Blur Busters Forums

Hi! TLDR: 27" vs 24" BenQ for gaming?

I have a great deal on a BenQ 2430T and I am literally SO CLOSE to just ordering it. However I don't want to passup a deal on a 2720z if it is a better choice! (The ACER XB240HA was on my list too, but from what I researched BenQ has better quality and the Acer can have issues more often with bad support, I REALLY thought about buying a 2420G but as I am playing CSGO mainly I don't think I need GSync as it is 100-140 more expensive which I don't think I need)

I don't want to have buyers remorse and wish I bought the 2720Z for $40 more. Saving $ is great but down the road I won't miss $40 if I enjoy this monitor better.

Some people tell me they LOVE 27" for FPS games, CSGO etc, others tell me it is too big and they have trouble focusing. I like the idea of heads being bigger and easier to hit, but with that logic why not just play on the biggest screen possible? There has to be a point where bigger is not better, and I am wondering where that line is because I do not want to cross it!

So anyone here have a 27"? Or prefer 24? I like my monitor 2 feet away or closer (maybe 18" or so IDK) so I am thinking 24" is the way to go! This is a big purchase for me and I don't want to have buyers remorse so I am looking for any opinions that 27" would work great for FPS online games, or that 24" is better.

27" PROS: Bigger screen, easier to see long range enemies and hit headshots
CON: some people say "hard to focus" some don't

24" PROS: better looking than the 27", as big as needed for FPS games as bigger is hard to focus
CONS: Might not be as easy to see heads as 27" sitting 2 feet away.

Many people that use the 27" sit insanely far away...I don't do that. I don't sit 6" away like some people but I am generally 1-2 feet away prob 18"-20 away.

I know this has been discussed a million times, but thank you for the help! I have finally decided that I do NOT need GSync as I play CSGO mainly, and the $100 saved can be used to upgrade my 760gtx GPU in a year or two rather than on a Gsync monitor (from what I read if I can achieve high FPS I don't need GSync) BUT I do not know about 24" vs 27" as there are so many contrasting opinions! I have looked at both in store but without sitting down and using both for a week IDK yet...PLZ HELP!

I'll answer one part at a time.

>The ACER XB240HA was on my list too, but from what I researched BenQ has better quality and the Acer can have issues more often with bad support

Bullshit, Acer make fantastic monitors, even better than benq.

>I REALLY thought about buying a 2420G but as I am playing CSGO mainly I don't think I need GSync as it is 100-140 more expensive which I don't think I need

G-Sync is fantastic and i love using it for CS:GO.

> 27" for FPS games, CSGO etc, others tell me it is too big and they have trouble focusing.

This really doesn't make any sense. Get what ever size screen you want and just adjust it forward or backwards to what ever you desire. it wont make a difference in how you perform in gaming.

> from what I read if I can achieve high FPS I don't need GSync

If you cap your fps and 140fps then you get the full advantage of G-Sync, no lag and no screen tears.

Yes, if you get at least 300FPS in ALL games, then you don't need g-sync.

But no one can get 300FPS in all games. I have yet to see 300FPS in Witcher 3. Or FPS-capped games like Fallout 4.

Though G-Sync is not very useful for CS:GO. If you only play CS:GO and nothing else, it won't help you.

Also, G-Sync costs too much. If you don't have enough disposable income, get a monitor without it.

All monitors you listed are nice. The 2720Z is much more expensive than $40. At least here. If you really can get it for just $40 more, that's a no-brainer. 27" is awesome.

>Yes, if you get at least 300FPS in ALL games, then you don't need g-sync.

A little bonus is that you don't need to run your GPU hot all the time when running with G-Sync, and i know it doesn't bother a lot of people but even at 300fps~ when a player model comes around a corner zig-zagging because of screentears it can be off putting.

In my opinion very high fps not synced is better then gsync in any game. It feels way more instant with aiming. Where gsync really shines is in games were graphical fidelity will be put on a very high setting and you want screen tearing gone with minimal extra latency overhead and as little stuttering as possible. If you don't play those games a lot or don't care about graphics or tearing as much I would recommend not to bother about gsync at all.
But as always some people really despise tearing and I can't speak for those people as I usually am more annoyed by higher latency then tearing. The first time I came into contact with vsync was in cod4 when I was messing around with the settings and suddenly the game felt really bad. When I put vsync off again it suddenly felt so much better again and at that time I had no idea there was this artifact called tearing I think your brain processes a lot of this stuff out and humans become used to a certain standard. Change that standard even a little bit and you won't feel comfortable anymore. I think the people who prefer gsync in fast games were the ones who already hated tearing a lot and really see the benefits it brings like lower latency and less stuttering. But the people who didn't bother as much about tearing anyway are the people that only see the extra latency it gives even though it is only a very small amount of latency.
Btw if you don't like the screen size you can always put your resolution lower and enable gpu scaling in your control panel so you get a smaller window at which you can look. Some players still prefer 4:3 or even 5:4 over 16:9 aspect ratio as that makes you kind of zoom in on the part where you want to focus on. In cs this makes sense since most of the time you are concentrating on a very small target and usually rely on teammates to cover your blind spots. There are situations though where 16:9 aspect ratio helps because of the wider fov and that is when for example you are in a clutch situation or when you have to check a large part of the map on your own for enemies.
If you take dust II as an example when you are moving in from short A as T and you want to check bombsite A its boxes. If an enemy is smart enough to not show himself from ninja for a couple of seconds and wait for its team to spot you from boxes. They could try to peek you from ninja and you would likely not even notice him peeking if you are far enough to the right. With more fov you atleast have a chance to shoot back at him though it is still likely you won't survive the encounter but you do have a higher chance. This is of course solved way better with a teammate aiming at ninja but there are of couse other situations where chaos takes over and you are on your own. I would say the extra focus you get is only worth it if you also have a team that cover each other perfectly and even then there are likely more situations where 4:3 harms you more then it would help you.
There are also players that play 4:3 but stretch the image so it fits a 16:9 ratio. This way models become wider and "easier" to hit I never tried that but there could be some truth in that as well.
Acer not making quality products is simply not correct I also fell for this at first because they used to make really cheap laptops that broke really easily. But this has changed a lot I own an acer xb270hu and the quality on this thing is really good atleast in my opinion. Though it also has a lot to do with price usually the higher priced a product is the higher the quality standard will be so if there are a lot of reviews saying the xb240ha is a bad quality monitor they could be correct but don't only look for the negative critisism also look for the positive. And also take in my mind the people who are dissapointed in something are the ones that speak the loudest the ones that do like the product keep silent as they have nothing to complain about.
Well I hope you can make your choice good luck.