AOC AG271QG

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a small tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to compare the AG271QG’s latency to a range of screens where the latency is known. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using the method, we measured 3.40ms (just over 1/2 a frame @165Hz) of input lag. This value is influenced both the element of input lag you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and that which you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates that the monitor has an extremely low signal delay which shouldn’t bother even sensitive users. We don’t have the necessary equipment to accurately measure input lag with G-SYNC active, but subjectively speaking the input lag felt very low indeed with G-SYNC running.

A note on overclocking

As covered in the OSD video earlier, there is an ‘OverClock’ feature in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD The panel used is a native 144Hz panel, but you can get the monitor to ‘overclock’ its refresh rate to 165Hz. We noticed no negative consequences in doing so with our unit, which is why we used this refresh rate for most of our testing. Most units and systems should support this properly, but if not be mindful that the DisplayPort cable you’re using could potentially cause issues here. The DP cable length and quality can have an impact on this sort of capability. DP is a digital signal and there is no such thing as ‘revisions’ of a cable (DP 1.1, DP 1.2 etc.), but even so it is a somewhat sensitive signal at elevated bandwidths. This means a long cable or ‘poor quality’ cable can cause dropouts where bandwidth requirements are high (i.e. 2560 x 1440 @ 165Hz). We used both the DP cable included in the box and a ‘Cable Matters’ 6ft cable which we had to hand and had no issues with this feature.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our responsiveness article the key factors surrounding the responsiveness of a monitor are explored. Chief amongst these is the notion of perceived blur, contributed to in part by pixel responsiveness and also (often in larger part) by eye movement as you track motion on the screen. A method of photography that uses a moving camera, called pursuit photography, is also explored here. This allows one to capture and compare the motion performance on monitors in a way which reflects not just the pixel behaviour of the screen but also the influence of eye (camera) movement.

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. The test was set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second – this is a good practical speed for taking such photographs. Both the middle row (medium cyan background) and top row (dark cyan background) were tested to highlight some differences in pixel responsiveness depending on the shade depth involved in the transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz, 100Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz. It was also tested with ULMB active at 85Hz, 100Hz and 120Hz. All ‘Overdrive’ settings on the monitor were tested (‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Light’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’), but only at 165Hz. This was because these settings had a similar effect on pixel responsiveness (and hence trailing in these images) regardless of refresh rate, so it was unnecessary to waste time photographing all refresh rates with every ‘Overdrive’ setting. Dell S2716DG reference shots are also shown in the final column, acting as a reference with very snappy pixel responses. Note that any interlacing on these images is moiré from the camera and not caused by the monitor itself.

At 60Hz, there is significant blur caused by eye movement which, as you might expect, is not influenced by the background colour. This makes the UFO appear soft and broad. Things are very close to the reference (Dell S2716DG) with just a tiny hint of trailing that’s barely visible either by eye or in the photo. At 100Hz the object itself becomes significantly narrower and more focused, signifying an appreciable decrease in the level of perceived blur. There is a little bit of overshoot (inverse ghosting) introduced as well, a dark shadow-like trail perhaps most noticeable on the dark background. At 144Hz the main image becomes clearer and narrower again which reflects a further reduction in perceived blur. The slight overshoot is similar to 100Hz for the medium background but manifests itself differently for the dark background. It is actually a lot weaker and mixed with a touch of conventional trailing.

At 165Hz we get an appreciation of the effect of the ‘Overdrive’ setting. This is selectable at all refresh rates (with ULMB disabled) but as mentioned previously follows a similar pattern regardless and hence was only specifically analysed here at 165Hz. The actual main object looks similar to 144Hz with just a touch more focus in the image. The difference is subtle, as you might expect given that the refresh rate is only boosted by 21Hz. With ‘Overdrive’ set to ‘Off’ there is significant trailing behind the image. With the ‘Weak’ setting this is reduced and with ‘Light’ reduced further. Using the ‘Medium’ setting reduced this so it was very faint, at least with the medium background. There was a bit more trailing visible on the dark background and again this was largely conventional trailing rather than overshoot. It seems that the pixel responses for the transitions featured here actually slow down a bit at 144Hz and just a touch more at 165Hz, compared to 100Hz. Although not featured here, 120Hz is similar to 144Hz in this respect. Going back to our analysis at 165Hz we’ll just briefly mention the ‘Strong’ setting. The image here speaks for itself really, there is obvious bright overshoot trailing behind the object – this is there at all refresh rates and for various transitions not shown here. Making this setting essentially useless, as is almost invariably the case for the strongest overdrive setting on a monitor.

