get my power from solar and while I now have quite a number of panels and batteries I still want low power consumption. I wish more manufacturers would be more truthful about how much power their monitors use. I would like to see the websites who test monitors test the power consumption in variety of ways and consistently.
    I read a lot of gripes about monitors. It is surprising to me that there are not websites devoted exclusively to monitors.
  • darklight0tr - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    You mean like this one?


    Its a pretty good site.
  • Geraldo8022 - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    Yes, I have followed that site, darklight. I think it is very good. It is the only one I know of.
    Jarred, thanks for that info. All I have to go on are things like the specifications at the 'Egg. Good to know.
    I realize power consumption can only be so low and most are interested in other aspects. I am interested in those things, too, Just weigh things differently.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    I usually test power draw, Geraldo, but neglected to do that with this LCD. Usually, the max power draw they list (<95W) is at least 50% higher than it what I've measured. I'd expect this LCD to consume more like ~60W at full brightness, or 50-55W with the brightness calibrated to around 200 nits.
  • Mumrik - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    "The reference Monitor is an HP LP3065, which we have found to be one of the best LCDs we currently possess in terms of not having display lag. (The lack of a built-in scaler probably has something to do with this.) While we know some of you would like us to compare performance to a CRT, that's not something we have around our offices anymore."

    Buy one then!
  • JarredWalton - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    Sorry, but no. It serves no point other than to add a large, heavy item to my already crowded office. I'm not comparing with CRTs because 99% of people aren't using or buying CRTs. Either a display has less lag than the LP3065 or it has more lag; it is merely a reference point. If you want to read about how LCDs compare to CRTs, plenty of sites have attempted to cover that topic.
  • james jwb - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    At least one high profile site that can actually make a difference is paying this issue some attention, and i have to thank you for that!

    I particularly like the last part of the article which looks to the future, as in my opinion we still haven't hit a quality stage that truly knocks on CRT's door. Sure, in term of viewing angles, colour, brightness, etc, it's all there, and you can't deny the benefits of LCD's (foot print, etc). But 60hz is just plain poor and i honestly cannot wait for it to fade off the planet. 120hz is vastly superior.

    One last thing. It's possible most of these TN film users who just "don't care" about the sacrificial quality never came from a background of using high quality CRT's. It's very difficult, even today, to move from a 21" professional CRT to ANY LCD and not feel you've compromised in some areas, namely the smooth and snappy response these things have. I have a feeling 120hz will bridge the gap far enough that it'll be very hard to notice any downsides to LCD technology over CRT's. But for a 24" LCD to have 120hz, its going to need display port (or at least, not DVI), and with hardly any graphics cards supporting this yet, what TFT maker would introduce one? They are certainly coming, but right now, as you rightly say, the tech is there, ready and waiting, but the market isn't.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now