BenQ EX2710 (EX2710S)

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively thos¬e with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern, mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade.

We did not observe any static interlace patterns on this model. Under certain conditions we observed some dynamic ‘interlace pattern artifacts’, fine interlaced vertical lines during movement or when scanning our eyes across the screen in a certain way. These were very faint at higher refresh rates such as 120Hz and 144Hz. At relatively low refresh rates (~60Hz for example) they were more noticeable, although didn’t jump out as much as they do on some models. They aren’t something most users would notice or find bothersome, especially at higher refresh rates.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the EX2710, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.41ms (~1/2 a frame at 144Hz) of input lag. We measured a slightly higher but still low latency at 60Hz, 4.50ms. The input lag measured here is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a low signal delay which most users should find acceptable. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a variable refresh rate environment or with HDR active in an HDR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores the key factors affecting monitor responsiveness. An important concept is explored here called ‘perceived blur’, which is contributed to not just by the pixel responses of the monitor, but also your eye movement as you track motion on the screen. This second factor usually dominates on modern monitors, although both are important. We also explore a photography technique that uses a moving rather than stationary camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur; ‘pursuit photography’. The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed to take such photographs at, highlighting both elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are analysed to show a range of pixel transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz and 144Hz using all available ‘AMA’ (Advanced Motion Acceleration) settings; ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’. Reference shots are included in the final columns for comparison, where possible. These include the AOC 24G2(U), with its 23.8” Panda IPS-type panel. And the Acer XB253Q GP with a 24.5 AUO AHVA (IPS-type) panel that’s well-tuned for strong 144Hz performance. The references are set to what we consider the optimal pixel overdrive setting for a given refresh rate.

Note that wavy patterns surrounding some UFOs in the background are slight image retention. This was only observed during this test and is something we’ve seen on various monitors before. It soon disappeared when using monitor normally.

At 60Hz, shown above, the UFO appears soft and unfocused without clear internal detail. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement. There is also a small amount of trailing behind the UFOs in places due to some imperfections in pixel responsiveness. Even with ‘AMA = 0’, the monitor performs well at 60Hz. There’s nothing more than a faint whiff of ‘powdery’ trailing, nothing clear or bold or that extends very far at all from the object. This is largely replaced by a bit of overshoot or inverse ghosting using ‘AMA = 1’. This manifests as a faint ‘shadowy’ trail which is darker than object or background, behind the object for the dark background (top row) and medium background (middle row). This becomes stronger with ‘AMA = 2’, without any clear benefit to using this setting. A bit of ‘halo’ trailing, which is lighter than the background or object, is also introduced for the light background (bottom row). ‘AMA = 3’ further intensifies the overshoot, with a clear inky look or bright and colourful appearance elsewhere. From this we consider ‘AMA = 0’ or ‘AMA = 1’ to be optimal depending on overshoot tolerance. Below you can see how things look with a doubling of refresh rate, to 120Hz.

At 120Hz, shown above, the UFO appears significantly narrower with clearer internal detail. This reflects a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are again varying levels of trailing behind the UFO, more pronounced in places than at 60Hz due to the increased pixel response requirements for optimal performance. With ‘AMA = 0’ the ‘powdery’ trailing now extends further back and is somewhat bolder, particularly for the dark background. This isn’t bad trailing by any means and the pixel responses are still fairly snappy overall, but ‘AMA = 1’ does offer some improvement. There is now just a faint whiff of ‘powdery’ trailing remaining, alongside just a touch of overshoot. Such as a faint ‘halo’ trail for the light background. ‘AMA = 2’ removes these traces of ‘powdery’ trailing but introduces extra overshoot or intensifies it further. The ‘AMA = 3’ setting again goes completely overboard, providing strong and very eye-catching overshoot. We consider ‘AMA = 1’ to be interest here, with ‘AMA = 2’ of possible interest if you’ve got a fairly high overshoot tolerance. The images below show things bumped up slightly to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, shown above, the UFO appears just slightly narrower and slightly better defined. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur to eye movement. As this is only an extra 24Hz vs. a doubling of refresh rate, the differences are less pronounced compared to going from 60Hz to 120Hz. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance are raised a bit further. The ‘powdery’ trailing is just a touch more extensive in places. ‘AMA = 0’ again shows this most clearly, but is by no means poor. In fact, it’s faster than the AOC reference in this test. ‘AMA = 1’ tightens the pixel responses up and cuts down on these weaknesses a bit. ‘AMA = 2’ gives a further reduction in ‘powdery’ trailing, but that overshoot again creeps in. Most notably as a ‘halo’ trail for the light background. This overshoot is strengthened and more eye-catching using ‘AMA = 3’. Just as at 120Hz, we consider ‘AMA = 1’ optimal but ‘AMA = 2’ worth considering if you’re particularly competitive and don’t mind a bit of extra overshoot. The well-tuned Acer reference, for this 144Hz refresh rate, appears like ‘AMA = 2’ but with less distinct halo trailing for the bright background. That sets a pretty high benchmark, however.

