BenQ BL3200PT AMVA+ 32 inch Monitor (16:9, 2560 x 1440, 3000:1, 4 ms GTG, DVI/DP1.2/HDMI/Speakers/2 x USB2.0, 2 x USB3.0) - £349.99 @ Amazon
185°Expired

BenQ BL3200PT AMVA+ 32 inch Monitor (16:9, 2560 x 1440, 3000:1, 4 ms GTG, DVI/DP1.2/HDMI/Speakers/2 x USB2.0, 2 x USB3.0) - £349.99 @ Amazon

£349.99Amazon Deals
30
Found 28th Apr 2017
32 inch Monitor with 2560 x 1440 resolution finally under £350 brand new. I have 2 of these at home already working fine with gaming ( Overwatch, Division, Titanfall2 ) as well as Photoshop work and general use. 32" with 1440p resolution is a perfect match, no scaling required.
2 USB and SD card reader on the right handside also very handy
Community Updates
30 Comments

Phusky

these where at 309 at the box … these where at 309 at the box recentlyhttps://www.pricesearcher.com/shop?product=BenQ+BL3200PT


Just give me the postcode, I'll find it for you.
You're welcome.
Wonder what 1440p looks like at 32", woulda defo been better at 4k.

Either way nice find op.
this 60hz looking for a 100hz yep its 60hz
Edited by: "RedRain" 28th Apr 2017
hamzahuk

Wonder what 1440p looks like at 32", woulda defo been better at 4k. … Wonder what 1440p looks like at 32", woulda defo been better at 4k. Either way nice find op.



I have an AOC 32" and the 1440p is just lovely looking. 4k is extreme overkill at 32", plus your choices for 60 fps gaming are still limited gfx card wise anyway.
I've owned 3 of these monitors and they're lovely, solidly built and very good image quality. The 32" VA panels are a bit of a lottery, though. Some are fine, some have faint vertical striping.

But, woe betide you if they ever develop a fault (particularly an intermittent or non-terminal one). BenQ customer support is poor and even if they do grant a return, BenQ use an outfit called Repairtech to do RMA service and they are terrible. My personal experience is they will repeatedly send out obviously defective replacement monitors in shoddy packaging.

Dealing with returning BL3200PTs has put BenQ firmly on my never-buy-from list.
These are down to £313.49 at box.co.uk until 30/04. Slightly more than previously but still a good price.
jorglenhof

These are down to £313.49 at box.co.uk until 30/04. Slightly more than … These are down to £313.49 at box.co.uk until 30/04. Slightly more than previously but still a good price.



I'm seeing £329?

Just add it to you basket and go to the checkout. Until 30/04 they have an extra 5% off monitors.

techniques

I'm seeing £329?


Apparently Hdmi resolution is only at 1080 due to bandwidth limitations. :-(
Lucky88

Apparently Hdmi resolution is only at 1080 due to bandwidth limitations. … Apparently Hdmi resolution is only at 1080 due to bandwidth limitations. :-(


HDMI 1.3 supports 2560×1600 @60Hz so should be fine as it was released over 10 years ago.
Reviews:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_bl3200pt.htm#intro
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/benq-bl3200pt-qhd-monitor,review-33026-10.html

PPI is the same as for a 24" 1920x1200 which is the sweet spot for me.
TEMPTED.

Edited by: "Agharta" 29th Apr 2017
Agharta

HDMI 1.3 supports 2560×1600 @60Hz so should be fine as it was released … HDMI 1.3 supports 2560×1600 @60Hz so should be fine as it was released over 10 years ago.


he is right, that must be used for video reproduction only, usually a movie. DVI and DP would do the job very well. Anyway, not a proper gaming monitor (irrelevant to the many of us) but colors and clarity must be amazing on this 10bit monitor
Edited by: "bobo53" 29th Apr 2017
bobo53

he is right, that must be used for video reproduction only, usually a … he is right, that must be used for video reproduction only, usually a movie. DVI and DP would do the job very well.