With ULMB active perceived blur is massively reduced. You can see the details on the objects are already rather distinct at 85Hz, becoming even more distinct as refresh rate is increased. The object is a clear and distinct ‘thing’ now. There is considerable overshoot behind this, however, which is fragmented due to the fact the monitor is ‘strobing’. This overshoot is stronger than on the S2716DG, especially at 100Hz and 120Hz where there is quite an obvious purple initial ‘trail’. This is because a very strong level of pixel overdrive is required to boost the pixel transition speed sufficiently, in most cases, for optimal performance under ULMB.

Going back to our analysis with ULMB disabled, it is quite clear that ‘Medium’ is the optimal ‘Overdrive’ setting on this monitor. The results are by no means perfect but are still quite respectable, especially given the panel type. The results here largely reflect what we observed on the ViewSonic XG2703-GS using its optimal ‘Advanced’ response time setting. Although we didn’t specifically capture pursuit photographs with the dark cyan background, we certainly observed performance there and analysed such transitions more broadly. As with the AOC, such pixel transitions were somewhat slower than for transitions between predominantly lighter shades. The ViewSonic was a touch faster for some of these dark transitions than the AOC, but not alarmingly so. As we explore, this monitor certainly got plenty of benefit from the high refresh rates that it supports.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On BF1, where the frame rate kept pace with the 165Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided an excellent ‘connected feel’ with the game world. The in-game character reacted very swiftly to user input and the movements within the game world were fluid and flowing. Perceived blur was decreased massively compared to at lower refresh rates (or frame rates), a stark comparison with 60Hz or 60fps in particular. The monitor delivers 2.75 times as much information every second, hugely reducing the time that the eye spends moving and reducing perceived blur in games like this just as demonstrated in TestUFO earlier. This made tracking and engaging enemies on this game considerably easier. Although we tested primarily at 165Hz, we did spend some time testing at other refresh rates as well just to get a feel (and look in) at how the monitor behaved. Jumping up from 60Hz to 100Hz made a huge difference to us in the fluid feel and look to the game, with a slight bump up at 120Hz and then another step up at 144Hz. 165Hz again provided an advantage over 144Hz on this monitor, albeit a fairly slender one. Regardless of refresh rate, there were no interlace pattern artifacts (pixel inversion issues) present when gaming.

Overall the monitor made good use of the 165Hz refresh rate as many pixel responses were snappy enough to keep obvious trailing at bay. Many transitions were completed without any obvious trailing or noticeable overshoot, although there were a few weaknesses where dark shades were involved. On darker maps or shaded areas such as dense forests or dark buildings cast against a brighter sky, you could see some of these transitions come into play. There was a light ‘mist’ rather than any obvious bold trailing, like what was demonstrated with TestUFO earlier. Again, this was slightly more pronounced than on the ViewSonic XG2703-GS– but only slightly. The result was a level of perceived blur that was a bit higher than fast 144Hz models like the Dell S2716DG, even when considering the 144Hz vs. 165Hz aspect with a matching frame rate. Most objects on the game are ‘detailed’ by a combination of dark elements (cracks, crevices, shadows, marks etc.), so you do get a bit of extra perceived blur compared to fast high refresh rate TN models. This is most noticeable when moving in a fast vehicle, for example in an aircraft– the fine details are not quite as sharply focused as on the S2716DG. On the flip side the AOC was free from obvious overshoot, unlike the S2716DG. And we would reiterate again that the experience blew lower refresh rate models (particularly 60Hz) out of the water, regardless of how amazing their pixel responsiveness might be.

We don’t have much to add from our testing on Dirt Rally, but it is interesting to explore what the high refresh rate brings to other genres of game such as this. By leveraging high frame rates, the ‘connected feel’ was again excellent. User input was translated to action (i.e. movement of the vehicle) at a level that no lower refresh rate LCD can match, regardless of input lag. The very low input lag of the AOC certainly played its part to round off this feeling, but the refresh rate itself and frame rate of the content is crucially important as well. The elevated frame rates ‘supported’ by the monitor greatly reduced perceived blur when racing around the tracks. This certainly didn’t miraculously improve our performance, but it gets details within the environment, other cars and the road looking clearer during movement. A nice bonus. Again, the perceived blur was slightly higher than on the Dell S2716DG, even with its lower 144Hz @ 144fps. But worlds away (in a good way) from 60Hz LCDs, regardless of panel type. As on Battlefield 1 there was no obvious overshoot to speak of.