The monitor has a setting called Blur Reduction that can be activated instead of Adaptive-Sync, if you wish. This is a strobe backlight feature that causes the backlight to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display. With 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz available. Sensitivity to this flickering of the backlight varies and some will find it bothersome whilst others may notice accelerated eye fatigue, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. We still noticed this at 144Hz, but found the flickering more bothersome at 120Hz and moreover 100Hz. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 100Hz using the Blur Reduction mode. Some reference screens are included for comparison, the AOC C24G1 using its ‘MBR’ setting and the Dell S2417DG using its ‘ULMB’ settings.

Note that we have only included results using ‘AMA = 1’ and ‘AMA = 2’ as higher settings introduced very strong and unsightly overshoot, whilst lower settings were simply too slow to work effectively with this mode.

With Blur Reduction at 100Hz, shown above, the main object is significantly narrower with clearer internal details. Even at 100Hz with Blur Reduction active vs. 144Hz without. The segments are far more distinct, for example. You can see a bit of overshoot behind the UFO when using ‘AMA = 2’, particularly for the dark background where the trailing looks ‘inky’ and for the light background where some ‘halo’ trailing is observed. This is generally weaker than the overshoot shown with the reference screens here at 100Hz, however. ‘AMA = 1’ doesn’t show this overshoot but instead shows fragments of conventional trailing. The trailing is fragmented and in places has multiple repetitions due to the strobe nature of the backlight. The all-encompassing term ‘strobe crosstalk’ is used to describe fragmented trailing like this. The optimal AMA setting here is debatable and depends on your overshoot tolerance, but we’d side more towards ‘AMA = 1’. Below you can see how things look at 120Hz with Blur Reduction enabled.

With Blur Reduction at 120Hz, shown above, the main object again shows excellent clarity. With even sharper internal detailing. The white notches on the UFO body are now easy to count, for example. The pixel response requirements are raised and you see the fragmented trailing appearing somewhat bolder – but each fragment is also a bit smaller due to the increased refresh rate. Overshoot levels are lower using ‘AMA = 2’ compared to using the setting at 100Hz, whilst it does make the strobe crosstalk fainter than ‘AMA = 1’. So we consider ‘AMA = 2’ optimal here. The reference screens show some overshoot instead, but it’s quite a bit fainter than it was at 100Hz. Below you can see how things looked with Blur Reduction at 144Hz.

With Blur Reduction at 144Hz, shown above, things don’t appear massively different to at 120Hz. Although the fragments are slightly narrower and the main object even more sharply focused, with the notches appearing quite distinct. The AG251FG reference shot appears with even more distinct notches in the photograph, but that’s largely due to the lower brightness which caused a bit less ‘bleaching’ of very bright elements from the camera. To the eye the main object clarity was similar to this on the BenQ as well. We again consider ‘AMA = 2’ optimal here due to it slightly reducing how bold the strobe crosstalk appears without a clear negative impact. We also favour the 144Hz refresh rate in general when using this setting due to reduced flickering, slightly improved ‘connected feel’ and lower overshoot for some transitions not covered using Test UFO.

