AOC AG273QCG

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 or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade.

We did not observe any static interlace pattern artifacts, although we did observe some dynamic interlacing patterns in places. They were generally most noticeable when observing lighter shades such as when moving quickly past smoke or observing an explosion or muzzle flash. Also, when scrolling past certain images on web pages. They were far easier to notice and quite widespread with ULMB active, although this is a common observation on models which have them. They’re note specifically linked to refresh rate or G-SYNC activity, however. Most users shouldn’t find them bothersome and some won’t notice them (particularly with ULMB deactivated).

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a small tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to compare the AG273QCG’s latency with a screen of known latency. To help maximise accuracy, over 30 repeat readings were taken. Using the method, we measured 3.89ms (~ 2/3rds of a frame @165Hz) of input lag. 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. Unfortunately, we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with G-SYNC active in a variable refresh rate environment, but input lag did feel low to us with G-SYNC doing its thing.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our article on the topic, we explore the key factors affecting PC monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is the concept of perceived blur, which is contributed to not only by the monitor’s pixel responsiveness, but also the movement of our eyes as we track motion on the screen. This second factor (eye movement) is the predominant contributor to perceived blur on modern monitors, although pixel responsiveness also plays an important role. A method of photography called pursuit photography is also explored. This uses a moving rather than static camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that simulates both eye movement and pixel responsiveness. This allows both elements of perceived blur to be highlighted, rather than simply capturing pixel responsiveness.

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. The test was set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a good practical speed for taking such photographs. 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 (dark, medium and light cyan background). This forces the monitor to perform a range of pixel transitions and can help highlight the effect of different shades (grey levels) on pixel response speeds. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz using all of the available ‘Overdrive’ settings. For most refresh rates a reference pursuit photograph is also included, from a Dell S2417DG which offers excellent pixel responsiveness and gives a good idea of how things look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor.

At 60Hz (above) the UFO appears soft and unfocused, which reflects a significant amount of perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement. There is also a little bit of trailing behind the object in some cases, which is down to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. With ‘Overdrive = Off’ there is a slight powdery trail behind the object, most noticeable behind the cockpit area of the medium background (middle row). The ‘Weak’ setting reduces this a bit, although a little bit of this trailing remains. The ‘Medium’ setting as good as eliminates this trailing and is, if anything, slightly better than the reference shot even. There is a very slight trace of overshoot (inverse ghosting) for the medium background, with a slight shadowy trail behind the UFO. This is very faint and not at all eye-catching. The ‘Strong’ setting introduces more noticeable overshoot, with a stronger shadow and some bright trailing for the medium background. This is not extreme but it’s clear that the ‘Medium’ setting is better optimised here. The image below shows how things look at the significantly higher refresh rate of 120Hz.

At 120Hz (above), the object is much more sharply focused and significantly narrower. This reflects a marked decreased in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are again various degrees of trailing behind the object, some of it more noticeable than at 60Hz. With ‘Overdrive = Off’ there is a significant amount of trailing beyond the object, more so than at 60Hz. The pixel response speed requirements are massively increased and the pixel responses are far too slow to provide an optimal performance for the now doubled refresh rate. The ‘Weak’ setting cuts down on the trailing quite a bit, although some remains. The ‘Medium’ setting offers significant further improvement. There is again a trace of overshoot for the medium background, but nothing substantial – a very clean performance overall in this test. The ‘Strong’ setting provides quite eye-catching overshoot, particularly for the medium background where there is a bright and colourful trail behind the object. This is an unnecessarily high level of pixel overdrive, the ‘Medium’ setting is again better optimised. The image below shows things with a slight bump up in refresh rate, to 144Hz.

At 144Hz (above) there are only subtle changes from 120Hz. The trailing behaviour is very similar, but the UFO is slightly narrower and more sharply focused. This reflects a slight decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The ‘Medium’ setting is again optimal here and provides a good clean performance with no observable trailing or strong overshoot in this test. The image below shows things bumped up again, this time to 165Hz.