We also tested Blu-rays from a responsiveness perspective, with the monitor running them correctly without any issues related to pixel responsiveness. The fluidity of action is greatly restricted by the frame rate of such content (~24fps). Ideally the refresh rate would be set to match this – and you can set the monitor to 24Hz (or 23Hz, which could work for some content) which works to minimise judder. Judder is also reduced by ensuring that the frames can divide evenly into the refresh rate, giving refresh rates such as 120Hz and 144Hz an advantage over 165Hz for 24fps film content.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology developed by Nvidia, which can be used on specific monitors (including the AOC AG271QG) when connected to a compatible Nvidia GPU. In our article on the technology, we look at what G-SYNC does and how that benefits the user. We won’t be repeating this in depth and would instead urge you to read that article, but we will provide a basic summary here. G-SYNC compatible displays such as the AOC have a proprietary ‘G-SYNC board’ in them which replaces their usual scale and some of the assistive electronics. G-SYNC compatible GPUs are then able to communicate with the monitor and the monitor can vary its refresh rate dynamically to match, where possible, the frame rate of the content being outputted by the GPU. In doing so, refresh rate and frame rate mismatches are avoided, eliminating the stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off) that would usually occur. Latency is also reduced compared to running with VSync enabled, although as mentioned earlier we don’t have the means to accurately measure this difference.

This monitor supports G-SYNC via DP 1.2a (DisplayPort), provided that it is connected to a compatible Nvidia GPU. Upon connecting the monitor everything should be good to go as far as G-SYNC is concerned (if not – try connecting it up again). To check everything is configured properly, open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Set Up G-SYNC’. Ensure that the checkbox for ‘Enable G-SYNC’ is checked, then select your preferred operating mode. As the image below shows, this technology works in both ‘Full Screen’ and ‘Window’ modes, provided the correct option is selected for this. If for some reason you can’t find this G-SYNC section in your Nvidia Control Panel, try plugging the monitor into a different DP output on the GPU, if possible. If this does not improve the situation, we’d advise reinstalling the GPU driver or upgrading to the latest driver.

Enable G-SYNC

Next, you should navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’, where you will see a few settings of interest. The first is ‘Monitor Technology’, which should be set to ‘G-SYNC’ as shown below.

Set Monitor Technology to G-SYNC

The second setting of interest here is VSync. You can select one of the following; ‘On’, ‘Use the 3D application setting’, ‘Off’ or ‘Fast’ (GPU dependent). If you select ‘On’, then VSync will enable once the frame rate exceeds the upper limit (ceiling) of G-SYNC operation which is 165Hz/165fps on this particular monitor. If you select ‘Off’, the frame rate is free to go as high as it can, with G-SYNC and VSync both disabled above 165fps. The monitor will stay at 165Hz and frame rate will rise above this, causing tearing and juddering. It is general good practice to select ‘On’ or ‘Off’ rather than ‘Use the 3D application setting’ as some in-game VSync implementations could potentially interfere with the smooth operation of G-SYNC. In practice it’s likely to work just fine if enforced in-game instead, however.

There is also another option which appears on certain newer GPUs, such as the GTX 1070 used in our test system. This enables a technology called ‘Fast Sync’, which only applies above the refresh rate and frame rate ceiling (>165Hz/165fps). G-SYNC operates as normal below that ceiling, but a special version of VSync (‘Fast Sync’) is active above that. ‘Fast Sync’ is specifically designed to work at higher frame rates, ones which comfortably exceed the refresh rate ceiling of the monitor. The technique is supposed to combine the minimal latency of ‘VSync off’ without inducing the sort of tearing usually associated with the frame rate and refresh rate mismatches. As it’s a GPU feature rather than a monitor feature, it isn’t something we will be exploring in detail. We’d advise referring to this section of a video by Tom Petersen if you’re interested in the technology and how it works alongside G-SYNC.

