Gigabyte M32U

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 or vertical 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 sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to analyse the latency of the M32U. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.80ms (slightly over ½ a frame at 144Hz) of input lag and recorded similar values at 120Hz. At 60Hz we recorded a slightly higher but still respectable 4.94ms. These figures are influenced by both the element of input lag you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). They indicate a low signal delay which most users should find acceptable. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with VRR technology active in a VRR environment or HDR active in an HDR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores the key factors related to the responsiveness of monitors. An important concept detailed in the article is ‘perceived blur’, which is contributed to by the pixel responses of the monitor and the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. This second factor is dominant on modern monitors, but both factors play an important role. A photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’ is also explored, which uses a moving rather than stationary camera to capture motion in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur, not just the pixel response element.

The images below 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 good practical speed to take such photographs at and highlights both elements of perceived blur well. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are analysed to highlight a range of pixel transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz and 144Hz using various ‘Overdrive’ settings; ‘Off’, ‘Picture Quality’, ‘Balance’ and ‘Speed’. The two final columns show reference screens, set to what we consider their optimal response time setting for a given refresh rate. The Acer XV282K KV which is a well-tuned and quite responsive IPS model for higher refresh rates. This performs similarly to the 28” version of the M32U – the M28U. And the Gigabyte M27Q, a decent but not outstanding performer which most users are perfectly happy with in terms of pixel responsiveness.

An additional overdrive setting called ‘Smart OD’ is included which is supposed to switch over to the optimal setting at different refresh rate ranges. It appeared to stick to ‘Balance’ for most of the VRR range, except ~90 – 120Hz where it seemed to switch over to ‘Speed’. So it’s not a useful setting to use and wasn’t included in this analysis. Note that wavy patterns surrounding some UFOs in the background are slight image retention. This was only observed during this test and is something we’ve seen on various monitors before. It soon disappeared when using monitor normally.

At 60Hz, above, the UFO appears soft and unfocused without clear internal detailing. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement. Some trailing is observed in places due to weaknesses in pixel response times (or moreover, from aggressive tuning). With the ‘Off’ setting there’s just a whiff of ‘powdery’ trailing from very slightly slower than optimal pixel responses. Most notably (but still minor) for the dark background (top row) and to a lesser extent medium background (middle row). There’s also a very small amount of overshoot (inverse ghosting) for the light background, appearing as a faint ‘halo’ that’s marginally brighter than the background shade. Performance here is fairly comparable to the M27Q reference, whilst it’s free from the overshoot shown on the XV282K KV (and shared with the likes of the M28U). The ‘Picture Quality’ setting is more similar to that reference screen, with ‘halo’ overshoot trailing for all transitions shown. This becomes stronger with the ‘Balance’ setting and stronger again with ‘Speed’. We consider ‘Off’ to be optimal at 60Hz, though some will find the overshoot using ‘Picture Quality’ to be acceptable. Below you can see how things appear with refresh rate doubled to 120Hz.

At 120Hz, above, the UFO appears significantly narrower with clearer internal detail. This reflects a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The pixel response requirements for a solid performance here have increased significantly. The ‘Off’ setting shows a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing behind the UFOs, a touch more than the M27Q shows using its optimal setting. This is cut down effectively using the ‘Picture Quality’ setting. Just a small amount remains for the dark background, whilst there’s a bit of ‘shadowy’ overshoot trailing for the medium background. The performance here isn’t too far off the XV282K KV (and by extension M28U), just with marginally slower pixel responses for the dark and medium background but with very low levels of overshoot observed. The ‘Balance’ setting removes the ‘powdery’ trailing but replaces it with a moderate amount of overshoot. The ‘Speed’ setting introduces very strong and colourful overshoot. We consider ‘Picture Quality’ optimal for 120Hz. Below you can see things bumped up slightly, to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower with slightly better definition. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur to eye movement, but it’s only an extra 24Hz so this difference is slight compared to the initial bump from 60Hz to 120Hz. The pixel response behaviour is quite compatible to at 120Hz. The pixel response demands have increased just a little, so some of the ‘powdery’ trailing with the ‘Off’ setting and to a lesser extent the ‘Picture Quality’ setting is a bit more pronounced. The ‘Picture Quality’ setting shows less distinct trailing than the M27Q, though the XV282K KV put in a slightly ‘cleaner’ performance. The ‘Balance’ setting removes most of the slight ‘powdery’ trailing and replaces it with overshoot. Not extreme overshoot, but a moderate amount – it’s more noticeable for some transitions not analysed here and we found it quite eye-catching in places. The ‘Speed’ setting introduces the usual ridiculous levels of overshoot and is not a practical setting to use. We consider ‘Picture Quality’ optimal for 144Hz, though users who aren’t too sensitive to overshoot may like ‘Balance’ as well.