At 165Hz (above), things are similar to at 144Hz in terms of trailing behind the object. The UFO is marginally narrower and more sharply focused, indicating another slight improvement to perceived blur from eye movement. The ‘Medium’ setting is again optimal in our view. There is a little overshoot but nothing eye-catching on this test, the overall performance is similar to the reference (and that’s a very good thing). Needless to say, we adopted this setting for our subjective testing that follows shortly. We’ve shown with Test UFO, above, that increasing refresh rate with an accompanying rise in frame rate gives a corresponding decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The monitor provides an alternative method of (massively) reducing perceived blur due to eye movement; ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur). This is an Nvidia-specific strobe backlight feature that can be employed on G-SYNC compatible GPUs instead of G-SYNC. By the mechanisms explored in the linked responsiveness article, this massively reduces eye movement and hence massively reduces perceived blur. Using ULMB causes the backlight to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate – 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz can be selected. Note that individual tolerance to flickering varies, particularly at the upper end of selectable ULMB refresh rates it’s sometimes a trade-off competitive gamers are willing to make. The image below shows the monitor with ULMB active at 85Hz. ‘PW’ refers to ‘Pulse Width’, with 3 settings tested; ‘10’ (lowest), ‘50’ and ‘100’ (maximum). A higher setting increases the length of time of the ‘on’ phase of the strobe, resulting in a brighter image at the expense of motion clarity. Note that ‘Overdrive’ can’t be changed when ULMB is active.

With ULMB enabled, at 85Hz (above) you can see that the object is far narrower and more sharply focused even when compared to 165Hz with the technology disabled. Particularly with ‘PW = 10’, you can see excellent detail on the UFO itself – you can count the little white dots for example. At ‘PW = 50’ things are more blended together in that respect but still nicely detailed. And a setting of ‘100’ loses the finer details, although things are still clearly more sharply focused than with ULMB disabled at any refresh rate. There is also significant trailing behind the UFOs, however. A faint repetition of the object. This is ‘Strobe Crosstalk’, which occurs due to the pixel responses not keeping up with the rigorous demands of the refresh cycle. Very much like conventional trailing, separated out into a distinct repetition by the strobe behaviour of the backlight. This contrasts with the reference image which shows overshoot instead. The image below shows how things look with ULMB set to 100Hz.

At 100Hz with ULMB there is a bit of an improvement in clarity and detail levels compared to at 85Hz, with the respective PW setting. The white dots are a bit more distinct at ‘PW = 100’ compared to at 85Hz where they were blended together, for example. The strobe crosstalk behaviour is slightly bolder. The final image, below, shows things with ULMB active at 120Hz.

At 120Hz you can see another slight bump up in detail levels at each respective PW setting. The level of detail for the UFO is exceptional compared to with ULMB deactivated, indicating a massive decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. But there is again that strobe crosstalk to contend with, which is somewhat bolder than at 100Hz. We didn’t actually find the differences in strobe crosstalk to be all that noticeable in practice when comparing different refresh rates with ULMB active. It was something we noticed regardless, as we’ll discuss in an in-game setting shortly. We certainly preferred the improved ‘connected feel’ and lower flickering of the highest possible refresh rate when ULMB was active (i.e. 120Hz), however.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V the 165Hz refresh rate was put to excellent use by the monitor, where frame rate kept pace. The monitor had an excellent ‘connected feel’, describing the level of precision and fluidity as you interact with the game world. This is contributed to both by the low latency coupled with the fact the monitor is updating its visual output 2.75 times as often as a 60Hz model (at 60fps). The high refresh rate and frame rate also hugely decreased perceived blur, as demonstrated earlier with Test UFO. On games like Battlefield V this makes it easier to track and engage enemies and keeps your in-game environment more focused during movement. We felt this combination of significantly lower perceived blur and significantly higher ‘connected feel’ gave a very nice competitive edge compared to playing at significantly lower frame rates (or refresh rates). The bump up from 144Hz (at 144fps) to 165Hz (165fps) wasn’t dramatic but was to us still noticeable. The slight decrease in perceived blur was demonstrated earlier with Test UFO, but it was more the slight edge in ‘connected feel’ that we enjoyed.

