Review: BenQ PD2730S 5K Designer Monitor – A Studio Display Alternative That Doesn't Break the Bank

[Bregalad]

I don’t see why you’d need more for SDR. In an office environment, 250 nits is already plenty bright. Ergonomic brightness recommendations are usually below 200 nits (example).

I can't imagine why 600 nits would be necessary on a large display that's only ever going to be used in a single indoor location.

You'd think an older person would need more brightness than a younger one, but I'm in my late 50s and still only have my iMac brightness at 3 (out of 16) in a room with a large south facing window.

 

[x86dude]

I appreciate all 5k monitor reviews these days.

 

[Riot Nrrrd]

@MacRumors 'bot - excellent, thank you for that. Moar monitor reviews plz!

 

[lostPod]

Does it only come matte? Does anyone make glossy anymore? Sigh, how i miss it.

 

[rafark]

"Doesn't break the bank" $1,199.

At that point I’d rather spend 300 bucks more for the branded option (Apple)

 

[rafark]

I like BenQ monitors (owner of a PD3220) and think this is a great option. Let's keep going with a 6K 32" screen!

What about a 6k or 7K 27? When are we getting a pixel density bump? 220 is sharp but if I get to close to the screen I can still see pixels.

 

[drrich2]

I'm glad the BenQ name is strong, because this offering has the potential to be the neglected middle child between the modestly more expensive but somewhat more feature-laden ASD and the substantially less expensive Asus 5K 27" display.

But the BenQ is much better then the ASUS one. At least that's what I gather, as a lot of people were hating on that ASUS display last time, while they are much more positive about this BenQ one (though I agree with you on the price point - I would take $200 off).

How so? Because it has a Thunderbolt connection to the display and a Thunderbolt out port? That is nice, but I wonder how many users will take advantage of it and what added cost this is worth to them? Reviews of the ASUS I've seen have been strongly positive. Some people seem prone to hate on plastic bodied monitors for whatever reasons.

But why are these 5K monitors only 27"? I have a 32" 4K monitor that I love, I have too many things in my workflow that I wouldn't want to downgrade in size.

At 32" 6K is the 'retina' resolution, and it's rumored the coming ASUS 32" 6K offering will be around $1,200. That might be a game changer for some.

Richard.

 

[timmyh]

I'm glad the BenQ name is strong, because this offering has the potential to be the neglected middle child between the modestly more expensive but somewhat more feature-laden ASD and the substantially less expensive Asus 5K 27" display.


How so? Because it has a Thunderbolt connection to the display and a Thunderbolt out port? That is nice, but I wonder how many users will take advantage of it and what added cost this is worth to them? Reviews of the ASUS I've seen have been strongly positive. Some people seem prone to hate on plastic bodied monitors for whatever reasons.


At 32" 6K is the 'retina' resolution, and it's rumored the coming ASUS 32" 6K offering will be around $1,200. That might be a game changer for some.

Richard.

 

[splifingate]

That’s only $880 in 2015 dollars.

And $31 in 1940 dollars!

 

[Realityck]

And $31 in 1940 dollars!

The cost of today’s technology would cost significantly more when technology is new. You realize how costly a monitor like that if made from scratch in 1940? Yeah we like to play this past dollars value, but it was very different tech now vs then. Trying to show them money comparisons at some point are weird.

 

[svish]

Seems like a good display but price is on the higher side. Better to go for Apple display at slightly higher prices when it is on sale.

 

[patent10021]

That’s only $880 in 2015 dollars.

And $31 in 1940 dollars!

and $1.00 in 1913.


This is the monitor I've been waiting for. Unfortunately the pricing is redonkulous. What are these guys smoking.

 

[theorist9]

Let's get down to brass tacks: image quality. The IPS panel delivers outstanding clarity. Text on the panel appears razor-sharp, and images pop with vivid detail. With 5120x2880 resolution, you're getting the same pixel density as Apple's Studio Display. And just like the Apple Studio Display, you get 218 pixels per inch, ensuring that sweet spot for 5K Retina.

When someone says text on a matte display is "razor-sharp", that makes the review seem more like a puff piece than a serious critical review.

All matte displays compromise text sharpness to some degree, and different matte coatings affect sharpness differently. Further, the higher the pixel density, the more apparent the reduction in sharpness from a diffusive layer is. So this difference becomes easily noticeable on Retina montors. If you do a side-by-side comparison of text on the glossy and matte ASD's, the difference in text sharpness is readily apparent—at least to those who care enough about text sharpness to want a 5k display in the first place.

In MR's recent review of the ASUS, where they claimed its PQ was just as good as the ASD's, they never said whether they were comparing it with the matte or glossy ASD. It's like saying "we tested sports car X and found its 0-60 time equalled that of the Porsche 911", without saying which specific model of 911 you're using for comparison.