The monitor also includes a setting called ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’, with the ‘Sync’ indicating it can be used at the same time as VRR technology. This is a strobe backlight setting which forces the backlight to flicker in sync with the refresh rate of the monitor. 100Hz (only listed via HDMI), 120Hz and 144Hz can be selected as a static refresh rate, or as the ceiling of operation if using VRR at the same time. The lowest refresh rate the monitor will strobe at for ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ is ~76 – 80Hz, below which the monitor resumes its regular VRR operation without the sync element. A range is given here as the exact cut off point varies depending on the fluctuations in frame rate that are occurring. Sensitivity to the flickering of the backlight varies and some will find it bothersome whilst others may notice accelerated eye fatigue, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 100Hz using ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’. The ‘Overdrive’ settings are available to adjust as without the setting active and our recommendations there would be the same. We’ll just be testing ‘Picture Quality’ and ‘Balance’ here as ‘Off’ is simply too slow for effective operation here and ‘Speed’ introduces extremely strong overshoot. The brightness control is inaccessible with ‘Aim Stabilizer’ active and HDR can’t be used at the same time. The reference screens used for comparison are the AOC C24G1 using its ‘MBR’ setting and the Dell S2417DG using its ‘ULMB’ settings. These are both quite useable strobe backlight settings and make appropriate references.

Strobe behaviour was similar regardless of whether VRR was active in the OSD. Subjective analysis over a range of refresh rates is included deeper into the review.

With ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ active at 100Hz, above, the main object is significantly narrower with clearer internal detailing compared to with the setting deactivated. Even if comparing to a higher refresh rate. The segmentation of the UFO and white notches were more clearly defined than they appear in the photo, the image is just quite bleached due to the relatively high brightness. There’s a distinct repetition of the object in front of it, particularly for the dark background and to a fair extent the medium background. This is fainter for the light background. These repetitions of the object are broadly termed ‘strobe crosstalk’ and can be seen behind the object for the C24G1 reference. There’s also some overshoot behind the object, especially using the ‘Balance’ setting. The S2417DG shows overshoot levels some way between the ‘Picture Quality’ and ‘Balance’ settings, though is free from strobe crosstalk centrally where that pursuit photo example was taken. The KSF phosphors of the backlight of the M32U also introduce a colourful (magenta to red) fringe to the crosstalk here, due to their relatively slow decay rate. This is not observed on the reference screens as they don’t use KSF phosphors. The images below show the monitor running with ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ set at 120Hz.

With ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ active at 120Hz, above, there’s more distinct detailing visible on the UFO. To the eye the segments were clearly visible and white notches countable, they’re bleached and blended together too much in the photo. The strobe crosstalk behaviour is quite comparable to at 100Hz. The overshoot is a touch weaker in places and you can see the introduction of a bit of conventional trailing for the dark background – a faint repetition behind it. Any repetitions (strobe crosstalk, conventional trailing or overshoot) are slightly narrower due to the increased refresh rate. The reference screens are free from this level of strobe crosstalk, with the S2417DG being particularly impressive in that respect and showing less overshoot than the ‘Balance’ setting (but more than ‘Picture Quality’). The images below show the monitor running with ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ at 144Hz. The AOC AG251FG is used as the ULMB reference here as the S2417DG can’t strobe at 144Hz.

With ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ active at 144Hz, above, the main object again shows excellent clarity. To the eye, the segmentation was exceptionally crisp and notches easy to count. The strobe crosstalk is similar, but overshoot levels are lower and a bit more conventional trailing is introduced behind the UFOs. This is still significantly fainter than the object itself and fainter than the trailing on the C24G1. Whether you’d want to swing more towards a bit more conventional trailing with the ‘Picture Quality’ setting or some overshoot with the ‘Balance’ setting is really quite subjective. We found the strobe crosstalk and indeed KSF-related fringing and flashing (explored subjectively shortly) more noticeable in practice than either of these anyway and would generally stick to ‘Picture Quality’ as we would without ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ in use.

It’s important to note 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 image below is a pursuit photo with the UFO shown at various positions of the screen, from top to bottom, at a refresh rate of 144Hz. Strobe crosstalk positioning was similar at decreased refresh rates. As covered earlier and reinforced later on, stronger overshoot for observed at a given response time setting as refresh rate reduced. The ‘- Middle -‘ marker denotes the central region of the screen. Note that this image does not accurately show the clarity of the object itself, but allows analysis of strobe crosstalk and other imperfections such as overshoot.

