QNIX QX320QHD 32" Monitor has 2560 x 1440 pixels

Looks nice, any reason it isn't 1600p though as opposed to 1440p?

 

16:9 instead of 16:10 dimensions.

If exactly the same of the Benq one, yes ( 23ms, 5.4ms pixel response time + 17ms signal processing ).

But will need wait a test, because electronic should be quite different. ( maybe better, maybe not )

 

Why do people only focus on resolution?

All these monitors are such ****, colour reproduction is terrible and the uniformity of the panel is poor I bet.

I like the dell IPS panels, still got my 30inch one and it beats every one of these monitors by miles. Rather have 60hrz and an actual good picture than a 120hrz+ gimmick.

 

Let say you get what you pay for the price, the panels are in general the same, but the color are not callibrated and checked are they should be. Then ofc, the stand, the cover of the monitor will be of less quality, or even electronic.

You can buy for way cheaper monitors who use the exact same panel of the Dell 30" ( the U3014 who is certainly one, if not the best monitor available yet ).. and you will end with a non calibrated monitor, no RGB mode, no 100% sRGB etc ...

Ofc, there's too the question on what the monitor is aimed ( and possibly for some feature what hardware you get ), some will put color accuracy over all, some will put the 120hz, some will put the input features etc.

 

This has been my experience with Qnix. I'm on my 3rd 2710 now which is the first one that I would say is "ok" -- I'm still thinking about returning it and just using my U2410 again.

 

For a while here I remember people only going on about high resolutions and being complete snobs when it even came to 1920x1080 as opposed to 1920x1200. Wasn't until IPS became mainstream that quality became a concern.

 

To me the entire thing is becoming a matter of preference.

I currently have a Qnix 2710 to my left a BenQ 2420T in the middle and a Samsung 40" above both. I had a monitor to my right but I removed it for desk space.

Anyway, I play a few games quite competitively (CSGO) and I prefer a faster pace gaming monitor that sacrifices on quality to any IPS monitor. I definitely notice a difference playing on my BenQ @ 120hz compared to my U2410, HZ24W or even the Qnix @ 96hz.

But when I'm doing some type of editing work on Photoshop or screwing around and need various windows open I definitely prefer higher resolutions, IPS @ higher resolution is just an added benefit. I plan on replacing my 2420T with the ASUS ROG Swift -- but even then I'm not entirely sure I want a 27" screen as my main (I feel like this is too large to game on).

So yeah, I prefer to have a gaming main and a higher quality high res as a secondary. When I'm doing movie watching I just watch on the TV anyway.

But some people may not play the same games I do or care about gaining every little advantage in them. Perhaps a Qnix @ 96 or even something higher quality @ 60 is fine for them.

It is kind of annoying to see people **** all over TN here all the time though.

 

You mention a Qx2710 review,I've never seen one and I can't find one?

 

I'd say MVA/PVA before IPS.

The quality of picture on a good MVA/PVA is pretty frickin' good

 

Not even an happen thing to me I find the 2ms my moniter has to be not good enough. i would return monitor with that response time.

Color reproduction means crap to me the montior response so bad i see bluring cause response times, it why i refuse to go ips.

I can get the colors and darks to the way I want them on my TN panal monitors i use.

I dont calibrate to industry standards oh how my monitor let alone HDTV is I calibrate them to the way I like it. always have always will.

But Response time priority on all LCD/LED tech first.

 

My EIZO CX240 looks awesame, and it's IPS aswell.

 

WTF are you talking about? You have NO idea what you're even saying...

 

Why do you say that? I had two Qnix 2710's that had all kinds of color/black uniformity issues. The second one I owned was literally light grey on the bottom on an all black screen. The first had a line down the middle, everything on the top was tinted more red then the bottom. As if they almost put two screens together or something.

The third is pretty good. But I had to spend over $50+ shipping + the hassle to get one that was good. And in the end I got a decent screen with a terrible stand and bezel. And I still wouldn't say the image is as good as my U2410 with both calibrated with a Spyder3 and DispCal.

Don't get me wrong -- for the price and if you get lucky it's definitely a nice monitor.

 

You've just been unlucky, my man. 2 Qnix here, one for me and one for my friend, both with pretty much no issues whatsoever, very uniform and both overclock to 110Hz (his goes to 120Hz without artifacts). Both calibrated with an i1DP. I can show you measurements if you like.

So many other members in here have ordered a QX2710 and are satisfied, you're literally the only one I've seen that has had issues with their first (and only for others) unit, and then the second too. Some retail monitors have glaring issues across many / all the samples in a model, like cross-hatching, overshoot, strong green tints, strong glow, low-frequency PWM, input lag, wide gamut (while being unable to properly simulate the sRGB space), locked color controls in wide gamut mode, etc... This is one of the only models out there which really doesn't suffer from most issues that tend to plague other retail monitors.

On the OCN club, the vast vast majority of buyers have no issues whatsoever, and many of those have Spyder4 and D3 (Colormunki Display / i1DP) sensors. Measurements fall in line and the model has little variance relative to other monitors that are of the IPS variety, including the Catleap.

The dude up there states it like they're all ****, which is completely not true.

 

I'm pretty sure Hilbert bought one also, and he was impressed if my memory serves. I'd say Denial has definitely had some bad luck in this area, the monitors are absolutely fantastic for the price. Sure, the bezel/stand could do with some improvement. The screens on the other hand are generally very, very good.

 

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4794995&postcount=10

 

Well then yeah -- if the majority of people buying them are getting good ones then it's probably a great monitor for the price. I had two terrible ones and it just left a bad taste in my mouth.

The third one I have now is good. 1440p @ 96hz is nice. I had to take apart a bit of it to remove the bottom piece as I mount it (plus the VESA mount is non-standard screw size). The image is good though.

 

I'm interested in measurements at 60Hz and 96Hz if you have them. I use HCFR for measurements, it's a nice piece of software that's quite comprehensive, and open-source.