It’s important to note that strobe crosstalk varies at different areas of the screen. Not all areas refresh simultaneously, so its appearance can differ depending on how high up or low down on the screen movement is being observed. The images below show pursuit photographs running from the top to bottom regions of the screen, with the screen set to 144Hz and ‘AMA = 2’ with Blur Reduction active. Strobe crosstalk variation at different points was also observed at 120Hz and 100Hz and with different AMA settings, but the relative variability in strobe crosstalk at different sections of the screen remained the same. So we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations.

Towards the top of the screen you can see strong strobe crosstalk in front of the image, about as bold as the image itself and essentially creating a double image. This weakens a bit further down and transitions to behind rather than in front of the object. The central region of the screen shows some strobe crosstalk behind the object, but this is quite a bit fainter than the main object and therefore doesn’t detract too much from the main purpose of this setting. During competitive gameplay where this sort of setting is best suited, your eyes tend to focus mainly within this central region of the screen rather than further up or further down. Further down the screen the strobe crosstalk behind the object becomes strong and again creates a double image.

Responsiveness in games and movies

Where frame rate kept pace with the 144Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided a fluid experience on Battlefield V. The monitor outputs over twice as much visual information per second as a 60Hz monitor (or this monitor running at 60Hz). This brings with it two core advantages, the first of which is a better ‘connected feel’. This describes the precision and fluidity that’s felt as you interact with the game, something that the low input lag of the monitor certainly helps with. But that low input lag alone won’t provide. The second core advantage is a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement from the increased refresh rate and frame rate in combination, shown earlier using Test UFO. This test also highlighted the relatively strong pixel response performance of the monitor, with only minor weaknesses for some transitions.

Gaming on titles like this provide a broader spread of transitions than is observed using Test UFO, but there were no real standout weaknesses revealed. There was some ‘powdery trailing’ in places, particularly where some darker or very bright shades were involved in the transition. But this remained quite light and wasn’t what we’d describe as ‘heavy powdery’ trailing and certainly wasn’t ‘smeary’ in appearance. It slightly increased perceived blur where these transitions occurred, but the monitor still delivered a solid 144Hz performance. Superior to what we’d observed on the AOC 24G2(U) and not too far off the Acer XB253Q GP, which sets a high benchmark. So really, reflecting what was shown using Test UFO. There was some overshoot in places, usually manifesting as halo trailing (slightly brighter than background, sometimes slightly colourful) with medium shades moving against bright shades. For example, a building with bright sky in the background. This was not extreme or eye-catching overshoot in our view, though.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Whilst this is a slower-paced title, the improved ‘connected feel’ and lower perceived blur were still nice to have. Less necessary from a competitive point of view, naturally, but still appreciated. The rapid pixel responses were also apparent, with no obvious weaknesses. As this title has plenty of contrasting scenes involving very dark shades and also some very bright shades, there were those slight weaknesses with ‘powdery’ trailing in places. We’d again consider this on the light side, far from appearing ‘smeary’ and not something most users would even notice really. There was also a bit of overshoot in places, but again nothing substantial. We also observed movie content at a range of frame rates, including ~24 – 30fps Netflix content and 60fps YouTube content. There were no clear weaknesses here, with the visual fluidity limited by the frame rate itself rather than the monitor.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

Blur Reduction

We’ve already introduced the Blur Reduction feature, its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using Blur Reduction or any strobe backlight feature, it’s essential that your frame rate matches the refresh rate of the display exactly. Otherwise you’re left with very obvious stuttering or juddering. This is because there’s very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. As with most strobe backlight technologies, you can’t use Adaptive-Sync or HDR at the same time as Blur Reduction. As explored using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting earlier, activating this feature significantly reduced perceived blur due to eye movement. We used the feature on a range of games but will simply focus on Battlefield V running at a constant 144Hz with the feature active. Our overall observations were similar when running this monitor at a lower refresh rate, although overshoot crept in more noticeably using our preferred setting at 120Hz and certainly at 100Hz. Plus the flickering was intensified. The setting lived up to its namesake by significantly reducing perceived blur due to eye movement. Even during sharp and snappy turns in the game, the background and objects within it remained more sharply focused. This could naturally include enemies, which were easier to spot and track whilst moving your character at the same time. A good competitive edge which some users will enjoy.

