AOC Q3279VWFD8

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively those with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern or mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did not observe either artifact type on this monitor.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the Q3279VWFD8, with over 30 repeat readings taken to improve accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 2.81ms (under 1/4 of a frame at 75Hz) of input lag. We have no way to accurately measure input lag in the variable refresh rate and frame range environment under which FreeSync would be active, however. This value is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay, which even sensitive users shouldn’t find bothersome.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our responsiveness article we explore the key factors affecting monitor responsiveness. One of the key concepts explored here is ‘perceived blur’, which is caused predominantly by the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. It is also influenced by pixel responsiveness, although this is generally a less significant (but still important) factor on modern monitors. We also explore ‘pursuit photography’, a technique which uses a moving camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both of these elements of perceived blur. This is something that normal static photography or video can’t capture.

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a practical speed for taking such photographs and highlights both key elements of perceived blur. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below) and 75Hz using all ‘Overdrive’ settings; ‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’. All rows of the test were used, with the backgrounds showing various shade levels (dark, medium and light). The final column shows a fast TN reference screen (Dell S2417DG) set to 60Hz, showing how things look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor.

At 60Hz, shown above, the UFO appears relatively soft and unfocused. This reflects a moderate level of perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement, with this element also shown on the fast TN reference. There is also some trailing behind the UFOs in some cases. With ‘Overdrive = Off’ it’s clear that the name is misleading, as effective pixel overdrive is used – it just happened to be the lowest level of this available on the monitor. There is no conventional trailing visible behind the object, there is instead a small amount of overshoot (inverse ghosting). You can see a slight bright fringe (halo trail) behind the UFO, but this blends in well. The ‘Weak’ setting ramps up the pixel overdrive and slightly increases the overshoot levels, although this remains quite weak. The ‘Medium’ setting strengthens the overdrive further and overshoot becomes more noticeable, whilst the ‘Strong’ setting provides strong, colourful and obvious overshoot. From this analysis and our broader analysis outside of this test, we consider ‘Off’ to be optimal at 60Hz. Although ‘Weak’ is also very usable, making limited difference to the pixel response behaviour. Below you can see what happens when the refresh rate is increased to 75Hz.

At 75Hz, shown above, the UFO remains relatively soft and unfocussed although is somewhat narrower than at 60Hz. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur attributable to eye movement. There is again some trailing behind the object in some cases. The ‘Off’ setting now has no visible overshoot. There is just a faint whiff of powdery trailing for the dark background (top row), virtually none for the medium background and nothing to speak of for the light background. The ‘Weak’ setting makes little difference to this, perhaps reducing the powdery trailing a tiny bit and also introducing a little overshoot for the light background. But this is very faint. The ‘Medium’ setting increases overshoot and introduces a slight dark trail behind for the medium and light backgrounds as well as a slight dirty overshoot trail for the dark background. The ‘Strong’ setting ramps up the pixel overdrive and introduces obvious overshoot. Again, as with 60Hz, we consider the default ‘Off’ setting optimal but ‘Weak’ a very close second. We didn’t really observe clear differences between the two modes in broader testing, although did see just a tiny bit of extra overshoot in places using the ‘Weak’ setting. There’s really no need to use anything stronger as it just strengthens overshoot without bringing benefits. Even the ‘Off’ setting clearly provides a solid 75Hz performance – this model’s in a completely different league to this its predecessor in terms of pixel responsiveness.

Note that we will not be including a section on overclocking. The monitor could not be set much beyond 75Hz without the monitor refusing to display an image.

Responsiveness in games and movies

There was a moderate level of perceived blur on Battlefield 1 (BF1), but this was almost entirely attributable to eye movement and limited by the refresh rate of the display rather than pixel responses. Compared to 60Hz (at 60fps), the 75Hz refresh rate (at 75fps) gave a slight decrease in perceived blur which helped keep things just a bit sharper during rapid movements. There was also an edge in ‘connected feel’, which describes the fluidity and precision as you interact with the game world. There was very little to complain about in terms of pixel responsiveness, in stark contrast with the older Q3279VWF. There was a very small amount of faint powdery trailing in places, for example where dark objects such as tree trunks in a shaded area moved against brighter objects such as the sky. This was not eye-catching, not widespread and was only a very minor contributor to perceived blur. Likewise, there was a very small amount of overshoot in places. What we like to call ‘snail slime trails’ with the trailing appearing like a slightly lighter semi-transparent variant of normal trailing. Most prevalent but still very faint where brighter shades moved against medium shades (a white painted wall against the sky, for example). Even users sensitive to overshoot shouldn’t find this bothersome and most users wouldn’t even notice it even if actively looking out for it.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider told a similar story. And this was again one of a solid 75Hz performance with only minor weaknesses in places. Again, slight traces of overshoot and faint powdery trailing for select transitions, but very little to complain about. The edge in refresh rate and frame rate comparing to a 60Hz monitor at 60fps was again welcome due to the slight decrease in perceived blur and increase in ‘connected feel’. Obviously, this was not at the level of higher refresh rate models with triple-digit refresh rates running at suitable frame rates, but it was a nice edge nonetheless. We also observed a variety of movie content, including ~24fps Blu rays, ~30fps Netflix content and ~60fps YouTube content. The content at the lower end of that frame rate range in particular was limited in its fluidity by the frame rate itself and the pixel response requirements for good performance are not as stringent as for higher frame rate content. None of this content revealed clear weaknesses in terms of pixel responsiveness from the monitor, however.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. Where possible, the monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the AMD R9 290 used in our test system. There is a list of GPUs which support the technology here, with the expectation that future AMD GPUs will support the feature too. The monitor itself must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The Q3279VWFD8 supports FreeSync via DP 1.2a (‘DP 1.2a+’) and HDMI 1.4a on compatible GPUs and systems. If fully installed, AMD drivers feature Radeon Settings, which makes activation of the technology very simple and something that usually occurs automatically. To ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. This is shown below for this display – note the monitor is reported in the driver and device manager as Q3279WG5B, this is normal and not something to be concerned about.