Set VSync according to preferences

Regardless of which VSync setting you select, the monitor behaves in exactly the same way where the frame rate dips below the floor of operation (i.e. 30Hz/30fps, as is standard on G-SYNC monitors). The monitor will try to set the refresh rate to a multiple of the frame rate, rather than simply staying at 30Hz. So if the frame rate dipped to 18fps, the monitor might set its refresh rate to 36fps. Due to the even divisions of the frames into the refresh rate, only complete frames are drawn and hence stuttering and tearing is kept at bay. As we explore, though, low frame rates remain low frame rates regardless of G-SYNC and it isn’t a pleasant experience even if it is free from the usual tearing or stuttering. Furthermore, G-SYNC can’t correct for other sources of stuttering such as insufficient RAM, network latency or hard drive issues etc. This monitor doesn’t have a power LED that changes colour to tell you G-SYNC is in operation, but should say ‘G-SYNC’ at the bottom of the OSD menu after the resolution if this option is active in the graphics driver and ready to go.

G-SYNC – the experience

We have extensively discussed the G-SYNC experience in many of our monitor reviews in the past and are pleased to confirm that it worked exactly as intended on the AOC AG271QG. BF1 provides a good range of graphics options and scenarios which allow a huge range of frame rates to be tested. On our GTX 1070 the game rarely stayed at a frame rate that matched the refresh rate (especially with the monitor set to 165Hz, which would demand 165fps). Even if the frame rate were to drop just a bit below this, with G-SYNC disabled you get obvious stuttering (VSync on) or obvious tearing and juddering (VSync off). We say ‘obvious’, but we should clarify that sensitivity to this does vary and it is not as noticeable at high frame rates (triple digits) vs. relatively low frame rates. But these things are certainly there and we found them quite bothersome. With G-SYNC enabled these issues were eliminated, giving a much smoother and more ‘flowing’ experience. As the frame rate drops, perceived blur increases and the connected feel decreases – even with G-SYNC. We certainly preferred frame rates to be as high as possible, but certainly felt a nice level of playability at frame rates dipping to around 100fps and a bit below. Certainly more enjoyable than with G-SYNC disabled. As these sorts of frame rates there was a little bit of overshoot for some of the darker transitions, similar to what was shown in the UFO Motion test for ghosting in the previous section. This was not eye-catching and still mild overshoot, however.

By increasing graphics settings or perhaps finding more graphically taxing situations in the game, there were times when the frame rate fell further. Sometimes to 80fps or lower. With this being under half of the maximum refresh rate, the level of perceived blur increased and ‘connected feel’ suffered significantly. But with G-SYNC, the experience was at least free from jarring tearing and stuttering – which, at these sorts of frame rates, becomes quite obvious normally. By increasing graphics settings further, and in particular increasing the ‘resolution scale’ setting, further reductions in frame rate were realised. As the frame rate dipped further, the level of perceived blur and lack of connected feel became quite troubling. Even so, the lack of disruptive tearing or stuttering was nice. We also managed to find some scenes, with increased resolution scale, where frame rate would dip below the 30fps (30Hz floor) minimum supported by G-SYNC on a hardware level. As intended, the refresh rate instead stuck to multiples of the frame rate here. The transition was quite seamless and it kept stuttering and tearing from refresh rate and frame rate mismatches at bay. But again, the experience was far from pleasant due to the low frame rate alone.

ULMB – the technology and activating it

ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) is another proprietary Nvidia technology that can be enabled instead of (note – not in addition to) G-SYNC on compatible Nvidia GPUs. ULMB is a strobe backlight technique that is designed to reduce motion blur via the mechanisms described in the relevant sections of this article. Basically, the backlight pulses on and off very rapidly, at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display. There is with a very brief ‘on phase’ where the backlight is illuminated and a relatively long ‘off phase’ where the backlight is disabled. This backlight strobing reduces the amount of time the eyes spend tracking motion on the screen and hence reduces perceived blur.

ULMB can only be used at specific refresh rates; 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz. If you wish to use the technology, the first step is therefore to set the monitor to one of these refresh rates via Windows or the Nvidia Control Panel. You should then navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’ in Nvidia Control Panel and select ‘ULMB’ for ‘Monitor Technology’ as shown below. You also need to ensure the monitor is in the correct operating mode – you can enable ‘ULMB’ in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD or simply by using the right arrow of the OSD before entering the main menu.