You can see varying levels of strobe crosstalk depending on how far up or down the screen you’re observing. Sometimes it is so strong that it melds into the main object, particularly higher up the screen where it appears as if a double object is presented. In the central region of the screen moderate strobe crosstalk remains, particularly just above the central point. Lower down the screen the strobe crosstalk is displaced behind the object. The central bands of the screen are where your eyes are mainly going to be focusing on for the competitive titles this sort of setting is designed for. So optimising performance there is often desirable even if it comes at the expense of other regions. We explore the ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ experience subjectively using in game examples shortly.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On various Battlefield titles, at a frame rate keeping pace with the 144Hz refresh rate, the monitor delivered a fluid experience. Compared to a 60Hz monitor or this monitor running at 60Hz (or 60fps), over twice as much visual information is outputted every second. This greatly improves the ‘connected feel’, which describes the precision and fluidity felt when interacting with the game. The low input lag provided by the monitor also helped in this respect. The combination of high frame rate and refresh rate also decreases perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated earlier using Test UFO. This can make for a more comfortable gaming experience for some and can provide a competitive edge in games like Battlefield, making it easier to track and engage enemies. It also complements the high pixel density well, with the monitor able to preserve some of the detail during motion than at 60Hz.

Pixel responsiveness is another important aspect of perceived blur. As highlighted earlier using Test UFO, the monitor performed well here. The weaknesses were on the minor side, which was echoed with in-game testing over a broader range of transitions. There was a touch of ‘powdery’ trailing in places, which added a little bit of perceived blur, particularly where darker shades were involved in the transition. But this was never ‘heavy’ or approaching ‘smeary’ in its appearance. It stuck relatively close to the object and was quite faint, so isn’t the sort of weakness that will become a distraction or necessarily be noticed by most people. Overshoot levels were also low, with just some faint traces of it in places rather than anything eye-catching or particularly noteworthy. As we explored with Test UFO earlier, those who aren’t particularly sensitive to overshoot may like to try out the ‘Balance’ setting to reduce some of the ‘powdery’ trailing. Though we feel most will be happy with the ‘Picture Quality’ setting and that some of the overshoot observed with the ‘Balance’ setting was more noticeable than the slight pixel responsiveness weaknesses for ‘Picture Quality’.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with a good 144Hz performance overall. This title has plenty of ‘high contrast’ transitions, with lots of darker shades added into the mix. Some IPS models will have noteworthy weaknesses there, whilst VA models are prone to clearer ‘smeary’ trailing. As with our observations on Battlefield for similar transitions, we feel the weaknesses here were on the minor side. Slight ‘powdery’ trailing that just adds a little perceived blur. The 28” alternatives such as the XV282K KV and M28U have just slightly less of this (though still a little), but in its place comes a bit more overshoot than the M32U shows. The differences aren’t dramatic and all of these models perform well at high refresh rates such as 120Hz and 144Hz, however. We also observed video content at a range of refresh rates, including ~24 – 30fps content on platforms such as Netflix and 60fps content on YouTube. There were no clear weaknesses from the pixel responses of the monitor, with a solid performance for both frame rate classes. The main barrier to fluidity was the frame rate of the content itself rather than weaknesses related to the pixel responses of the monitor.

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.

Aim Stabilizer Sync

Earlier in the review we covered ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’, including its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using a strobe backlight feature, your frame rate must match the refresh rate precisely. Otherwise you’re left with extremely obvious stuttering or juddering. Standing out in such a clear way due to there being very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. With ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’, you can use VRR technology such as Adaptive-Sync at the same time, which avoids that issue within its range of operation. Below ~76 – 80Hz (76 – 80fps) ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ deactivated and the monitor resumed its normal VRR operation without the strobe element. The range of values given there reflects the fact the technology seemed to activate and deactivate at slightly different points within the range, depending on the fluctuations in frame rate. You can’t adjust brightness or activate HDR with ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ active. We tested the feature using various test titles, including various Battlefield titles which we’ll use for reference in this section.