The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 75Hz. This means that if the game is running between 48fps and 75fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 75fps, the monitor will stay at 75Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 75fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >144fps). LFC (Low Frame Rate Compensation) is not supported by this monitor, as that requires the upper limit (ceiling) to be at least 2x the lower limit (floor) of FreeSync operation. FreeSync is therefore deactivated if the frame rate falls below 40fps, with the monitor then respecting your choice of VSync and presenting you with either stuttering (VSync on) or juddering and tearing (VSync off).

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. You can either configure this globally under ‘Global Settings’ or for each game individually. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. The fourth and final option, ‘Enhanced Sync’, is a relatively new addition to the driver. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature than a monitor feature.



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 72fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. Note that in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD it will have ‘FreeSync’ listed as the ‘V. Frequency’ if the technology is enabled in the graphics driver, but this does not tell you whether it is currently being used by an application or not. Also note that FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory.

FreeSync – the experience

FreeSync was tested on a variety of titles and it behaved in much the same way on all of them. Differences on specific titles or in particular scenarios would be down to the graphics driver, system or software rather than the monitor. We’ll simply focus on Battlefield 1 (BF1) for this section, which offers sufficient flexibility with its graphics options for the entire FreeSync range to be tested. With everything set to ‘Ultra’, our lowly Radeon R9 290 could not always sustain a solid 75fps. There were frequent dips below that, even if only by a few fps. Even these slight dips with FreeSync disabled resulted in tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) which we found jarring. Sensitivity to such factors does vary, but at these reasonably low frame rates (vs. triple digit frame and refresh rates) it’s relatively easy to notice such issues.

If we increased the graphics settings further, by upping the ‘resolution scale’ (rendering resolution of the game), frame rate dropped further. As things fell way below 75fps and dipped well below 60fps even, we noticed quite a decrease in ‘connected feel’ and an increase in perceived blur. These are linked to frame rate rather than refresh rate. It was still nice to have the experience free from tearing or stuttering from frame rate and refresh rate mismatches, however. At times, with these somewhat extreme graphics settings, the frame rate dropped below 48fps and hence below the 48Hz floor of FreeSync operation for the monitor. As LFC is not supported (this would require a significantly lower floor or higher ceiling), the technology simply deactivated and tearing or stuttering ensued. We didn’t observe any particular issues with flickering or anything of that nature during our testing. There may be isolated examples in some game titles, but again that’s not going to be a monitor-specific issue and would be related more to the game or graphics driver. Finally, note that overshoot was somewhat more noticeable as frame rate (and hence refresh rate) dropped compared to at ~75fps (~75Hz) but never extreme.

The 31.5″ 2560 x 1440 experience

Having a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution spread out across a 31.5” screen area gives this model a pixel density of 93.24 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). This is lower than a 27” WQHD model (108.79 PPI) and certainly lower than ‘4K’ UHD models of this kind of size. So you don’t get the same clarity or detail as offered by those higher pixel density models. But the pixel density is by no means poor, it’s similar to a 23” – 24” 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) monitor. Many users find this sort of pixel density comfortable to use from a sensible viewing distance – nice and readable. The combination of screen size and resolution also provides a good amount of useful work space. The images below give an impression of the sizing of various elements on the desktop and some of the productivity potential of the monitor. Naturally, the photographs in no way represent what things look like first hand and are just there for illustrative purposes.

The above images don’t really convey the size of the monitor and how it is to look at it whilst sitting at your desk. We found the monitor large but comfortable to use from ~70cm, without feeling overwhelming. This comes down to personal preference, of course. The size also provided an immersive experience for gaming and watching movies, with good coverage of the main visual field and good peripheral vision engagement both horizontally and vertically. As noted in the previous paragraph, the pixel density is decent but not overly high – so the level of detail and clarity when gaming is decent but not spectacular. The images below show various game titles running on the monitor, but again are there for illustrative purposes and do not accurately represent how the monitor looks first-hand.