The monitor didn’t provide us any real cause for concern with its pixel responsiveness, which is also an important factor to consider when it comes to perceived blur. It provided a very ‘clean’ 165Hz performance overall, without noticeable trailing from slower than optimal pixel transitions and no obvious overshoot (inverse ghosting) from excessive grey to grey acceleration. There were some hints of overshoot in places, for example when observing medium-dark objects (such as a tree trunk) against a brighter background (daytime sky) you could see a slight trail that was brighter than the background colour. But this wasn’t something we found eye-catching or obnoxious. Certainly compared to models like the Dell S2716DG, where the overshoot was much more pronounced and widespread.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider provided a similar experience, with a solid 165Hz performance and no standout weaknesses. We didn’t find the overshoot bothersome or obvious, generally having to hunt it down rather than it being something that is passively observed. The ‘connected feel’ and reduced perceived blur and the competitive edge it provides was less important for this style of game, but the benefits were still there and a very welcome addition. We also made observations using movie content of a variety of frame rates. There were no clear weaknesses evident here. Particularly for the 24fps or 30fps content, the frame rate itself massively limited fluidity. The monitor already performed very nicely at 165fps, so when you reduce the frame rate the pixel response requirements for optimal performance are also reduced. There were some slight traces of overshoot (bright trailing) in places, but we didn’t find this eye-catching and was mainly observed for higher frame rate movie content (50fps+). We didn’t observe any issues with trailing from slower than optimal pixel transitions.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

Nvidia G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology that can be activated when a compatible Nvidia GPU is connected to a compatible monitor (such as the AOC AG273QCG). Our article on the technology explores the principles behind the technology and its benefits, so we won’t be repeating too much of that. Essentially the technology allows the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate to match, where possible, the frame rate outputted by the GPU. When the two are in sync it gets rid of the tearing (VSync off) and stuttering (VSync on) that occurs when the two are unsynchronised. An additional benefit for those who hate tearing and usually like to use VSync is a reduction in latency compared to ‘VSync on’ in the variable frame rate environment. As noted in the responsiveness section, though, we don’t have a way to accurately measure this.

This monitor supports G-SYNC via DP 1.2 (DisplayPort), once connected to a compatible Nvidia GPU such as the GTX 1080 Ti used by our test system. Once connected up, G-SYNC should be automatically configured and ready to use. There’s usually even a little notification icon in the system tray telling you that a G-SYNC compatible display is detected. To check everything is configured correctly, open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Set Up G-SYNC’. Ensure that the checkbox for ‘Enable G-SYNC’ is checked, then select your preferred operating mode. As the image below shows, this technology works in both ‘Full Screen’ and ‘Window’ modes, provided the correct option is selected for this. If the G-SYNC options seem to be missing from Nvidia Control Panel, this may be remedied by reconnecting the GPU or possibly connecting the monitor to a different DP output if there’s one available. If the options are still missing, reinstalling the GPU driver or updating this is recommended.

Enable G-SYNC

Next you should navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’. Here there are a few settings of interest, the first of which is ‘Monitor Technology’. This should be set to ‘G-SYNC’ as shown below. Assuming this is all set up correctly, you should see ‘NVIDIA G-SYNC’ listed as ‘Mode’ in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD menu. The refresh rate listed there just corresponds to the static refresh rate you’ve selected in Windows or your game. If you activate the ‘Frame Counter’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD, though, this will correspond with the frame rate of your game if G-SYNC is active (with the game running between 30 and 165 fps).