Yeah, in a gaming montitor this wouldn't be as critical, but the whole point of spending the extra money for a 5k is to get that Retina-caliber sharpness.

 

[Joshuaorange]

That feels a bit harsh to me

I've had many matte finish and AG coating displays that I've loved, including the ACD 30"

I don’t have a problem with matte screens. But I DO have a problem with anything that isn’t covered end to end. The 30” ACD is a terrible looking monitor by today’s standards.

 

[Alex.ne]

There are 32" 5k one coming soon

If I hadn't moved on to a much larger TV based setup, I'd be VERY excited about those

For my aging eyes, 32" with a 5k panel offers "perfect 2x Retina scaling" that makes on screen elements a very comfortable size for me.

You meant "32 6k" probably? 5k on this size does make no sense.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You meant "32 6k" probably? 5k on this size does make no sense.

Nope, I mean 5k @ 32" and it makes perfect sense for some users

Acer 5k/32"/144hz/IPS

My last sentence about "aging eyes" is why

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don’t have a problem with matte screens. But I DO have a problem with anything that isn’t covered end to end. The 30” ACD is a terrible looking monitor by today’s standards.

?
Of course it is, by today's standards ... it's 30" and only 2560 x 1600 / 60hz / CFL backlight
Just .. old at this point

The coating on it was great though, and the overall design and package superb

 

[fathergll]

The problems is that you can't meaningfully discuss sharpness without saying if the display is glossy or matte. I had to look it up on BenQ's website: This display is matte.

The first spec the review shows is that it's a matte display.

• Panel Type: 27-inch IPS with Nano Matte coating

but the whole point of spending the extra money for a 5k is to get that Retina-caliber sharpness. Thus it seems a significant omission not to talk about an attribute (glossy vs. matte) that directly impacts sharpenss. It makes the review seem unserious.

It's probably something that should be covered a bit more though it's a well known topic at this point and they said multiple times in the full review that this is a matte display. Author might have assumed someone understands glossy vs matte in a broad sense. TLDR; Glossy displays have reflections, matte displays have diffusion layer which which will impact some sharpness. They just inherently look different both with pros and cons.


Apple has matte display options for almost their entire lineup of retina devices(Studio Display, Pro Display XDR, Macbooks, iPads. iMacs...etc) and it costs you more for it.

 

[jakey rolling]

The problems is that you can't meaningfully discuss sharpness without saying if the display is glossy or matte. I had to look it up on BenQ's website: This display is matte.

As a bonus, if you're talking "sharpness" and "matte" vs "glossy", it makes sense to also factor cost into that conversation. Because matte is a thing on the ASD and it will cost you extra, while it is included on most other monitors.

 

[theorist9]

The first spec the review shows is that it's a matte display.

• Panel Type: 27-inch IPS with Nano Matte coating

It's probably something that should be covered a bit more though it's a well known topic at this point and they said multiple times in the full review that this is a matte display. Author might have assumed someone understands glossy vs matte in a broad sense. TLDR; Glossy displays have reflections, matte displays have diffusion layer which which will impact some sharpness. They just inherently look different both with pros and cons.


Apple has matte display options for almost their entire lineup of retina devices(Studio Display, Pro Display XDR, Macbooks, iPads. iMacs...etc) and it costs you more for it.

Thanks for the correction; I'll update my post correspondingly.

But I maintain that when an reviewer describes a matte display as "razor-sharp", it indicates that review is more a puff piece than a serious review.

This is important because not a single one of the new batch of 5k displays is available in glossy, and thus none represents a suitable alternative to the ASD for those doing text-heavy work and need that razor sharpness to minimize eye strain.

 

[theorist9]

As a bonus, if you're talking "sharpness" and "matte" vs "glossy", it makes sense to also factor cost into that conversation. Because matte is a thing on the ASD and it will cost you extra, while it is included on most other monitors.

Certainly, for those who want a matte display, and would othewise get the nano-textured ASD, this new crop of matte 5k displays is a boon. But not so much for those of us who strongly perfer a glossy display for our text-heavy work.

It is curious that none of these new 5k displays come in glossy. Why is that? Is it because none of the manufacturers have access to the quality of glossy coating Apple uses (which, for a glossy coating, is quite good at reducing reflections)? I recall a complaint about the glossy LG 5k Ultrafine display, which uses the same panel as that on the Intel Retina iMac, is that it was annoying reflective.

Or is it because glossy displays need to use glass instead of plastic, which makes production more expensive?

 

[jakey rolling]

Certainly, for those who want a matte display, and would othewise get the nano-textured ASD, this new crop of matte 5k displays is a boon. But not so much for those of us who strongly perfer a glossy display for our text-heavy work.