The strobe crosstalk we explored earlier was present, but certainly stronger further up and indeed lower down the screen. For the central region, which is where you mainly focus during competitive gameplay, this was not too bad. It was still there to a degree, but generally faint enough that it didn’t significantly hamper perceived blur or become bothersome. Sensitivity to this will vary. A bit of overshoot was observed in places, but nothing substantial using our preferred setup. We’ve come across many strobe backlight settings that are hampered by things such as locked and inappropriate brightness, colourful flashes and fringes, strong overshoot or strong and bothersome strobe crosstalk centrally. So all in all this was a pretty praiseworthy and useable implementation. Most users will probably prefer the flexibility and visual comfort of the normal flicker-free operation and Adaptive-Sync support, but this setting certainly has its place.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. Where possible, the monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Radeon RX 580 used in our test system. The monitor must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The BenQ EX2710 supports FreeSync Premium via DP 1.2a+ and HDMI 2.0 on compatible GPUs and systems. Note that HDR can be activated (at the same time as FreeSync) as well. There isn’t a setting to activate or deactivate the technology in the OSD, that’s handled automatically. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Radeon Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP and the bottom image by HDMI. The setting is referred to as ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in both cases, although the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The BenQ supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 144Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 144fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 144fps, the monitor will stay at 144Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 144fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >144fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 33fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 66Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

To configure VSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Software’. Click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click ‘Graphics’. The setting is listed as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This configures it globally, but if you wish to configure it for individual games click ‘Game Graphics’ towards the top right. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. Above this dropdown list there’s a toggle for ‘Radeon Enhanced Sync’. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature rather than a monitor feature.



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 141fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. Curiously the refresh rate displayed in the OSD only reflected the static refresh rate and didn’t match the refresh rate in a VRR environment using FreeSync. And ‘FreeSync Premium: ON’ was displayed even if the setting was deactivated in the graphics driver. This contrasted with our Nvidia GPU which reported the refresh rate in the VRR environment and only displayed ‘FreeSync Premium: ON’ if ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ was enabled in the driver. This didn’t affect the operation of the technology, but means you couldn’t confirm in the OSD whether it was actively being used or not.

Finally, it’s worth noting that FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

FreeSync – the experience

As usual we tested a range of game titles using AMD FreeSync and found the experience similar in all of them. Any issues affecting one title but not another suggests a game or GPU driver issues rather than a monitor issue. We’ll therefore simply use Battlefield V as an example for this section. The in-game graphics options provide sufficient flexibility to allow the full VRR range to be tested. With our RTX RX580, some drops below 144fps were not uncommon with moderately high graphics settings being used. Without a VRR technology such as FreeSync enabled, such dips cause obvious tearing if VSync is disabled or stuttering if VSync is enabled. These interruptions are obvious to us and others sensitive to such things, at least, but sensitivity to such issues vary. Any drops in frame rate are still detrimental to the ‘connected feel’ and increase perceived blur due to eye movement, that’s not something VRR technology can address.

The technology worked all the way down to 48Hz (48fps in the game), below which LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kicked in. This was very effective in keeping tearing and stuttering at bay. As usual, we observed a slight momentary stuttering when this boundary was crossed. It’s quite subtle and not something everyone would notice, especially if the boundary is occasionally crossed. If it’s frequently being crossed that it could be potentially annoying. Using our preferred ‘AMA = 1’ setting, we observed increased overshoot as refresh rate dipped alongside frame rate. Variable overdrive is not employed so this is expected. This never reached extreme and difficult to ignore levels, in our view, so many will find this acceptable. It was certainly better than some Adaptive-Sync models during heavy refresh rate dips. But there was some fairly bright and at times colourful ‘halo’ trailing for a small number of transitions, particularly below 80fps and where brighter shades were displayed in the background. If you’re sensitive to overshoot and find this bothersome you might want to use ‘AMA = 0’. Particularly if you’re frequently dipping into the double digits. As explored using Test UFO and confirmed by observing gameplay here, this setting works quite well even at higher frame rates. Whilst it might not be optimal for high refresh rates or as fast as ‘AMA = 1’, it’s far from slow and will be a worthwhile compromise for some to make.