The technology worked well in terms of significantly reducing perceived blur due to eye movement, whilst the VRR or ‘Sync’ element also worked as intended to avoid unwanted tearing or stuttering. The clarity of the main object and texture details during movement was strong, even if moving particularly quickly in a vehicle or quickly turning the character. We observed moderately strong strobe crosstalk, even in the central region of the screen (or just above centre, as explored earlier) which created at times quite bold repetitions of objects during motion. There was also a bit of conventional trailing or, particularly at reduced refresh rates, overshoot. We also noticed a distinct magenta to red fringe in places due to the KSF phosphors of the backlight and their relatively slow rate of decay. The was easiest to notice where brighter shades were set against somewhat darker backgrounds. We also observed colourful flashes in similar situations of not just magenta to red but also green and sometimes other shades such as cyan. We always observe such issues, as with the fringing, for KSF phosphor backlights. As with flickering due to the backlight strobing, sensitivity to such issues varies – and the flickering, at least, is a required part of a strobe backlight technology. The flickering was increasingly intense as refresh rate decreased (until the cut-off point of ~76Hz -80Hz) and the ‘connected feel’ was also negatively impacted by the decreased frame rate.

Overall, we feel this setting will appeal to a small subset of users. It can bring a competitive edge due to minimising overall perceived blur, but it comes with a range of visual side-effects which can make it quite unpleasant. Flickering, locked and moderately high brightness levels, fringing and flashes plus moderate to strong strobe crosstalk being potentially the most annoying in our view. The ’Sync’ element of the technology did work well, though even the best strobe backlight settings (which this is not) are most appealing for competitive gameplay where a high frame rate is also beneficial.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

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. 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 M32U supports FreeSync Premium Pro via DP and HDMI on compatible GPUs and systems. Note that HDR can be activated at the same time as FreeSync. You need to make sure ‘AMD FreeSync Premium Pro’ is enabled in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP and the bottom image by HDMI. The setting is referred to as ‘AMD FreeSync Premium Pro’ in both cases, although the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The Gigabyte 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 34fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 68Hz 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.

To configure VSync, open ‘AMD Software’. Click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click ‘Graphics’. The setting is listed as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This configures it globally, but if you wish to configure it for individual games click ‘Game Graphics’ towards the top right. 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. Above this dropdown list there’s a toggle for ‘Radeon Enhanced Sync’. 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 rather 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 go to ‘Game Assist’ and activate the ‘Refresh Rate’ feature, the monitor will display the refresh rate. This will coincide with the frame rate of the content if the monitor is within the main VRR window. Finally, it’s worth noting 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

As usual, we tested a range of titles using AMD FreeSync and found the experience similar in all cases. Any issues affecting one title points towards a game or GPU driver issue rather than a monitor issue. For simplicity we’ll just focus on Battlefield titles here. They offer a good range of graphics settings, allowing the full VRR range to be analysed on our Radeon RX 580. With this being far from a powerhouse of a GPU, some dips below 144fps were common. Without the technology active you can observe tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) from a lack of synchronisation between frame and refresh rate. FreeSync removed these interruptions and for those sensitive to such things is a welcome thing to have. You could still notice the drops in frame rate due to the reduction in ‘connected feel’ and increased perceived blur that naturally accompanies a lower frame rate.

The monitor doesn’t use variable overdrive which would re-tune the overdrive impulse and slacken off acceleration as refresh rate drops. An increase in overshoot was observed as refresh rate dipped – something which accompanies a reduction in frame rate in a VRR environment. Sensitivity to overshoot varies, but we found it preferable to switch ‘Overdrive’ from ‘Picture Quality’ to ‘OFF’ if we were spending a lot of time with refresh rate in the double digits. Particularly <80Hz, where the overshoot was quite strong for some transitions with the ‘Picture Quality’ setting. The technology worked down to the floor of operation of 48Hz (48fps), below which LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) came into play. Keeping the refresh rate at a multiple of the frame rate to keep tearing and stuttering at bay. There was a subtle momentary stuttering when LFC activated or deactivated, something we always observe and not specific to this model. It was much less noticeable than traditional stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches, but if you’re sensitive to it and frequently passing the boundary it could be annoying.

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 or later 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 validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass certain quality checks. With the M32U you can connect the monitor up via either DisplayPort 1.4 or HDMI 2.1 to use ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’, with the latter technically making use of HDMI 2.1’s integrated VRR functionality rather than Adaptive-Sync. You need to make sure ‘FreeSync Premium Pro’ is set to ‘Enable’ in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD to use the technology via DP (this enables Adaptive-Sync). 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 and press ‘OK’. If you’ve enabled ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ and it was previously disabled, the monitor should re-establish its connection with the system and 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 won’t work. On our RTX 3090 the experience was very similar to what we described with FreeSync. With the technology getting rid of tearing and stuttering from what would otherwise be frame and refresh rate mismatches, within the VRR range. This appeared to have a slightly higher floor of operation of 52Hz (or a few Hz higher depending on fluctuations), so 52 – 144Hz. Though an LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication technology was employed below that to keep tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. There was again a subtle 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 you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than AMD Software 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’).



