AOC 24G2U (24G2)

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, 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 any static interlace patterns, although we did observe some dynamic ‘interlace pattern artifacts’. Upon close inspection, some medium-light shades appeared to break up into a very faint and fine mesh of tiny polygons. This effect was extremely subtle and most users will not notice it or find it bothersome if they do. It’s something we had to actively look for and even then it was difficult to notice.

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a small tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to compare the 24G2U (24G2)’s latency with a screen of known latency. To help maximise accuracy, over 30 repeat readings were taken. Using the method, we measured 3.79ms (a bit over 1/2 a frame @144Hz) of input lag. The status of the ‘FreeSync’ (‘Adaptive Sync’) setting in the OSD made no measurable difference to this result and neither did activating the MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) feature. This value is influenced both by the element of input lag you ‘feel’ (signal delay) and the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness). It indicates a low signal delay which shouldn’t bother even sensitive users. We don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a variable refresh rate environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores some of the key concepts surrounding monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is the concept of perceived blur, which is contributed to by both the pixel responsiveness of the monitor and the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. This second factor is dominant on modern monitors, although slower than optimal pixel responses are still an important contributor. We also look at ‘pursuit photography’, an image capture technique which uses a moving camera to capture motion on a screen in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the UFO moving across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The test is set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a practical speed for such photographs whilst highlighting key weaknesses well. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 100Hz and 144Hz with all of the ‘Overdrive’ settings tested; ‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’. Although not documented here, 120Hz behaved some way between the tested refresh rates (100Hz and 144Hz), as you might expect. All rows of the UFO Motion Test were used, to show a range of pixel transitions between various shades. The final columns show some reference screens for comparison. The first reference screen is the AOC C24G1, the curved VA version of this model, set to what we consider its optimal overdrive setting. The second reference screen is the ViewSonic XG240R set up optimally, a fast and well-tuned TN model (particularly at high refresh rates) that shows how things look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor.

At 60Hz, shown above, the UFO appears fairly broad and softly focused, without clear internal detailing. This reflects a significant degree of perceived blur due to eye movement and is something that the reference shots also share. Note that the relatively high saturation of the UFO colours caused the segments to appear slightly more blended in the photos for the G2 than they do in reality – the segmentation appears a little more distinct (like the reference shots) in person. There are also various amounts of trailing behind the UFOs, caused by weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. With the ‘Off’ setting there’s a fair amount of ‘powdery’ trailing. This is particularly true for the dark background (top row), a bit lower for the medium background (middle row) and not really apparent for the light background (bottom row). The ‘Weak’ setting slightly reduces this, whilst the ‘Medium’ setting offers a further reduction. There is really only a faint whiff of this sort of trailing remaining using this setting. In fact it compares favourably to the reference shots in some respects. The C24G1 shows some fairly bold trailing for the dark background and overshoot elsewhere, whilst the XG240R shows some more extended ‘powdery’ trailing for the medium background at 60Hz. The ‘Strong’ overdrive setting introduces a fair bit of overshoot (inverse ghosting) some bright ‘halo’ trails with a bit of an inky appearance in places. The ‘Medium’ setting is clearly optimal here and actually very nicely balanced for 60Hz. The following image set shows how things look with the refresh rate bumped up to 100Hz.