Taste is taste. You prefer what Apple dishes out, and that is fine. The alternative monitors are not for you.

Having said that, I also do some pretty text-heavy work. A 5k display would provide zero benefit to me (the ASD itself would just burn a hole in my wallet with zero real benefit to me over most cheaper monitors), unless it were in the form of something like the 40" Dell 5k ultrawide that another user was mentioning. In my case, though, I use Windows for that work rather than MacOS, so I get the benefit of sharp text without having to pay a premium for a 5k.

It is curious that none of these new 5k displays come in glossy. Why is that? Is it because none of the manufacturers have access to the quality of glossy coating Apple uses (which, for a glossy coating, is quite good at reducing reflections)?

Wait - are you actually assuming that the companies that make the display technology for Apple's displays wouldn't themselves have access to that display technology? Does that not sound just a little silly to you?

Or is it because glossy displays need to use glass instead of plastic, which makes production more expensive?

Probably that, coupled with the fact that you and others like you who prefer glossy displays is a very small minority of consumers. Hence the reason why Apple can charge a premium for a matte display.

 

[theorist9]

Wait - are you actually assuming that the companies that make the display technology for Apple's displays wouldn't themselves have access to that display technology? Does that not sound just a little silly to you?

Wait - are you actually conflating a question (which is what I asked) with an assumption? Does that not sound just a little silly to you?

And is your thinking really so limited that you've not considered the possibility that Apple may have codeveloped their coating tech with another company, and thus have a contractual agreement to restrict its distribution? Or that Apple may have patented it?

Even worse, you don't seem to understand that the company that makes the panel may be different from the company that makes the coating. Thus just because a company makes one aspect of the tech doesn't mean it makes another. That certainly seems to be the case with LG, since clearly the coating they used on their expensive Ultrafine displays was inferior to what Apple used.

Or do I need to explain that again, but using smaller sentences?

You reap what you sow. I.e., you entirely deserved that response. Next time you reply to me, maybe think about dropping the snark, eh?

Having said that, I also do some pretty text-heavy work. A 5k display would provide zero benefit to me

It possible your vision isn't good enough to see the difference. That's the case for many people. But for those of us who do have very sharp close vision, the difference is quite apparent.

....you and others like you who prefer glossy displays is a very small minority of consumers. Hence the reason why Apple can charge a premium for a matte display.

You don't know that it's a "very small minority", particularly among among Apple consumers (and this is an Apple forum). The display on the 5k Retina iMac, which was available only in glossy for most of its production life (the 2020 model was offered in a matte version), was consistently praised by Apple consumers.

And it's simply not logical to say premium price => high demand. Often the more expensive version is a lower-volume specialty item. Think it through: The only way to know actual preference would be to know what percentage of consumers would purchase each version if the pricing were identical.

 

[fathergll]

This is important because not a single one of the new batch of 5k displays is available in glossy, and thus none represents a suitable alternative to the ASD for those doing text-heavy work and need that razor sharpness to minimize eye strain.

It's a matte display so it's going to offer similar behavior to other Apple matte displays meaning there is an advantage in many lighting conditions and text can appear sharper and not sharper in other conditions. If you want glossy then this is not a replacement for a glossy Apple display obviously since it's matte, but this isn't a hidden attribute as it's the main spec of the monitor.

 

[theorist9]

[mattte] isn't a hidden attribute as it's the main spec of the monitor.

In MR reviews of displays that is sometimes the case and sometimes not. It was certainly not mentioned at all in their recent (Feb 2025) review of the ASUS ProArt 5k (I searched the entire transcript of their full video review). Here's what MR wrote:

"the appeal is not the looks of the body or the materials used but how your max content looks on the actual display itself and with that it's pretty much right up there with Apple Studio display in terms of that quality ...if functionality is your main priority which I'm definitely hammering home here it should be for you you'll absolutely be happy with this monitor ...the main reason why I recommend this display because I am so used to a studio display or Pro display or just any display from Apple and I'm just quite frankly spoiled at how good they are for my daily use and nothing has really matched that until now."

Yet none of this is true if you're buying a 5k for text sharpness (which many are), and you have good vision, since the ASUS display is matte and thus can't match the glossy Apple Retina displays in that key attribute.

It's a matte display so it's going to offer similar behavior to other Apple matte displays meaning there is an advantage in many lighting conditions and text can appear sharper and not sharper in other conditions.

I work in a very brightly-lit room, with a combination of interior lights and ample natural light, and I get no reflections on my glossy iMac. So if you're using your external display indoors (as woud most typically be the case), you'd need to have unusually challenging lighting conditions for text to look better with a matte coating.