Note again that you can use the ‘Refresh Rate’ feature in the ‘Game Assist’ section of the OSD to display the current refresh rate of the monitor. This will reflect the frame rate if it’s within the main variable refresh rate window. And as with AMD FreeSync, HDR can be used at the same time as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’.

HDMI 2.1 VRR

HDMI 2.1 includes Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) support as part of the specification. This is an integrated technology, which unlike FreeSync does not rely on VESA Adaptive-Sync to function. As such it can be used by devices such as the PS5 that don’t support Adaptive-Sync. It can also be leveraged via ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ on compatible Nvidia GPUs. Based on our testing of ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ using HDMI 2.1 VRR, the experience was very similar to the Adaptive-Sync experience under SDR and HDR. ‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’ is also available to use with HDMI 2.1 VRR, if you wish.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

HDR (High Dynamic Range) on an ideal monitor involves the simultaneous display of very deep dark shades and brilliantly bright light shades. As well as a broad spectrum of shades between these extremes, including muted pastel shades alongside very vibrant saturated shades. Ideally, per-pixel illumination would be provided (e.g. self-emissive displays such as OLED), or for LCDs a very large number of precisely controlled dimming zones used. A solution such as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) with a generous number of dimming zones, for example. Such a solution would allow some areas of the screen to remain very dim whilst others show brilliantly high brightness. Colour reproduction is also an important part of HDR, with the ultimate goal being support for a huge colour gamut, Rec. 2020. A more achievable near-term goal is support for at least 90% DCI-P3 (Digital Cinema Initiatives standard colour space) coverage. Finally, HDR makes use of at least 10-bit precision per colour channel, so its desirable that the monitor supports at least 10-bits per subpixel. HDR10 is the most widely supported standard used in HDR games and movies and what is supported here.

For games and other full screen applications that support HDR, the Gigabyte M32U automatically switches to its HDR operating mode if an HDR signal is provided. Some game titles will activate HDR correctly when the appropriate in-game setting is selected. Others that support HDR will only run in HDR if ‘Use HDR’ is turned on in Windows, too. Related Windows HDR settings are found in the ‘Windows HD Color settings’ (Windows 10) or ‘HDR’ (Windows 11) section of ‘Display settings’ (right click the desktop). If you want to view HDR movie content, ensure ‘Stream HDR Video’ (Windows 10) or ‘Play streaming HDR video’ (Windows 11) is active. Also note that there’s an ‘HDR/SDR brightness balance’ (Windows 10) or ‘SDR content brightness’ (Windows 11) slider that allows you to adjust the overall balance of SDR content if HDR is active in Windows. This is really just a digital brightness slider that only makes changes for SDR content, and you lose contrast by adjusting it. The settings in the OSD are greatly restricted under HDR and although the image is better balanced than some models when viewing SDR content under HDR, gamma is a bit low in places which gives a slightly foggy look and reveals unintended detail. We’d recommend only activating HDR in Windows if you’re about to use an HDR application that specifically requires it.

To keep things simple we’ll just focus on Shadow of the Tomb Raider here, which is a title we’ve tested on a broad range of monitors under HDR. We know it has a good HDR implementation and the experience is very much limited by the screen itself, highlighting weaknesses which will apply to other HDR content as well. Although our testing focuses on HDR PC gaming using DisplayPort on an RTX 3090, similar observations were made when viewing HDR video content on the Netflix app. There are some additional points to bear in mind if you wish to view such content. We also made similar observations using HDMI, which would be used when viewing HDR content on an HDR compatible games console for example. Testing on both our Nvidia and AMD GPUs showed some differences as things appeared a bit less rich and saturated on the AMD side. Furthermore, ‘Local Dimming’ didn’t appear to work correctly if at all as we observed under SDR for our AMD GPU. To repeat what we said there, this could be a driver issue or issue with our old AMD GPU. Gigabyte are aware of this and if it turns out to be a broader issue it could be rectified with updated firmware for the monitor.

As usual under HDR, the settings you can access in the OSD are greatly restricted. Brightness, gamma and colour channels can’t be adjusted, for example. You can adjust the ‘Super Resolution’ sharpness filter and Overdrive in the ‘Game’ section of the OSD. For the ‘Picture’ section there are a few options you can tweak. ‘Light Enhance’ brightens light to medium shades up, ‘Color Enhance’ oversaturates things and ‘Dark Enhance’ lifts up dark shades so they’re brighter than they should be. Some may subjectively like how things look with these ‘enhancements’, but they simply serve to upset the image and runs contrary to what the HDR metadata is telling the monitor it should be doing. The ‘Local Dimming’ setting works in a similar way to under SDR, enabling the 16 dimming zones of the screen. Without this, under HDR, you’re stuck with a very high brightness level even if predominantly dark content is displayed. Which creates a distinctly flooded look to the image and even makes some medium shades appear far brighter than they should. We’d therefore recommend leaving ‘Local Dimming’ enabled and did so for the remainder of this section.