Nvidia Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible’)

As noted earlier, AMD FreeSync makes use of Adaptive-Sync technology on a compatible monitor. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. Some models are specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass specific quality checks. With the EX2710, you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort. There’s no OSD setting for Adaptive-Sync on the monitor, that’s handled automatically. When you open up Nvidia Control Panel, you should then see ‘Set up G-SYNC’ listed in the ‘Display’ section. Ensure the ‘Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible’ checkbox and ‘Enable settings for the selected display model’ is checked as shown below and press ‘OK’. If you’ve enabled ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ and it was previously disabled, the monitor should re-establish its connection with the system and the technology should now be active.



You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display is not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display. On our RTX 3090, the experience was very similar to what we described with FreeSync. Surprisingly, the floor of operation for VRR was lowered to 38Hz – below that an LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication was used to keep tearing and stuttering at bay. Whilst there was momentary stuttering when this boundary was crossed, it was masked very effectively by the ‘low frame rate judder’ that is experienced at such a low frame rate anyway.

Our suggestions regarding use of VSync also apply, but you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than AMD Radeon Software to control this. The setting is found in ‘Manage 3D settings’ under ‘Vertical sync’, where the final option (‘Fast’) is equivalent to AMD’s ‘Enhanced Sync’ setting. You’ll also notice ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ listed under ‘Monitor Technology’ in this section, as shown below. Make sure this is selected (it should be if you’ve set everything up correctly in ‘Set up G-SYNC’).



Finally, note that the refresh rate displayed in the OSD reflected the frame rate of the content when it was within the main VRR window (38 – 144Hz), updated when you first enter the section of the OSD where it’s displayed. And as with AMD FreeSync, HDR can be used at the same time as ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

On an ideal monitor, HDR (High Dynamic Range) involves the simultaneous display of very bright light shades and very deep dark shades. The monitor should also be able to display a very broad array of shades between these extremes, including strong vivid shades and much more muted shades. The monitor would ideally support per-pixel illumination (e.g. backlightless technology such as OLED) or failing that offer a very large number of dimming zones with precise control. A solution such as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) with a good number of dimming zones, for example. This would allow some areas of the screen to light up to high brightness levels, whilst others remain very dim. Colour reproduction is also an important part of HDR, with the ultimate goal being support for a huge colour gamut, Rec. 2020. A more achievable near-term goal is support for at least 90% DCI-P3 (Digital Cinema Initiatives standard colour space) coverage. Finally, HDR makes use of at least 10-bit precision per colour channel, so its desirable that the monitor supports at least 10-bits per subpixel.

The HDR10 pipeline is the most widely supported HDR standard used in HDR games and movies. That’s what’s supported here. For most games and other full screen applications that support HDR, the BenQ automatically switches into its HDR operating mode. As of the latest Windows 10 update, relevant HDR settings in Windows are found in ‘Windows HD Color settings’ which can be accessed via ‘Display settings’ (right click the desktop). Most game titles will activate HDR correctly when the appropriate in-game setting is selected. A minority of game titles that support HDR will only run in HDR if the setting is active in Windows as well. Specifically, the toggle which says ‘Play HDR games and apps’. If you want to view HDR movies on a compatible web browser, for example, you’d also need to activate the ‘Stream HDR Video’ setting. These settings are shown below. Also note that there’s a slider that allows you to adjust the overall balance of SDR content if HDR is active in Windows. This is really just a digital brightness slider, so you lose contrast by adjusting it. Whilst viewing SDR content with the HDR toggle active appeared better-balanced than we’ve seen on some models, some shades certainly didn’t appear as they should. You also lose access to many adjustments in the OSD. Including gamma and colour channels. We’d recommend only activating HDR in Windows if you’re about to specifically use an HDR application that requires it, and have it deactivated when viewing normal SDR content on the monitor.