At 100Hz, shown above, the UFO now appears somewhat narrower with sharper focus. This reflects a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. You can again see varying degrees of trailing behind the object. As at 60Hz, the ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’ setting did not provide a sufficient level of acceleration, leaving some weaknesses that were most apparent for the dark background and a lesser extent the medium background. The ‘Medium’ setting reduces this significantly, although a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing still remains. The ‘Strong’ setting gets rid of this powdery trailing, replacing it with a bit of overshoot. This overshoot is not as strong or eye-catching as at 60Hz and has a rather blended appearance overall. We’d consider the ‘Strong’ setting optimal at 100Hz, although the ‘Medium’ setting may be preferred by some if they want to minimise overshoot instead of maximising pixel response times. The image below shows what things look like with a further bump up in refresh rate to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears more sharply focused and slightly narrower, indicating a further decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance are stepped up quite a bit now, so the trailing behind the UFOs appears a bit different – extending further back in places an existing where it didn’t before. The ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’ settings suffer from this most noticeably, particularly for the dark background. The ‘Medium’ setting offers fair improvement and is actually quite well-balanced, but there is a further reduction using the ‘Strong’ setting without any clear overshoot being introduced. There’s a faint ‘powdery’ trail behind the object for the dark and medium backgrounds, but this is slight and a clear improvement compared to the C24G1 reference. The XG240R really sets the standard for 144Hz pixel responsiveness and provides a pretty much flawless performance in this test – but the G2 using its ‘Strong’ setting isn’t too bad in comparison. We’re comfortable saying that the ‘Strong’ setting is optimal at 144Hz. We’d say the same following a broader comparison of pixel responses – there’s just a little bit of overshoot for some transitions, but a reasonable reduction in conventional trailing compared to the ‘Medium’ setting.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, the monitor offers an alternative with its ‘MBR’ (Motion Blur Reduction) feature. This is a strobe backlight setting that causes the backlight to pulse at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – either 100Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz. By its very nature, this mode causes the backlight to flicker at a rate matching the refresh rate of the display – individual sensitivity to this flickering varies. Some users may notice accelerated eye fatigue when using this setting even if they aren’t actively noticing any flickering. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 100Hz using MBR. A few reference screens are also shown for comparison, using their respective strobe backlight settings at 100Hz. The AOC C24G1 using MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) and set to what we consider its optimal setting for that. And the Dell S2417DG using ULMB (‘Ultra Low Motion Blur’).

Note that the ‘Overdrive’ setting can be adjusted under MBR. However; ‘Strong’ is the only usable setting. The others are simply too slow and increase trailing and strobe crosstalk significantly without providing any benefits – we just focus on the ‘Strong’ setting here. Also be aware that setting the ‘Overdrive’ to ‘Boost’ is equivalent to using the ‘Strong’ setting and setting ‘MBR’ to ‘20’. We test MBR ‘15’ here as well, as we consider it to give a good mixture of brightness and clarity. The brightness was ~160 cd/m² at 144Hz, which is similar to what we target for our ‘Test Settings’ with MBR disabled.

With ‘MBR’ active you can see that the image appears more sharply focused compared to with the setting deactivated, even when comparing to a higher refresh rate. There’s clearer internal detailing, especially with ‘MBR = 20’. The exception to this is ‘MBR = 1’, which really just creates a messy double-image as it isn’t effective enough as a strobe backlight setting. For the more effective settings (‘MBR = 15’ and ‘MBR = 20’), this sharper detailing indicates a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement – exactly what strobe backlights like this set out to tackle. There is also a fair amount of trailing behind the object and in some cases in front of it, however. These repetitions are due primarily to the pixel responses not keeping up with the rigorous demands of the refresh cycle. The all-encompassing term ‘strobe crosstalk’ is used to describe this fragmented trailing around the object. Because not all areas of the screen refresh simultaneously, the appearance of strobe crosstalk can differ depending on how high up or low down on the screen the movement is being observed. The reference shots don’t show this, but there is instead some overshoot due to the high levels of acceleration used to speed up the pixel transitions. The image set below shows results with a slight bump up in refresh rate to 120Hz, MBR again active.

The object itself now appears with clear internal detailing, particularly for ‘MBR = 15’ and ‘MBR = 20’. Note that the white notches on the UFO body were actually a bit clearer in reality with ‘MBR = 15’ than they appear on the photos – the brightness levels caused them to appear a bit more blended than they should. This indicates excellent low perceived blur due to eye movement. There is pronounced strobe crosstalk behind the UFO (and also in front in the case of ‘MBR = 1’ and to a less extent ‘MBR = 15’), however. The reference shots don’t show this to the same degree, particularly for the S2417DG reference where overshoot is present but the shot is otherwise very ‘clean’ indeed with a very distinct main object. The image set below was taken with a further increase in refresh rate, to 144Hz with MBR active.

Things appear fairly similar to at 120Hz, although the clarity of the main object at ‘MBR = 20’ is further enhanced. The segmentation is a bit clearer compared to at 120Hz. This is also true at ‘MBR = 15’, although the white notches again appear a bit more blended on the photo than in reality due to brightness and how the image was captured by the camera. There is strong strobe crosstalk in the images, though, which does affect overall motion clarity. The C24G1 reference shot shows this to a fair extent behind the UFO body, but much less so behind the main UFO body. The AG251FG is now used as a ULMB reference and shows a pretty clean 144Hz strobe backlight performance. It’s worth noting that strobe crosstalk varies at different areas of the screen. Not all areas refresh simultaneously, so its appearance can differ depending on how high up or low down on the screen movement is being observed. The images below show pursuit photographs running from the top to bottom regions of the screen, with the screen set to 144Hz and ‘MBR = 15’. Strobe crosstalk variation at different points was also observed at 120Hz and 100Hz and using ‘MBR = 20’ – but the end result was quite similar and we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations.