The Gigabyte M32U is VESA DisplayHDR 400 certified. This is the lowest level of VESA DisplayHDR certification, so only a basic HDR experience is offered here. For the colour gamut this HDR level isn’t at all strict – in this case we measured 87% DCI-P3. This is shown in the representation below, where the red triangle shows the monitor’s colour gamut, the blue triangle DCI-P3 and green triangle sRGB. This reasonable DCI-P3 coverage and strong consistency of the panel help provide a decent vibrancy injection where the developers intend it. This includes a fairly rich look to flames, some fairly deep forest greens and some reasonably eye-catching foliage in the game with flashes of shades such as red, orange, purple with saturation levels comfortably beyond the sRGB colour space. Depending on how things are mapped, even greater DCI-P3 coverage or even extension beyond (superior Rec. 2020 coverage) could help provide further vibrancy to such elements. Greater dimming precision for the backlight would also add extra depth to some of the dark and medium shades. Unlike under SDR, the developers have wider gamuts than sRGB in mind. So we didn’t observe the oversaturation of woody tones or a reddish push to browns and certain skin tones. Or the overly vivid look to some greens which affected the ‘natural look’ of some foliage under SDR.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

The HDR10 pipeline uses 10-bits per colour channel, which this monitor also supports via 8-bit + FRC. This enhanced precision aids the nuanced shade variety for darker and brighter shades, whilst allowing the monitor to use its generous colour gamut with appropriate precision. This provides a natural-looking uplift of detail in darker regions, due to the variety of subtly different dark shades provided. This is different to a gamma enhancement that could be applied under SDR, which would artificially raise detail by lightening shades rather than increasing the variety of shades. At the high end the enhanced nuanced variety of bright shades help smooth out gradients and provide more natural shade progressions for various particle effects, weather effects, smoke and suchlike. To really help accentuate this, you’d need a much higher luminance precision than is provided by the backlight here. Under HDR there should be a tight link between the shades outputted and luminance output of the monitor and that’s not possible in this case. The image below shows one of our favourite scenes from Shadow of the Tomb Raider for HDR. Remember that the photo is purely for illustrative purposes and in no way represents how the monitor appeared running HDR in person.

This scene highlighted the advantages of the 10-bit precision nicely, with a good mixture of shade depths and some very subtle variations. Though local dimming isn’t required for the VESA DisplayHDR 400 level, the monitor does provide rudimentary local dimming with 16 zones as we explored earlier. With the 16 zones able to dim independently or remain relatively bright if it makes sense for the content contained on that zone, you get a situational edge to contrast in some scenes. Much as we explored under SDR, we generally found the experience to be like a slightly souped-up Dynamic Contrast mode. In many scenarios including the waterfall scene above, the zones stayed at a brightness that was reasonably close to one another. There was slight relative dimming of zones covering the medium to darker content to the left vs. the right of the scene, just enough to give a slight contrast edge. For predominantly darker content the dimming was certainly welcome to avoid the clearly ‘flooded’ look you had with the setting disabled. But that’s not to say the depth of the darker shades or even some medium shades was all that impressive. The shade mixtures either for daylight scenes such as the waterfall scene above or scenes that were dominated by darker shades are actually very intricate. So greater dimming precision would’ve been beneficial. We also felt the dimming could’ve been a bit more aggressive at times for some of the predominantly dark content, though a balance still has to be struck. With a limited number of zones, significant disparities between the brightness of one zone and adjacent zones can lead to more noticeable shifts. If particularly aggressive local dimming is used you can become quite aware of the zones themselves, which in this case are large bands of the screen.