If its HDMI 1.3 then you are incorrect sir.
en.wikipedia.org/wik…DMI
Edited by: "Agharta" 29th Apr 2017
Agharta

HDMI 1.3 supports 2560×1600 @60Hz so should be fine as it was released … HDMI 1.3 supports 2560×1600 @60Hz so should be fine as it was released over 10 years ago.


youtu.be/ifU…Nb8 He rants on about it being no good
Lucky88

https://youtu.be/ifU4ZWWZNb8 He rants on about it being no good


At what point in the video is that mentioned to help people that are interested?

As I said if it's V1.3 it has the bandwidth but if they used an older version then it doesn't.
But if you have a laptop with HDMI 1.3 then you should be able to use a HDMI to DVI dual link cable for video but you obviously won't have digital audio input that way.
Edited by: "Agharta" 29th Apr 2017
Agharta

As I said if it's V1.3 it has the bandwidth but if they used an older … As I said if it's V1.3 it has the bandwidth but if they used an older version then it doesn't.At what point in the video is that mentioned to help people that are interested?


Lol 2:32 onwards
Lucky88

Lol 2:32 onwards


Thanks, with rant being the operative word.
The guy is just quoting generic out of date info about HDMI and I had no confidence he was right so have downloaded the product manual from the manufacturer which states for the HDMI inputs:

"Supports up to 3840 x 2160 @ 30 Hz". That is fine for 2560x1440 @ 60Hz
Manual is here - http://www.benq.co.uk/product/monitor/bl3200pt/downloads/

Never take a random Youtube video as being definitive info.
Edited by: "Agharta" 29th Apr 2017
92 ppi for those who are interested.
If this were 4k it would be 138 ppi which is far from the "extreme overkill" mentioned in other comments.

To put it in perspective, the first iPad (non retina) has a ppi of 132, and most printed documents have a dpi of 300.

Not saying this monitor is bad. far from it. But some users enjoy not seeing individual pixels.
Agharta

If its HDMI 1.3 then you are incorrect sir. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI


it does not matter what it does but the main purpose for that on this type of monitors it is for connecting a player. It is an office/designer monitor and they usually do that. I also got a similar monitor at max 1920x1080 and the hdmi can only do 1080p at a lower chroma, just good enough for a movie player up to a bluray (did cost £500 at the time). If I connect it to the pc, the picture is really bad even at 1080p. Obviously I got your point but I cannot help why and why not they do it this way. It still does not mean that it does not do the 1440p but looks like that Lucky88 found some info and I agree with him in this circumstance. Anyway, incidentally I do not think that does exist a monitor at 1440p where they allow to connect an hdmi for the purpose of being used at 1440p. DVI or DP or usually both. I might be wrong on this but it is interesting why they do not enable hdmi @ 1440p . I also got a more recent very expensive office monitor and there is no hdmi at all., plenty dvi and Dports. There must be a reason why they could not build a proper HDMI. I there was one I am sure it would only be for connecting a player etc...
Hi i have got a GTX 1070 strix asus what monitor would go well with that any ideas thanks
Agharta

Thanks, with rant being the operative word. :)The guy is just quoting … Thanks, with rant being the operative word. :)The guy is just quoting generic out of date info about HDMI and I had no confidence he was right so have downloaded the product manual from the manufacturer which states for the HDMI inputs:"Supports up to 3840 x 2160 @ 30 Hz". That is fine for 2560x1440 @ 60HzManual is here - http://www.benq.co.uk/product/monitor/bl3200pt/downloads/Never take a random Youtube video as being definitive info.



that is related to the 4k monitor the 3201 and they do not mention anything about the other one
bobo53

that is related to the 4k monitor the 3201 and they do not mention … that is related to the 4k monitor the 3201 and they do not mention anything about the other one


I noticed that but the reviews clearly state for this model that it supports 1.4 which has enough bandwidth. So if it doesn't support the native resolution via HDMI it is not to do with bandwidth hence why I don't take the YouTube review at face value.
Original Poster
Agharta

I noticed that but the reviews clearly state for this model that it … I noticed that but the reviews clearly state for this model that it supports 1.4 which has enough bandwidth. So if it doesn't support the native resolution via HDMI it is not to do with bandwidth hence why I don't take the YouTube review at face value.