You can see moderate to strong strobe crosstalk throughout the screen. Further up you can see it in front of the object as well as behind. A bit lower down (just above centre) it only appears behind. In the central region of the screen the strobe crosstalk becomes somewhat stronger and there’s essentially another repetition of the object as you move further down again. This becomes so strong towards the bottom of the screen that it melds into the object itself. Whilst this strobe crosstalk doesn’t make the MBR setting completely useless, it does affect how useful it is and the overall motion clarity. We explore this and some other aspects to consider using in-game examples at the end of this section.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V, where the frame rate kept pace with the 144Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided a good fluid experience and put the refresh rate to good use. With up to 2.4 times as much visual information being pumped out every second as a 60Hz monitor (or this monitor running at 60Hz), there are two key benefits. The first is the enhanced ‘connected feel’ you get when interacting with the game world. There’s a certain precision and fluidity that’s simply lacking at lower refresh rates. The low input lag of the monitor aided this as well, although low input lag alone can’t replicate the level of connected feel you get from a high frame rate and refresh rate. The second benefit is a reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated using Test UFO earlier. There is a significant step up in this respect comparing 60Hz to 144Hz.

For minimal perceived blur, it’s also important that the pixel responses are performed sufficiently rapidly. On the AOC the vast majority of pixel transitions were performed fast enough for a good solid 144Hz experience. There was a small amount of faint ‘powdery trailing’ for some transitions, which slightly increased perceived blur. There were some slightly more pronounced weaknesses for some pixel transitions, involving very light shades (such as white) with certain darker shades in the background. White in-game text inside a dimly lit building, for example. The ‘powdery trailing’ here was somewhat heavier and more extended and provided some isolated cases of greater perceived blur. However; these weaknesses were nowhere near as pronounced nor as widespread as the sort of weaknesses you’d observe on VA models. Even well-tuned ones like the AOC C24G1, where some ‘smeary’ trailing and stronger overshoot can be found. There was no real overshoot to speak of on this model. Some faint traces of ‘halo’ trailing during a slim number of transitions, but this was only marginally brighter than the object or background colour so didn’t really stand out in an obvious way.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The monitor again provided a solid 144Hz experience without obvious weaknesses. The vast majority of pixel transitions were snappy, without obvious overshoot being introduced. It was clear that the 24G2U (24G2) had very well-tuned pixel responsiveness for high refresh rates, using our preferred ‘Strong’ overdrive setting. It provided a very competent 144Hz performance, overall, which should keep casual gamers and some competitive gamers happy. For most users (and this includes some competitive gamers), the tighter pixel responsiveness of a well-tuned TN model like the ViewSonic XG240R probably wouldn’t be worth the sacrifice in terms of image quality. We also observed a range of movie content, including 24-30fps Netflix content and 60fps YouTube videos. There were no clear weaknesses in any of the content, with the framerate itself being the key barrier to visual fluidity.

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.

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 Radeon RX 580 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 24G2U (24G2) supports FreeSync via DP 1.2a and HDMI 1.4 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. First make sure that you have ‘FreeSync’ (‘Adaptive Sync’) set to ‘On’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD. You should then make sure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so 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.



The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 144Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 144fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 144fps, the monitor will stay at 144Hz 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 144fps, 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). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 32fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 64Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

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 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. 141fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. If you activate the ‘Frame Counter’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD, this will display the refresh rate of the display and therefore indicate the frame rate if ‘FreeSync’ is active and the frame rate is within the variable refresh rate range of the display. The final point to note is 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. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

