BenQ's 8ms FP202W 20-inch widescreen

We're kind of over BenQ (and pretty much everybody else, for that matter) taking advantage and calling this or that "the world's first," or "the world's fastest" whatever, but yeah, fine, they most definitely do have an 8ms 20-inch widescreen display—the latest in their lineup of very fast LCD displays. The FP202W is WSXGA+ resolution (1680 x 1050), has VGA and DVI inputs, and 600:1 contrast ratio.

[Via Tom's]

[enzo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

pretty soon widescreens will be the only screens.

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

8ms response time?! According to Apple's tech specs for the 20 inch cinema display, it's typical response time is 16ms.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

"8ms response time?! According to Apple's tech specs for the 20 inch cinema display, it's typical response time is 16ms."

what is your point? 8ms response time is better than 16ms response time. last time I checked, something that takes less time to occur happens faster...

[Niccolo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I don't know what you're point is, Dan, but the lower the response time - the faster it is.

16ms is slower and is expected from an Apple product. What's quicker to you? 8ms or 16ms?

[jayarr_the_motherfcuking_superstar @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

the dell widescreens are still better! yeah they might take an extra 4ms to flash you some pr0n but benQ are just reducing quality for speed!

[mark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

do these have the same lcd as the apple or something?

[boe @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

This is a step in the right direction. I'm hoping to some day see a large - 26" (maybe wide or not) screen with a high resolution, fast response time 8ms would be fine but the other important thing is that it is vibrant - a lot of screens have washed out displays or colors that are off even after calibration.

I figure in one more year, I'll replace my existing 21" CRT

[T.H. @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

12ms response time, 16ms response time, 8ms response time. Manufactorers lie. 8ms or 4ms may not necessarily be better than 16ms. I've seen some companies advertise 4ms on a LCD that other companies using the same LCD advertise as 12ms or 16ms.

If this is the same LG Phillips screen as used in the Dell 2005FPW and the Apple 20" Cinema Display then it should perform along the same lines. Apple advertises their Cinema Display as 16ms response time while Dell's 2005FPW which uses the same exact LCD advertises as 12ms.

Google search didn't yield anything on this monitor yet so no idea whose LCD BenQ uses.

[sarcastor @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

the dell 2005fpw cost me $440 shipped. And the quality is damn good. The BENQ better be priced in that same area to compete. Cause i' not paying an extra $100-400 just to get a faster response time. But that's just my opinion

[Psiven @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Dell 2005FPW:
Image Brightness: 300 cd/m�
Image Contrast Ratio: 600:1
Max Resolution: 1680x1050 Pixels

BenQ FP202W:
Brightness (typ.) 300 cd/㎡
Max. Brightness 350 cd/㎡
Contrast (typ.) 600:1
Max. Contrast 800:1
Resolution (max.) 1680x1050(WSXGA+)

These are pretty much head to head. I would take BenQ's claims of 8ms response time witha grain if salt. Hopefully tomshardware will put this monitor up to the test.

Once this monitor is tested going from grey-grey, then we'll know its true response time. After that you can judge for yourself if the extra responsiveness is worth the extra $$. Dell's monitor is selling for $400 in some places.

[MikeCerm @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

What's the price, because if it costs more than Dell (like all other 23-24" monitors do) then I just don't see the point. Response time and contrast ratios are so subjective (and typically misstated) that you're better off deciding on price. Cheaper is better, especially when the Dell's monitors are always so highly-rated (recently, at least). As much as I hate Dell (until they start using AMD), I don't get why anyone would buy a monitor from anyone else right now. (That doesn't apply to Apple-Fanboys who will buy anything that Apple makes, at any price.)

[ChrisH @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Now that Microsoft has said Vista will require HDCP on monitors that want to watch HD content, when are companies going to start making that a standard feature? I just got a Dell 2005W and it's beautiful, but now I can't watch HD when Vista comes out apparently.

[Felix @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Once this monitor is tested going from grey-grey, then we'll know its true response time.

Agreed. Marketing never reveals whether the ?ms ratings are for rise-to-fall, rise-only, etc, esecially in real-world applications.

[Idlecogz @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

And honestly I dont see the big deal with response times. Maybe my peepers are wearing out, I am over 30 now :), but I have a benq t905, i think it does 8 ms, my father in law has an older samsung that does 16ms and i dont see a difference doing everyday tasks.

[James Merryman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

PCs don't deserve widescreens

[James Merryman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

PCs don't deserve widescreens

[Z0om @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

James merryman - shut your mouth. Pc's deserve everybit of wide screen and in my opinion widescreen 100" projectors!!

[Nick @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I'm just getting into computers and monitors in general. Can someone tell me the difference in the different types of response times or at least give me a link to a website that explains it well. Thank you.

Nick

[enzo @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

"PCs don't deserve widescreens"
I thought so too at first, then realized, two docs open side by side, like in the pic... and you need that extra room for Vista's fat sidebar.

[James Merryman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I think the real reason the windows vista release its dragged out is because microsoft needed tiger to come out first to get a place for its ideas to *originate* from

[Fusion75 @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

I sell 1ms displays out of the trunk of my car

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

"I don't know what you're point is, Dan, but the lower the response time - the faster it is"

Sorry, my bad. Got it wrong.

[Cashmore @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

"PCs don't deserve widescreens"

Actually, PCs are perfectly suited for widescreens. More screen space = better multitasking. Plus, if you work in design or write music, you need as much screen real estate as you can get.

[Jay @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

James Merryman,
so what deserves widescreens then? macs? you're an idiot.

[James Merryman @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Cashmore,

If you work in design or write music, you'll have a mac, which is perfect for multimedia. A cool thing about using widescreens on a PC is that you'll be able to experience the blue screen of death in widescreen! Thats AWESOME!

[vlad @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

this panel is not like the Apple or Dell one(and btw, BenQ manufactures the Dell pannels). this one uses the new Premium MVA panel from AU Optronics and yes, it is capable of 8ms and 16.7mil colors.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

You'd use a widescreen on a PC to play games, You know those things that contain moving graphics?. Or even open up lots of application from something called a software base.

[Lucas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Benq FP202W TN panel?
http://www.behardware.com/news/lire/01-12-2005/#7892
Is true?

[Lucas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Benq FP202W TN panel?
http://www.behardware.com/news/lire/01-12-2005/#7892
Is true?

[Lucas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:06AM]

Benq FP202W TN panel?
http://www.behardware.com/news/lire/01-12-2005/#7892
Is true?