The peak luminance we recorded (442 cd/m²) was quite limited by HDR standards, so bright elements like the glint on the water surface or the light pooling in from above weren’t as brilliant or eye-catching as they could be. There should be a variety of bright to very bright shades that were simply beyond the capabilities of the monitor here. With the dark shades and even some medium shades lacking the depth they could be given with more precise luminance control, the brighter shades didn’t have the same comparative ‘pop’ they could have, either. The section of video review below runs through the HDR experience using various scenes in Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

The ‘4K’ UHD experience

Our article exploring the 3840 x 2160 ‘4K’ UHD resolution looks at the experience provided by a smaller screen than this – 28” with a pixel density of 157.35 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). The 31.5” screen of the Gigabyte provides a somewhat lower pixel density of 139.87 PPI, which is still high for a monitor. There’s still a distinct ‘UHD’ look to suitably high resolution content, similar to that described in the article. A look which simply isn’t provided by models with a significantly lower pixel density such as 27” 2560 x 1440 (WQHD or 1440p) models. The more generous screen size also lends itself well to viewing without as much scaling or application-specific zoom as on smaller screens sharing the resolution, such as the 28” model used in the article. We found the screen very comfortable to use without scaling from our preferred viewing distance of ~70 – 80cm, though individual preferences will vary in this respect. This offered an excellent amount of ‘desktop real-estate’ with exceptional multi-tasking potential and strong text clarity. The ‘4K UHD Experience’ article also points out that the high pixel density is still an important component of text clarity which remains even if scaling is used. Provided it scales ‘cleanly’ (which is does in most cases), the clarity and crispness afforded by the high pixel density remains. The images below show the screen in action on the desktop and performing some multi-tasking natively (100%, no scaling) and with a small amount of scaling applied (125%).

Note that these images are just for illustrative purposes and don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears in person. Any banding and patchiness on solid backgrounds are artifacts in the image, not observed in person.

We also enjoyed the ‘4K’ UHD gaming experience on the 31.5” screen. The size of the screen provided a strong level of immersion, but we didn’t find it overbearing from our usual viewing distance. With the large screen it also expands your options when it comes to viewing position, more practical than smaller screens if you wish to sit a bit further back from the monitor. With the strong pixel density, content was given a clearly defined and detailed look that’s again similar to what was described in the article. The benefits are easier to appreciate in motion due to the high refresh rate (at suitably high frame rates), too. This is a look not offered by models with a significantly lower (but still reasonable) pixel density such as 27” WQHD screens. Having this detail spread out across a relatively large screen area was also nice, in our view. Whilst things were most impressive for graphically demanding titles with high resolution particle effects and textures and various graphical bells and whistles, even for graphically simpler titles there was definite benefit. A distinct look to objects with excellent edge-definition even as you look into the distance on the game, lacking on models with a significantly lower pixel density. The images below show the monitor running various game titles at the native resolution. These are purely for illustrative purposes and in no way indicate how the monitor appears in person.

Interpolation and upscaling

The 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution is taxing graphically, so it may be desirable to run certain games or applications at a lower resolution for performance reasons. Alternatively, you may be using a system such as games console that doesn’t support a ‘4K’ UHD signal. The monitor is able to use interpolation (scaling) to map lower resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (‘1080p’ or Full HD) onto all 3840 x 2160 pixels of the display. To ensure the monitor rather than GPU is handling the scaling process, as a PC user, you need to ensure the GPU driver is correctly configured so that the GPU doesn’t take over the scaling process. For AMD GPU users the monitor will handle the scaling by default, when gaming at non-native resolutions. Nvidia users should open the Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. They should ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown below.



The monitor includes various ‘Display Mode’ settings in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD, as explored in this section of the OSD video. These are only accessible if ‘AMD FreeSync Premium Pro’ is disabled in the OSD and therefore VRR isn’t used (the option is also greyed out when using HDMI 2.1 VRR). The default ‘Full’ setting uses interpolation to map the source resolution onto all 3840 x 2160 of the display – this is the setting used under VRR. There’s also ‘Aspect’, which will use as much screen space as possible without changing the aspect ratio, avoiding any stretching or distortion for non-16:9 resolutions. There’s ‘1:1’ which is a pixel mapping feature that will only use the pixels called for in the source resolution and fill out the remaining pixels as black space around the image. And finally, a range of settings which will squish the image up and simulate different screen sizes and aspect ratios (22” 16:10 plus 23 – 27” 16:9).

When running the monitor at either 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) or 2560 x 1440 (WQHD or 1440p), the interpolation process of the monitor provided moderate softening. This was quite pronounced for the Full HD resolution, less so for the WQHD resolution. It’s possible to counteract this to an extent by increasing ‘Super Resolution’ in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. However; we found even setting this to ‘1’ provided noticeable over-sharpening. Giving quite a rough appearance to some elements. We instead preferred increasing ‘Sharpness’ in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD to ‘7’. Preferences will vary, some may prefer ‘6’ or ‘8’ for example – and finer control here would’ve been ideal. Whilst this didn’t make things look like would for a ~32” screen with that resolution natively, it was quite useable in our view and provided a decent balance with the sharpness algorithm.