FreeSync – the experience

We used this monitor whilst playing a variety of game titles, with FreeSync active. As usual we found the experience homogeneous across the different game titles and indeed any issues identified with FreeSync in one title but not another would indicate an issue with the game or GPU driver rather than the monitor. We’ll therefore just focus on one title for this section; Battlefield V. This game offers excellent flexibility with its graphics options, allowing the full variable refresh rate range of the model to be tested. The Radeon RX 580 in our test system maintained close to 144fps with fairly modest graphics settings, but even then some dips below that were commonplace. Even if these dips were slight (only a few fps), without FreeSync enabled they lead to obvious tearing (VSync disabled) or obvious stuttering (VSync on). Sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, so when we say obvious we mean to us and other sensitive users, but having FreeSync get rid of such imperfections was very pleasant for us. With graphics settings increased somewhat, the average framerate fell closer to 100fps. The monitor runs at ~100Hz (matching the frame rate) with Adaptive-Sync active, removing the tearing and stuttering from the mismatches that otherwise occur. Again, a very nice thing to have. Compared to frame rates up at the top end supported by the monitor, there was both a decrease in ‘connected feel’ and an increase in overall perceived blur as the frame rate dipped. This is not something FreeSync can help with as a reduction in frame rate is still a reduction in frame rate.

One area where FreeSync models often fall down compared to G-SYNC models (with dedicated G-SYNC module) is that the pixel overdrive is only tuned appropriately for higher refresh rates. As the frame rate of the content drops (and so does the refresh rate of the monitor), G-SYNC models with the module re-tune the pixel overdrive impulse appropriately – something referred to as Variable Overdrive. FreeSync models lack this and it’s common to see increasingly obvious overshoot if you just stick to using your response time setting that worked best at the much higher refresh rates. The 24G2U (24G2)’s ‘Strong’ overdrive setting, which we prefer for refresh rates at the top end, still worked well at ~100Hz. There were some instances of more noticeable overshoot – bright ‘halo’ trailing becoming a bit brighter for example. But it was still fairly subdued and nowhere near as eye-catching as it would be on some models.

This overshoot became more noticeable if frame rate dropped significantly lower, below 80fps it became moderately strong in places. But not exactly extreme. If you’re sensitive to overshoot and your frame rate is frequently below 80fps, we’d recommend simply switching to the ‘Medium’ setting for ‘Overdrive’. This gets rid of the overshoot and is well-tuned for such refresh rates. It’s by no means badly tuned at higher refresh rates, either – we’d still consider ‘Strong’ as optimal for the higher refresh rates as we explored with pursuit photos earlier. But ‘Medium’ works quite well, too. For frame rate dips below 48fps, the monitor sticks to a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate – something AMD calls LFC (Low Framerate Compensation). This worked effectively to reduce tearing and stuttering. There was a brief stuttering when this activated, but this isn’t something users should find bothersome unless things are frequently going above or below the LFC boundary.

Nvidia Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible’)

As noted earlier, AMD FreeSync makes use of Adaptive-Sync technology on a compatible monitor. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. Some models are specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass specific quality checks. With the 24G2U (24G2), you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort and enable ‘FreeSync’ (‘Adaptive Sync’) in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD. When you open up Nvidia Control Panel, you should then see ‘Set up G-SYNC’ listed in the ‘Display’ section. Ensure the ‘Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible’ checkbox and ‘Enable settings for the selected display model’ is checked as shown below. Press OK, then turn the monitor off then on again so that it re-establishes connection – the technology should now be active.



You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display is not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display, not that it doesn’t work. This model worked properly using Adaptive-Sync (G-SYNC compatible mode) on our Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti, offering an experience that was very similar to using AMD FreeSync. A slight difference is that the floor of operation appeared to be 60Hz (60fps) rather than 48Hz (48fps). However; an LFC-like technology was supported, with the monitor keeping at a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate. There was again a momentary stuttering as the boundary was crossed, as we observed with our AMD GPU as well.

Our suggestions regarding use of VSync also apply, but obviously you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than Radeon Settings to control this. The setting is found in ‘Manage 3D settings’ under ‘Vertical sync’, where the final option (‘Fast’) is equivalent to AMD’s ‘Enhanced Sync’ setting. You’ll also notice ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ listed under ‘Monitor Technology’ in this section, as shown below. Make sure this is selected (it should be if you’ve set everything up correctly in ‘Set up G-SYNC’).



Finally, note again that you can activate the ‘Frame Counter’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD to see if the technology is working. This will rapidly adjust as frame rate fluctuates, whereas if Adaptive-Sync isn’t being used it will stay at the static refresh rate you’ve selected.