Interpolation and upscaling

Some users may wish to run the monitor at a non-native resolution such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) due to the graphical demands of the native 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution. Alternatively, you may be using a games console or other device which doesn’t support WQHD. If you run the monitor at a non-native resolution, it uses an interpolation (scaling) process to map that resolution onto all of its 2560 x 1440 pixels. If you’re using a PC and want to make sure the monitor rather than GPU is handling the scaling, you’ll need to ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly for this. Nvidia users should 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 in the following image. With our AMD GPU we were unable to use the monitor’s scaling process and our system instead insisted on always using GPU scaling. As covered towards the end of the OSD video, we were also unable to use the ‘Image Ratio’ settings described shortly on our AMD GPU. This may have been a driver issue or something specific to our GPU but it persisted on both DP and HDMI.

Observing the Full HD resolution (with our Nvidia GPU), the interpolation process used by the Q3279VWFD8 provides a moderate amount of softening. It retains the original texture sharpness and clarity and edge definition better than some models, but there isn’t the same sharpness or overall look that you’d get from running a native Full HD monitor of this size. If you’re sitting some distance from the monitor then you will probably find this softening difficult to notice and the monitor would be quite usable. For console gaming this might be natural. If you’re a PC gamer then we’d strongly advise reducing graphics settings other than resolution before touching the resolution – we always recommend that regardless of how good the interpolation process is, though.

A few final notes related to this. The monitor has an ‘Image Ratio’ setting in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD. This can be set to various setting when running the monitor at a non-native resolution, FreeSync disabled. The default (‘Wide’) uses the interpolation process, whereas ‘1:1’ is a pixel mapping feature that will only use the pixels called for in the source resolution. Displaying things without any loss of sharpness or distortion and keeping the extra unused pixels ‘unlit’ (black). The monitor supports 50Hz, 59Hz and 60Hz refresh rates natively at Full HD. Finally, if you’re running the monitor at 2560 x 1440 and viewing 1920 x 1080 content (for example a video over the internet or a Blu-ray, using movie software) then it is the GPU and software that handles the upscaling. That’s got nothing to do with the monitor itself – there is a little bit of softening to the image compared to viewing such content on a native Full HD monitor, but it’s not extreme and shouldn’t bother most users.

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.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness

Conclusion

The original Q3279VWF impressed in terms of value for money, offering a large screen with relatively high resolution and coupling it with very high contrast. Many users were less impressed by responsiveness, some found the screen surface too reflective and colour consistency was less than perfect. By switching to an IPS panel with a matte screen surface, the Q3279VWFD8 addressed these criticisms. The screen surface did indeed cut down on reflections and handle glare effectively. Although the medium matte anti-glare finish provided a bit of a grainy look to lighter shades. And you don’t get that same ‘pop’ in the right lighting. Thankfully that wasn’t a heavy or smeary graininess, but as something we’re quite sensitive to we would’ve preferred a lighter and smoother screen surface. The same 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution was retained, offering a comfortable pixel density and good amount of desktop real-estate.

The contrast performance certainly wasn’t in the same league as the older model, but that is entirely expected given the panel types used. Static contrast was strong for an IPS-type panel, though. The specified 1200:1 could easily be written off as overly ambitious without testing), but as it happened it proved an under-estimate of our sample even after tweaking the OSD settings. There were no dramatic tweaks required and out of the box the image was certainly decent, but we found better balance was achieved with reduced brightness and some colour channel changes. The gamma tracking was good, though, and colour consistency was noticeably better than the predecessor. The overall image was consistently vibrant throughout the screen, with the generous but not extreme colour providing a good dose of saturation. There were some weaknesses in colour consistency which stemmed from the size of the screen and viewing angle weaknesses compared to some IPS models, but it was still abundantly clear this was an IPS-type panel rather than a TN or VA variant.

Responsiveness was another area where this model distanced itself from its predecessor. In a very good way. There was very little input lag to speak of and pixel responsiveness was well-tuned for the 75Hz refresh rate. There were only very minor weaknesses such as a small amount of powdery trailing and faint overshoot in places. A far cry from this model’s predecessor, which suffered from some obvious ‘smeary’ trailing from clearly slower than optimal pixel transitions. Slow even when compared to many other VA models we’ve reviewed recently. FreeSync is also present on the AOC and it did its thing to rid the experience of tearing and stuttering from frame rate and refresh rate mismatches. If we’re being picky we’d say it would’ve been nice to have a lower floor of operation than 48fps (48Hz), but that would be extremely unusual for a FreeSync model with a 75Hz maximum.

This model shares the aesthetics (chassis and stand design) with its predecessor. This is quite basic, with tilt being the only ergonomic flexibility afforded and no provision for VESA mounting. A 3rd party VESA adaptor by HumanCentric (B074JSJSF3) can be purchased on Amazon, if required. The glossy black bezels weren’t to our taste, either, but they were far from a game-breaker. Especially when you consider the impressive all-round performance of the monitor and its almost curiously low asking price. In terms of bang for your buck, this monitor really delivers. Whilst the same could also be said about the older model, there’s something altogether more solid about the performance here. With clear positives which outweigh the negatives, especially once price is factored in.

The bottom line; a monitor that delivers an immersive experience, vibrant colours and a refined 75Hz experience – at an impressively low price.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.