For simplicity we’ll just focus on a few titles in this section; Battlefield V and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. These are games we’ve tested on a broad range of monitors under HDR and we know they’re a good test for monitor HDR capability. The experience described here is largely dictated and limited by the screen itself. Although our testing here is focused on HDR PC gaming using DisplayPort, we made similar observations when viewing HDR video content on the Netflix app. There are some additional points to bear in mind if you wish to view such content. We also made observations using HDMI, which would be used when viewing HDR content on an HDR compatible games console for example, and things were very similar. Testing on both our Nvidia and AMD GPUs showed that the HDR implementation was similar in both cases, too. The monitor includes three ‘HDR Mode’ settings; ‘Game HDRi’, ‘Cinema HDRi’ and ‘Display HDR’. As noted earlier, these settings act as ‘emulation modes’ (quite a misnomer) under SDR but act as distinct HDR settings when an HDR signal is detected. ‘Game HDRi’ and ‘Cinema HDRi’ incorporate the light sensor, as used for ‘Brightness Intelligence +’ (B.I. +) under SDR. This adjusts the image based on the content being displayed as well as ambient lighting. As we covered earlier, it will adjust brightness such that unless the room is very bright it essentially acts as a limiter. That brings down brightness to distinctly ‘un HDR-like’ levels, whilst further adjustments are made to colour temperature gamma and other elements.

The HDR10 pipeline has a rather specific set of parameters which a monitor would ideally follow closely. The HDRi modes make changes based on the image and ambient lighting that works against what the HDR metadata demands. We found the image generally too dim and cool-tinted using these ‘HDRi’ modes. We also observed some strongly oversaturated and unnatural looking shades, such as sky blues and some yellowish greens. The ‘Cinema HDRi’ setting also ramped up gamma, giving things an overly deep end cinematic look which detracted from the HDR-like look. We therefore preferred ‘Display HDR’ and will focus on that for the rest of this section. Some may like the ‘HDRi’ modes, subjectively, and if so should feel free to use them. As we explore, this model doesn’t really tick enough boxes to make things look as they should under HDR, anyway. The HDR settings include a sharpness filter (extra sharpness), which is very mild for ‘HDR’, stronger for ‘HDRi Game’ and stronger again for ‘Cinema HDRi’. We found this quite unsightly for the ‘HDRi’ settings. This is usual under HDR as it helps slightly accentuate improved tone mapping capabilities and (not applicable on this model) enhanced contrast under HDR. Many settings are locked off under HDR, as usual – including gamma and colour channels. You can adjust brightness manually using the main ‘HDR’ setting, which is certainly not how HDR is supposed to do things – and lowering this much below ‘100’ just made things look dull and not at all ‘HDR-like’. A term we’d use loosely on this model either way.

The BenQ EX2710 falls short of even the lowest VESA DisplayHDR standard (VESA DisplayHDR 400), responding to HDR10 content and taking advantage of only a few basic aspects of the pipeline. As noted earlier, on the colour side it’s desirable to at least have good coverage of the DCI-P3 colour space. In this case the model only covers 82% DCI-P3, as shown in the gamut representation below. The red triangle shows the monitor’s gamut, the green triangle sRGB and the blue triangle DCI-P3. The image didn’t look ‘washed out’, although some elements did lack depth because of unprecise luminance control that we explore shortly. You didn’t get anywhere near the shade variety that you should under HDR. Saturation of some elements was quite similar to under SDR, if a bit less saturated, but there wasn’t that increase in shade variety you’d hope for under HDR. There should be a superior variety of very subtle variations of shade, including natural brown and green shades in the environment. This wasn’t observed. There was also a slight underlying cool tint, with the colour temperature appearing a bit too high – this may vary between units and was far less pronounced than with the ‘HDRi’ settings. Meanwhile, the vibrant shades which the developers really want to stand out and ‘pop’ didn’t do so as their saturation levels were restricted by the colour gamut. The overall balance was far from the worse we’ve seen under HDR, but there’s no getting around a colour gamut that’s far too restrictive by HDR standards.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