MBR (Motion Blur Reduction)

Earlier in the review, we introduced the ‘MBR (Motion Blur Reduction)’ feature, its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using MBR or any strobe backlight feature, it’s essential that your frame rate exactly lines up with the refresh rate of the display. If that isn’t the case, you’re left with extremely obvious stuttering or juddering, which stands out because there’s very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. We tested various game titles using this setting, but will simply be focusing on Battlefield V at a solid 144fps and the monitor set to 144Hz. Our observations here apply broadly to lower frame rate and refresh rate combinations (120Hz and 100Hz) and were largely independent of the MBR setting itself. We preferred a setting of ‘15’ as this provided what we consider an optimal mixture of brightness and clarity.

There was noticeable strobe crosstalk, clear repetitions of objects during all but the gentlest turns. This significantly affected motion clarity and nullified the key advantage of the MBR setting to a fair extent (lower perceived blur). Some details did remain more sharply visible despite this and there were some benefits from this that some users might appreciate. Competitively speaking, it could arguably make enemies easier to distinguish against backgrounds and track during engagements and rapid turns. But we feel the strobe crosstalk makes the setting too ‘messy’ to really do its job properly. It was by no means the ‘messiest’ strobe crosstalk implementation we’ve experienced, but certainly wasn’t the cleanest either. An additional point to consider is that the backlight flickers at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display, which could bother sensitive users. We found it accelerated visual fatigue and preferred the normal flicker-free operation of the monitor, but sensitivity to flickering varies.

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

It has been a long time coming, but we’re finally starting to see 144Hz Full HD models with IPS-type panels hit the scene. The AOC 24G2U (24G2) offers this, with a 23.8” screen size. The resolution doesn’t provide the same sort of clarity and detail levels as higher resolutions nor the same ‘desktop real estate’. But it’s a resolution complemented well by the size of the screen and is relatively easy to push at high frame rates – which is really where this monitor’s in its element. The overall design of the monitor has enough subtle hints of dark red to be ‘interesting’, without anything that really screams “gaming screen” too loudly and proudly. It’s largely sensible matte black plastic, with very slender bezels at the top and sides and a stand which affords excellent ergonomic flexibility. The OSD itself uses a design that’s somewhat dated, with a layout that’s similar to that used several years ago. A small joystick rather than set of subtly labelled buttons may have been preferred for intuitive control of the system, too, but the core functionality is good with lots of options and flexibility.

Contrast was the main strength of the older C24G1. Whilst contrast on this model was not as strong, it was very impressive for its panel type. Delivering static contrast that was roughly one and a half times the specified value and delivering slightly less ‘IPS glow’ than average for the screen size and panel type. The ‘IPS glow’ was still a feature, though, and contrast in general is certainly an area in general where VA models are worthy of more praise than IPS-type panels. The colour reproduction in this model was really where this model came into its own. It was quite well set up out of the box, delivering a punchy and vibrant image with excellent shade variety and fairly strong colour consistency. Not up there with the strongest IPS-type performers, but noticeably more consistent than VA or TN models. After some minor tweaking, things were nicely balanced – with the generous colour gamut and consistent output of the IPS-type panel providing a vibrancy and richness throughout the screen than competing TN and VA models simply can’t match. And indeed, the generous colour gamut is something which sets it apart from more expensive IPS-type competitors using the 24.5” AU Optronics panel, including the Acer XV253QP and ASUS VG259Q.

This monitor didn’t let us down when it came to responsiveness, either. It put in a very competent 144Hz performance, with low input lag and good overall pixel responsiveness. The strongest ‘Overdrive’ setting was very usable indeed for triple digit refresh rates (including 144Hz), well-balanced and suitably strong acceleration levels. There were only small amounts of overshoot and some slight weaknesses in places, but even some competitive gamers would find these weaknesses tolerable. Well-tuned TN models still offer an advantage as some of these slight weaknesses aren’t present, but if you compare to even well-tuned high refresh rate VA models (like the C24G1) then this model is a clear winner. The monitor also provided a solid Adaptive-Sync performance, working well with both our AMD (FreeSync) and Nvidia (‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’) GPUs to get rid of tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches. As usual there was no variable overdrive, which is where true G-SYNC models (with G-SYNC module) have an advantage. But the well-tuned and flexible pixel overdrive gave a suitable option for a broad range of refresh rates. ‘Strong’ remained free from obvious overshoot up to the high double-digit frame rates, whilst ‘Medium’ was excellent for lower frame rates and quite competent higher up as well. Added to its convincing performance elsewhere and competitive pricing, this model is one we can wholeheartedly recommend.

The bottom line; an accomplished product with vibrant and varied colour output, pleasing contrast and responsiveness for an IPS-type panel and very attractive pricing.

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.