BenQ VW2420H Design and Interface

The BenQ VW2420H is a very simple design, but one without much adjustment available either. Your inputs are limited to HDMI, DVI, and D-Sub, with an audio input for the integrated speakers. There is no USB port for a hub or DisplayPort here. It does feature a tilt adjust with the stand, but there is no height adjustment or swivel, and there are no VESA mounting holes to allow for a stand with more adjustment range either.

Compared to a similarly non-adjustable TN panel that was just in, the BenQ was much easier to use since the edges of the panel would not wash out and discolor when looking at it from normal desktop distances. The lack of any adjustments other than tilt is something to pay attention to if you need those for your workspace. The audio input is potentially useful if you're not passing audio over HDMI and wish to use the integrated speakers, but the sound from the speakers is weak and tinny—just what you'd expect from small speakers in a monitor—but it will get the job done in a pinch. Adding a headphone output to the display would have been nice to make better use of the audio input/HDMI support.

BenQ VW2420H
Video Inputs D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI
Panel Type A-MVA
Pixel Pitch 0.276 mm
Colors 16.7 million
Brightness 250 nits
Contrast Ratio 3,000:1
Response Time 25ms, 8ms (GtG)
Viewable Size 24"
Resolution 1920x1080
Viewing Angle 178 horizontal/178 vertical
Backlight LED Edge-lit
Power Consumption (operation) 40W
Power Consumption (standby) < 1W
Screen Treatment  
Height-Adjustable No
Tilt -5 - 15 degrees
Pivot No
Swivel No
VESA Wall Mounting No
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 22.85" x 17.08" x 7.42"
Weight 8.6 lbs.
Additional Features Headphone Jack
Limited Warranty USA 1 Year
Accessories D-Sub, HDMI Cables
Price $330.00

This time BenQ has moved the controls for the OSD from the side of the monitor to the bottom of the display, which I found to be easier to work with. The change in orientation felt more natural for navigating the OSD, though I’m certain plenty of people had no issue using the previous setup either. The main issue is having both tabs horizontally across the top, and then a vertical menu selection. Instead of moving the buttons around, either designing the menus to be all vertically or horizontally oriented would make the UI easier to use.

The menu system has all the options that you likely need to set up the display. I used the User color mode since it allows for a custom color control. If you are setting up your display and plan on calibrating it, you should always use this control to calibrate the 100% white point to be as close to your target (typically D65) as possible. That gives the hardware LUTs the maximum flexibility to calibrate the display correctly.

Viewing Angles and Color Quality
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • JediJeb - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    The only thing worse is when the make the screen shiny too. It is why I haven't bought a new notebook as most lower priced ones now days have the reflective glossy screens that are useless unless you are using them in the dark.
  • danchen - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    Will the 16:10 layout ever make a comeback ?
    Seems only Dell & apply are still making them.
    and yeah, i agree that the shiny thick bezels are unwelcome. I am looking for 3 monitors to do an eyefinity setup, and despite any good reviews, the bezel alone will turn me away.
  • dingetje - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    benq can shove its 16:9 panel where the sun don't shine.
    16:9 is useful for movie watching and not much else.
  • kesbar - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    ^^^^ This.
    Stop encouraging the 16:9 market.
  • BansheeX - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    Clinging to some tiny deviance like 16:10 is asinine. We don't want a recorded desktop to be chopped off vertically or downsampled when played back on a television or projector. We need uniformity with regards to aspect. Maybe someday they will release a 3840x2160 monitor and you resolution junkies will shut the heck up about aspects.
  • TegiriNenashi - Monday, December 12, 2011 - link

    16:10 should have been HDTV standard to begin with. (I personally find ratio 16:11 even more pleasing). It is silly living in 21st century and being forced to watch content in aspect ratio one hates (yes, I'm speaking of ridiculous short letterbox 2.41:1) .
  • psychobriggsy - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    Letterbox 2.41:1 really requires a 100" display or more. The idea is to totally immerse the viewer even if the edges aren't where the action is happening.

    I think that until such large TVs are mainstream DVDs and BluRays should just stick to 16:9 formats that fill the entirety of the TV screen.
  • TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    I have 100" projector screen in 4:3 ratio for almost a decade. Its ginormous (for a small room). 100" letterbox image is much less spectacular, as you would could clearly feel the lack of height. It's all about virtual reality, filling out the full field of view -- IMAX (4:3) pushing the viewing excellence. Again those 1950 ideas of "impressive" visual are out of touch with today's reality.
  • psychobriggsy - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    I treat it as being a 1680x1050 monitor but with 240 more pixels on the edge, and 30 on the bottom, rather than being a cut down 1920x1200.

    What I want is a 24" 2560x1440 monitor. And in a couple of years why not a high DPI 3840x2160!
  • TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - link

    Do you know that given two displays with the same diagonal, the narrower one has less area? That is 16:10 being 6% smaller than 4:3, and 16:9 being even smaller: 7% less than 16:10. That is why manufacturers are so in love with "True HD" -- at consumers expense.

    Nevertheless 4K displays (to appear next year) are welcome development in this stagnated field. The price for 30" 2500x1600 display has been flat for 5 years -- the situation unheard of in electronics.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now