Set Monitor Technology to ULMB

As with G-SYNC, the power light does not give a colour-based indication that this mode is active. But it should be obvious due to how different the image appears. Specifically, the display will flicker at a frequency that matches the refresh rate of the display, quite like a CRT monitor running at the same refresh rate. There is also an indication at the bottom of the OSD, after the resolution, if ULMB is active. A setting related to ULMB called ‘Pulse Width’ can be adjusted in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD once ULMB is activated. This controls the length of the ‘On’ period of the strobe relative to the ‘Off’ period, with higher values meaning that the backlight stays on for longer – increasing brightness at the expense of motion clarity. This is set to ‘100’ by default, which offers maximum brightness potential. Most users will find motion clarity to be excellent at the default setting of ‘100’, anyway, and find this brightness level preferable to lower settings.

ULMB – the experience

Upon activating ULMB you can see a flickering at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the monitor – as mentioned earlier, this is most obvious at 85Hz but still noticeable to us at 100Hz or 120Hz. Depending on settings your used to, the image also looks a bit dimmer and perhaps more muted. As per the UFO Motion test pursuit photographs shown earlier, there is also a significant reduction in the level of perceived blur. The effect of this on games such as BF1 is quite profound. The clarity of objects, even when moving very rapidly on the game, remains excellent. This makes engaging tracking and engaging enemies even easier – although, admittedly, we found we were just as competent at racking up kills without ULMB. Sensitivity to perceived blur varies and some users, particularly those who are used to CRT monitors, swear by technologies such as this.

But as highlighted earlier, the use of ULMB on monitors like this calls for a very strong level of overdrive use. Because the monitor’s backlight is cycling on and off at a frequency matching the refresh rate (85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz) you actually see any trailing or overshoot as a distinct repetition of the objects in the game. Not a smooth blur, trail or smear behind and in part blending in with the object. The overshoot was certainly there, but generally didn’t stand out as much as the UFO Motion test might suggest in the complex environments and range of transitions shown off on this game. You could tell it was overshoot because it appeared a different colour (sometimes darker, sometimes brighter) compared with either the object or background. There was also a degree of conventional trailing, appearing again as a repetition of the object. This appeared a similar colour to the object itself, usually quite a bit fainter but very occasionally almost as ‘solid’ as the object itself. Whilst neither factor affected the clarity of the main objects, it is something that some users might find a bit bothersome. Some of these imperfections happen to an extent on all ULMB or strobe backlight LCD monitors we’ve tested, however.

Another important consideration with ULMB is that the frame rate must exactly match the refresh rate for it to work properly. If it doesn’t, the tearing and juddering (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) becomes extremely noticeable and distracting and essentially ‘breaks’ the process. There is very little perceived blur to match such imperfections and things quite clearly look ‘wrong’. If you can stomach the flickering, then there’s something to be said for lowering the refresh rate (down to as low as 85Hz) so that it’s easier to match the refresh rate with the refresh rate. The motion clarity is still exceptional at 85Hz, it’s mainly the flickering that can be bothersome. Plus you don’t get as good a ‘connected feel’ due to the lower frame rate. We would like to again reiterate that you can’t activate G-SYNC and ULMB at the same time. The former is clearly designed with variable frame rate environments in mind, whereas the latter is designed to be used where the refresh rate can be consistently matched by the frame rate. And for users who are particularly sensitive to perceived blur. In our experience, most users prefer the flexibility of using G-SYNC and setting the monitor to the highest refresh rate it will go (165Hz in this case). The perceived blur is nice and low, full brightness is maintained without flicker and you get a higher framerate potential for a better ‘connected feel’ as well.

Interpolation and upscaling

As with all G-SYNC monitors, the G-SYNC board replaces the functionality of the scaler when using DisplayPort. The monitor therefore offers no scaling capability via DP. The monitor does have a dedicated scaler which can be used via HDMI, however. This allows users to connect devices such as games consoles to the monitor and run it at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD). As a PC user, you must ensure that the monitor is handling your scaling (via HDMI) rather than the graphics card if you want the best image performance. To do this, open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. Ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown below. AMD users who for whatever reason decided to go for this monitor needn’t worry about fiddling around with any scaling settings, as the monitor will automatically handle the scaling when gaming, by default.