The HDR10 pipeline makes use of 10-bits per colour channel, which the monitor supports via 8-bit + FRC. The enhanced precision of the 10-bit signal enhances the nuanced shade variety. For darker shades, it provides a natural uplift to detail in a way that’s far more natural than could be achieved using gamma enhancements under SDR. The superior range of closely matching shades helped smooth out gradients for brighter shades as well, with more natural progressions for weather effects, smoke and rays of light. The image below shows one of our favourite scenes under Shadow of the Tomb Raider for highlighting a strong HDR performance. Note that the photo is purely for illustrative purposes and in no way represents how the monitor appeared running HDR in person.

This scene showcases the enhancement brought about by the use of the 10-bit colour signal nicely. The sun streaming in from the openings above, the misty spray near the waterfall and shadow detailing all benefiting from the enhanced variety of very subtly different shades. The maximum luminance on this model isn’t particularly bright by HDR standards, with ~486 cd/m² being measured. Furthermore, there’s no local dimming and therefore no contrast advantage to using HDR over SDR. The light glinting off the water surface and streaming in from above should be much brighter than it appears, whilst surrounding shades should be significantly dimmer than they are, with superior depth. Although the shadowy areas are enhanced by the nuanced shade variety, they would have their definition greatly improved by more precise luminance control for superior depth. Some of the brightest shades appeared less distinct from one another than they should and were slightly crushed together, but this wasn’t extreme. Superior precision with luminance control would help with these distinctions as well. The monitor doesn’t offer any Dynamic Contrast under HDR, either. Although not a substitute for effective local dimming, Dynamic Contrast with precision enhanced by HDR metadata can be used to good effect – the ViewSonic XG270QC is a good example of this. Without this you’re left with the entire backlight pumping out high luminance levels even for dark scenes, making them appear rather flooded and with a clear lack of depth to dark shades. The ‘IPS glow’ is also brought out strongly – such scenes are anything but atmospheric-looking even in a moderately bright room. If you turn down the brightness manually, things just appear faded and ‘un HDR like’ for the brighter shades as we noted earlier. So that’s not really a good substitute. This section of the video review gives a run-through of the overall HDR capability of the display using Shadow of the Tomb Raider as an example.

Video review

The video below shows the monitor in action. The camera, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see when viewing the monitor in person. It still provides useful visual demonstrations and explanations which help reinforce some of the key points raised in the written piece.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (Adaptive-Sync)

Conclusion

There has certainly been a recent push towards high refresh rate IPS-type panels, starting with 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) models and now filtering down to other resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD). With the Full HD resolution spread out across a 27” screen area, this model is aimed more towards providing an immersive experience or giving the user the flexibility to sit a bit further back from the screen if they like. Rather than providing an impressive pixel density for strong clarity and vibrancy. The monitor combines this with its signature ‘MOBIUZ’ styling, including an interestingly-shaped silver-coloured stand design with distinctive orange strip. The MOBIUZ strip, if you will. This isn’t something we found eye-catching or annoying in practice, although appreciated the more subdued styling of the main screen. Ergonomic flexibility was good, without a pivot option for portrait viewing but good adjustability otherwise. And if you prefer to do away with the include stand, VESA holes are included for alternative mounting.

The monitor also offered good flexibility in its OSD with a range of innovative and in some cases useful features. The ‘Eye Care’ features included flexible and well-implemented Low Blue Light (LBL) settings – and we appreciated how easy it was to customise the ‘Quick Menu’ to our taste. We found the B.I.+ and HDRi settings which use the integrated light sensor to be less useful. It isn’t our first foray with such features and don’t agree with their ‘one size fits all’ approach to brightness adjustment, amongst other things. But they may be to some people’s liking and the monitor certainly doesn’t force you to use such features if you don’t want to.