I agree with you. Linus's review on youtube was wrong, I use this monitor with both hdmi and DP and get the native resolution
hamzahuk

Wonder what 1440p looks like at 32", woulda defo been better at 4k. … Wonder what 1440p looks like at 32", woulda defo been better at 4k. Either way nice find op.



too small for 4k monitor, I have a 27inch at 1440p and to be honest some fonts are too small, i can read them but its just not as comfortable (i have perfect vision).
you see if you increase font size in Windows it doesn't change all fonts as not all browsers/apps/programs support Windows font resizing.
Yes some of them have their own resizing but not always.
For some reason even Valve don't have an option for font size increase in steam, you would think Valve would support higher resolutions.
For that reason I chose to get a 1440p over a 4k as I had seen 4k monitors around the 30" mark.

For gaming 1440p is better too, 4k may be magnificent but you can achieve much higher frame rates at 1440p and run your gfx card without maxing your fans if its a reasonable card.

example on my radeon 480 factory oc
bioshock infinite, 1440p, 70-80 fps, barely a peep (fan speed rarely over 950rpm).
bioshock infinite, 4k, 40-50 fps, sounds like my case if packed with vacuum cleaners (fan speed often over 2000rpm).
Please note i did use VSR on my monitor to achieve 4k but AMD claims that performance is no different than if you were running on a normal 4K monitor. my fps are a little high compared to reviews, 2 reasons, overclocked and the settings aren't all maxed.

same thing goes for the nvidia gtx 1080 you can achieve 60fps at 4k on that card but not without the accompanied noise. at 1440p it can hit 120fps however limiting it to under 100fps you will be able to hear the game.

I would say if this monitor had an area to improve it would be better refresh rate as 60hz is a bit low. 60fps makes me sad. it isn't a gaming monitor so I will let it off.
Syst3mzero

too small for 4k monitor, I have a 27inch at 1440p and to be honest some … too small for 4k monitor, I have a 27inch at 1440p and to be honest some fonts are too small, i can read them but its just not as comfortable (i have perfect vision). you see if you increase font size in Windows it doesn't change all fonts as not all browsers/apps/programs support Windows font resizing. Yes some of them have their own resizing but not always. For some reason even Valve don't have an option for font size increase in steam, you would think Valve would support higher resolutions. For that reason I chose to get a 1440p over a 4k as I had seen 4k monitors around the 30" mark. For gaming 1440p is better too, 4k may be magnificent but you can achieve much higher frame rates at 1440p and run your gfx card without maxing your fans if its a reasonable card. example on my radeon 480 factory oc bioshock infinite, 1440p, 70-80 fps, barely a peep (fan speed rarely over 950rpm). bioshock infinite, 4k, 40-50 fps, sounds like my case if packed with vacuum cleaners (fan speed often over 2000rpm). Please note i did use VSR on my monitor to achieve 4k but AMD claims that performance is no different than if you were running on a normal 4K monitor. my fps are a little high compared to reviews, 2 reasons, overclocked and the settings aren't all maxed. same thing goes for the nvidia gtx 1080 you can achieve 60fps at 4k on that card but not without the accompanied noise. at 1440p it can hit 120fps however limiting it to under 100fps you will be able to hear the game.I would say if this monitor had an area to improve it would be better refresh rate as 60hz is a bit low. 60fps makes me sad. it isn't a gaming monitor so I will let it off.




Sorry to disagree, but I have a Strix 1080 OC and it barely makes a whisper at full pelt.