If you run the monitor at a non-native resolution such as 1920 x 1080, when connected via HDMI, an interpolation process is used to expand the resolution across the entire 2560 x 1440 resolution. The Full HD resolution appears somewhat softer compared to a native 1920 x 1080 display of similar size. This is always the case, to some degree, and we’d say that this is somewhere in the middle in terms of how well the interpolation process does at handling the Full HD resolution. In addition to a fair degree of softening there is a bit of fringing around the edges of some objects due to the sharpening filter applied during the interpolation process. Overall this gives a bit of an artificial look to the image, but the overall sharpness is certainly superior to using GPU scaling. There is no 1:1 pixel mapping feature included or any other scaling options on the monitor side. PC users can get the GPU to display 1920 x 1080 at perfect sharpness with a large black border if preferred, whether using HDMI or DP.

As is always the case, if you leave the monitor at 2560 x 1440 and run 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) content using movies software or a web browser on the PC, it is the GPU or software that employs an upscaling process. The monitor simply displays 2560 x 1440 in its usual way and does not influence things. There is a bit of softening during this process, less than when running the monitor via HDMI at 1920 x 1080 and using its own interpolation though. It’s not something most users should worry about, though, as the monitor still provides a good experience when viewing Full HD movie content.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.

Conclusion

Having already reviewed the ViewSonic XG2703-GS, we had a decent idea of what to expect from the AOC AG271QG in terms of core performance. It does, after all, feature the same panel. But there’s more to a monitor than just the panel so a full review of the AOC was certainly still warranted. With minimal tweaking in the OSD, including the obligatory huge decrease in brightness and a few colour channel changes, the image was vivid and varied with the sort of consistency you’d hope for from a decent IPS-type panel. The gamma wasn’t spot on ‘2.2’ but tracked nicely at ‘2.3’ without any huge deviations – for the intended purposes of the monitor this was certainly preferable to the washed-out alternatives that many 144Hz+ models provide with much lower average gamma and further weaknesses due to colour inconsistencies. This was coupled with a light matte screen surface and generous but not completely excessive colour gamut. Games appeared much as they should with consistently rich but largely appropriately saturated shades – pleasing to the eye overall.

The light matte screen surface also had quite a smooth surface, preventing the sort of obtrusive graininess that can be seen on some matte screen surfaces. The static contrast was much as expected from a decent IPS-type panel, sitting above 1000:1 even following the adjustments made to our ‘Test Settings’. Light elements stood out quite nicely against darker surroundings, although there was some ‘AHVA glow’ (‘IPS glow’) as expected which ate away at some of the detail near the corners of the screen. Unlike TN models there were no obvious perceived gamma shifts, which would sap the top of the screen of detail in dark areas whilst making the bottom appear flooded with obvious unintended detail. There was some further loss of detail due to some patches of backlight bleed on our unit. As noted in the review, this varies between individual units but models using these high refresh rate AHVA panels do suffer from these sorts of issues quite frequently.

Overall responsiveness was similar to the ViewSonic XG2703-GS, meaning that the monitor made a good go of high refresh rates up to 165Hz. There was a bit of extra trailing and hence perceived blur compared to fast TN models like the Dell S2716DG, but a huge decrease in perceived blur compared to even the fastest 60Hz LCDs. Some of the more pronounced trailing involved dark shades, much as we observed on the ViewSonic. This trailing was a little more pronounced on the AOC but we didn’t find it detracted from the overall 165Hz performance really; we could certainly feel a lot of benefit as the refresh rate was increased. In addition to lower perceived blur, the monitor had an excellent ‘connected feel’ as you interacted with the game world at high frame rates. This was aided by very low levels of input lag. G-SYNC also did its thing and got rid of troublesome tearing, juddering and stuttering caused by the traditional frame rate and refresh rate mismatches. ULMB also worked as intended to massively reduce perceived blur, although overshoot and even some conventional (but fragmented, due to strobing) trailing was more obvious than on fast TN alternatives.

Overall this monitor ticks a lot of boxes and offers a nice balance between image quality and gaming performance. The combination of quite nicely setup AHVA panel, good 165Hz performance and gaming extras such as Nvidia G-SYNC will certainly be enticing to some. The IPS-type panel provides a rich, colourful and largely as intended gaming experience following a few relatively minor tweaks. It also has the potential to deliver excellent colour accuracy following calibration with a colorimeter or similar device, for ‘colour critical’ work etc. As with all monitors there are weaknesses, and on this model there is the inescapable ‘AHVA glow’ and fair potential of moderate backlight bleed to contend with. The exterior design is also a bit less divisive than some gaming monitors and both price and availability (at time of writing) also relatively strong.

The bottom line; a monitor with a good mix of image quality and responsiveness, for those who like a good level of responsiveness without compromising on colour quality.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.