As an IPS model, contrast wasn’t the main strength. Although things were still better in that respect than some IPS-type models. Static contrast slightly exceeded specifications, not by any remarkable amount but still good to see. The usual ‘IPS glow’ was present, too, so the monitor certainly isn’t about giving a deep and atmospheric experience in dim lighting conditions. The light matte screen surface was quite agreeable, helping preserve clarity and vibrancy better than some matte surfaces. And giving a relatively smooth look to lighter shades, superior to the 24.5” 144Hz IPS-type alternatives we’ve come across. The monitor outputted colours in a rich and natural way. With just a bit of extension beyond sRGB but nothing profound, most content looked such as games under SDR looked largely as the developers intend. An sRGB emulation mode was also included if you want to cut down on even the slight over-extension, too. The brightness was adjustable when using this setting, which isn’t always the case, although other settings such as gamma and colour channels were locked off as usual.

The monitor responded to HDR10 content, but fell short of providing anything approaching a true HDR experience. Whilst we wouldn’t describe things as ‘washed out’ under HDR and we feel BenQ did a decent job with the hardware restrictions they’re working with, the colour gamut fell well short of the DCI-P3 near-term target for HDR. On the contrast side things were lacklustre from an HDR perspective, due to a lack of any local dimming or even effective Dynamic Contrast. Plus luminance levels that were not all that impressive by HDR standards. The monitor impressed more when it came to responsiveness, providing low input lag and a well-tuned 144Hz experience. Whilst there were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, they were on the minor side. A little ‘powdery trailing’ in places and some generally light and unobtrusive overshoot. The monitor provided good flexibility with its AMA setting for those who like to tweak things further. Rather than only having one useable setting and others that were completely impractical. Adaptive-Sync worked well on both our AMD (FreeSync) and Nvidia (‘G-Sync Compatible Mode’) GPUs – and whilst variable overdrive wasn’t included, the monitor didn’t suffer from extreme overshoot at low refresh rates using our preferred setting. The Blur Reduction strobe backlight setting was also quite useable, in place of Adaptive-Sync, for those who like such settings.

Overall we feel this is a well-rounded monitor, for those who like a good mixture of responsiveness and colour quality. And who prefer things to look rich and natural with a touch of extra saturation and vibrancy, rather than things being taken to the extreme in that respect. The screen size and resolution combination won’t be for everyone, although we’d caution people that we’ve seen a lot of exaggerated claims in that respect as well. “Pixels the size of golf balls” or “huge pixels” is not an appropriate description for what are still very small pixels on the screen. As with many things it’s all very subjective. But if you like the sound of this model but prefer a tighter pixel density and can live with a smaller screen. The we’d also recommend considering the 24.5” EX2510.

Positives	Negatives
A rich and natural look to things with good sRGB coverage and a bit beyond, plus strong consistency from the IPS-type panel	Gamma tracking not quite at ‘2.2’ target on our unit, no support for extended colour spaces and very basic HDR support
Decent static contrast for an IPS-type panel, whilst the light and relatively smooth screen surface kept the image free from obvious layering or graininess	Moderate ‘IPS glow’ ate away at detail and atmosphere, especially in dimmer conditions
A respectable 144Hz performance with good overall pixel responsiveness, a good Adaptive-Sync implementation and a decent strobe backlight setting that some will find useful	Minor pixel response time weaknesses in places, including a touch of overshoot using our preferred setting that become stronger (but still not ‘extreme’) at reduced refresh rates
Good ergonomic flexibility, a feature-rich OSD with some useful additions and appropriate pricing in many regions	Distinctive ‘MOBIUZ strip’ on stand won’t be to everyone’s taste, no pivot with included stand. A restrictive resolution and fairly low pixel density

The bottom line; a feature-rich monitor that combines consistent and natural-looking colour output with a respectable 144Hz performance.PC Monitors

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

Buy from Amazon

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.