Yes, 60fps is POSSIBLE at 4k, in the likes of Rocket League, Lego City Undercover + anything that can display that res from yesteryear, but you would have to compromise other visual settings to hit 60fps in the vast majority of AAA titles from the last year or so. I know because I've got this rig plugged into my 65" 4k TV and I'm stuck with 60Hz there so 60fps is a definite target, but man is it big and beautiful.
efem

I agree with you. Linus's review on youtube was wrong, I use this monitor … I agree with you. Linus's review on youtube was wrong, I use this monitor with both hdmi and DP and get the native resolution


Thanks for the clarification.
I was tempted to buy but the quality control with BenQ sounds slightly poor but the deal breaker for me is that Customer Support sounds well below par. I'm used to Dell and they have next day swap out with monitors.
If you don't mind the slight risk this is excellent value.
Edited by: "Agharta" 30th Apr 2017
Syst3mzero

too small for 4k monitor, I have a 27inch at 1440p and to be honest some … too small for 4k monitor, I have a 27inch at 1440p and to be honest some fonts are too small, i can read them but its just not as comfortable (i have perfect vision). you see if you increase font size in Windows it doesn't change all fonts as not all browsers/apps/programs support Windows font resizing. Yes some of them have their own resizing but not always. For some reason even Valve don't have an option for font size increase in steam, you would think Valve would support higher resolutions. For that reason I chose to get a 1440p over a 4k as I had seen 4k monitors around the 30" mark. For gaming 1440p is better too, 4k may be magnificent but you can achieve much higher frame rates at 1440p and run your gfx card without maxing your fans if its a reasonable card. example on my radeon 480 factory oc bioshock infinite, 1440p, 70-80 fps, barely a peep (fan speed rarely over 950rpm). bioshock infinite, 4k, 40-50 fps, sounds like my case if packed with vacuum cleaners (fan speed often over 2000rpm). Please note i did use VSR on my monitor to achieve 4k but AMD claims that performance is no different than if you were running on a normal 4K monitor. my fps are a little high compared to reviews, 2 reasons, overclocked and the settings aren't all maxed. same thing goes for the nvidia gtx 1080 you can achieve 60fps at 4k on that card but not without the accompanied noise. at 1440p it can hit 120fps however limiting it to under 100fps you will be able to hear the game.I would say if this monitor had an area to improve it would be better refresh rate as 60hz is a bit low. 60fps makes me sad. it isn't a gaming monitor so I will let it off.


I got a 1440p 144hz 27" monitor paired next to a 4k 27", honestly cant really see the quality difference unless actually having to focus.

Text unless upscalled on the 4k monitor is mostly a strain to read and even regular navigation/desktop icons causes irritation.

I have a R9 Fury and it just about gets me 60fps on 1440p, the games I play are witcher 3, gta 5 (modded) and watch dogs 2 (unoptimized piece of sh*t). If I now go on to my 4k monitor I struggle like crazy with even getting 40fps with settings tuned down... Only thing is bluray movies look better on the 4k due to the perfect upscalling from 1080p straight to 4k instead of 1080p to 1440p.

For me my sweet spot has to be 27" 1440p, but all our eyes and preferences differ so what ever suites an individual.

I could only assume 32" at 1440p would look the same as 23" at 1080p, which isnt a good or bad thing, just kinda defeats the purpose of a higher resolution.
Edited by: "hamzahuk" 30th Apr 2017
hamzahuk

I could only assume 32" at 1440p would look the same as 23" at 1080p, … I could only assume 32" at 1440p would look the same as 23" at 1080p, which isnt a good or bad thing, just kinda defeats the purpose of a higher resolution.


Well except for the fact that you get 78% more actual real estate for multi-tasking and the screen is dramatically bigger for video playback etc there's no difference!
Original Poster
Agharta

Well except for the fact that you get 78% more actual real estate for … Well except for the fact that you get 78% more actual real estate for multi-tasking and the screen is dramatically bigger for video playback etc there's no difference!



yeah I see no difference between 3x24" ( 72" ) and 5760*1080 and 3x32" ( 96" ) 7680*1440 resolution
I have this monitor and use it for gaming - it's the perfect size/res combination in my opinion.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text