As usual, if you’re running the monitor at 3840 x 2160 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 very small amount of softening to the image compared to viewing such content on a native Full HD monitor, but it’s slight and shouldn’t bother most users.

Video review

The video below shows the monitor in action. The camera, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see when viewing the monitor in person. It still provides useful visual demonstrations and explanations which help reinforce some of the key points raised in the written piece.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Local Dimming (SDR)
Colour reproduction
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (VRR)

Conclusion

With its 31.5” screen size and 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’) UHD resolution, the Gigabyte provides a strong pixel density which brings good clarity and crispiness to text and suitably high resolution image content. Including games and movies. This combination provides a good level of immersion and a lot of ‘desktop real estate’, too. The monitor doesn’t do anything too showy aesthetically, opting for matte black plastic and a few glossy black plastic touches. The low-profile stand base is not the most solid or premium-feeling, but it does the job and is weighted by a metal backplate to give stable footing to the screen. Ergonomic flexibility is good with height, swivel and tilt adjustment – though pivot into portrait is lacking. Whilst the OSD provides a lot of functionality and includes accompanying software with user-upgradeable firmware. HDMI 2.1 provides a 120Hz ‘4K’ UHD signal for the PS5 and Xbox Series X, alongside integrated VRR support. And USB-C plus KVM is thrown in for good measure, though it’s quite limited on the Power Delivery (PD) side of things.

Strong colour consistency was provided by the IPS-type panel. The colour gamut provided a fair amount of extension beyond sRGB, though didn’t comprehensively cover extended colour spaces such as DCI-P3 or Adobe RGB. As such, a bit of extra vibrancy and saturation is provided for regular sRGB content but nothing extreme. Though the gamut is really too limited for accurate content creation beyond the sRGB colour space. An sRGB emulation setting was included to tone down the native saturation, though it was quite inflexible and the tuning could’ve been better on our unit. When it came to contrast things sat where we expected them to, with the monitor achieving a touch beyond the specified 1000:1 depending on settings. There was a moderate amount of ‘IPS glow’, though at an expected level for an IPS-type panel of this size. ‘Local Dimming’ was supported for both SDR and HDR with 16 dimming zones, though it was limited in its effectiveness and locked off brightness which will limit its appeal. Coupled with a colour gamut that is quite incomplete in terms of DCI-P3 coverage and certainly Rec. 2020 coverage, the HDR experience was far from spectacular. Even if a touch beyond what some models provide (that isn’t saying much).

When it came to responsiveness the monitor performed well overall. Pixel responses were rapid enough to provide a good 144Hz experience. The monitor performed as expected under VRR, including for AMD FreeSync and Nvidia’s ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. And whilst we don’t consider it to offer a true single overdrive mode experience for VRR, it did offer appropriate settings to appeal to those more sensitive to overshoot. The monitor also provided a strobe backlight setting (‘Aim Stabilizer Sync’), which had its fair share of visual disturbances but will appeal to some and did a good job of integrating VRR support. In many respects the monitor performed quite like a scaled-up version of the 28” models also based on an Innolux IPS-type panel, such as the VG28UQL1A, M28U and XV282K KV. But offered superior pixel overdrive flexibility for better handling of reduced refresh rates without anywhere near as much overshoot. It doesn’t offer the same level of HDR support or colour gamut as some competing 32” models. Though with a price that runs closer to competing 27-28” models and actually undercuts some (based on ~$750 USD price as reviewed), you really do get a lot of monitor for your money with this one.

Positives	Negatives
Quite vibrant with strong colour consistency from IPS-type panel and good ‘out of the box’ setup on our unit. Fairly generous gamut plus sRGB emulation mode with adjustable brightness	DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB coverage insufficient for work within those colour spaces, sRGB emulation mode quite inflexible with odd gamma tracking on our unit
Decent static contrast (above some panels of this type) and a light to very light matte screen surface which minimises layering in front of image	Moderate ‘IPS glow’, limited effectiveness from inflexible 16-zone local dimming. Limited HDR performance on both contrast and colour side
Well balanced pixel responses providing a good 144Hz experience, low input lag and appropriately functioning VRR	Minor weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, not a single overdrive mode experience for VRR
Strong pixel density provides excellent detail and clarity with excellent ‘desktop real estate’. Good ergonomics, USB-C and HDMI 2.1 support with feature-rich OSD	Basic design and styling with ‘plasticky’ feel to stand base, no pivot support with included stand

The bottom line; a well-rounded performance and good price for a large high refresh rate ‘4K’ UHD experience.PC Monitors

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.

Buy from Amazon

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.