Set Monitor Technology to G-SYNC

The second setting of interest is VSync, which can be set to one of the following; ‘On’, ‘Use the 3D application setting’, ‘Off’ or ‘Fast’ (GPU dependent). The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 30 – 165Hz, with the maximum value (ceiling) corresponding to the refresh rate you’ve selected for the monitor in Windows. That means that if the game is running between 30fps and 165fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 165fps, the monitor will stay at 165Hz and the GPU will respect your VSync setting in the graphics driver. If you select ‘On’, VSync activates if the frame rate exceeds the static refresh rate that you’ve selected (e.g. 165Hz / 165fps) and the usual VSync latency penalty applies. If you select ‘Off’ then the frame rate is free to rise in an unrestricted way, but the monitor will only go as high as 165Hz – tearing and juddering will ensue if the frame rate rises above this. The ‘Use the 3D application setting’ largely works as you’d expect, but the general recommendation is to set VSync in the graphics driver if you wish to use it as in-game implementations can interfere with the smooth operation of G-SYNC. Some users prefer to leave VSync disabled and use a frame rate limiter set several frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 161fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate.

The ‘Fast’ option is available on some newer GPUs, such as the GTX 1080 Ti used in our test system. This enables a technology called ‘Fast Sync’, which only applies above the refresh rate and frame rate ceiling (>165Hz / 165fps). Below this G-SYNC operates as normal, whereas above this a special version of VSync called ‘Fast Sync’ is activated. This is a GPU rather than monitor feature so isn’t something we will explain in detail, but it is designed to reduce tearing at frame rates well above the refresh rate of the monitor. If you’re interested in this technology, which may be the case if you play older or less graphically demanding games at very high frame rates, you should watch this section of a video by Tom Petersen.

Set VSync according to preferences

If the frame rate drops below the lowest refresh rate supported by the monitor (i.e. the G-SYNC floor of 30Hz / 30fps) then the monitor sets its refresh rate to a multiple of the frame rate. This occurs regardless of VSync setting. If for example the game ran at 26fps, the monitor would set itself to 52Hz. This keeps stuttering and tearing from the usual frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. As we explore shortly, though, low frame rates are low frame rates regardless of the technology. So whilst it is always beneficial to have stuttering and tearing removed, it’s also beneficial to have an elevated frame rate where possible. It’s also worth remembering that G-SYNC can’t eliminate stuttering caused by other issues on the system or game environment such as insufficient RAM or network latency. And finally, you can’t activate ULMB and G-SYNC at the same time – both technologies will work on compatible Nvidia GPUs, but can’t be used simultaneously.

G-SYNC – the experience

We used a range of titles to test G-SYNC, but found the technology worked consistently well on all of these. So we’ll simply be focusing on a single title for this section; Battlefield V. This title offers good flexibility in the graphics settings, allowing the full range of refresh rates supported by G-SYNC on the monitor to be tested. Using fairly modest settings there were frequent dips below the 165fps ceiling of operation for the monitor. Without G-SYNC this sort of departure would cause a frame rate and refresh rate mismatch that gives obvious (to us) stuttering if VSync is on or tearing and juddering if VSync is off. With G-SYNC the experience ‘flowed’ in much more of a smooth way, without interruption from such things. Regardless of G-SYNC being active, there was still an advantage in getting the frame rate as high as possible. Reduced frame rate increases perceived blur and worsens the ‘connected feel’.

This became more obvious if graphics settings were increased or in particularly intense scenes where frame rate dropped into the double digits. The difference between ~165fps and 100fps is something we certainly noticed, although the overall ‘connected feel’ and perceived blur levels remained decent. Dropping off below that was quite jarring, particularly if you’d just come from much higher frame rates. The tearing or stuttering without G-SYNC active, though, made the experience a lot more painful. And at these reduced frame rates stuttering in particular becomes painfully obvious. It’s important to remember that individual sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, as does the effect of frame rate. We found G-SYNC a nice addition to the monitor, but still enjoyed the highest possible frame rates. It certainly made slight dips in frame rate a lot more palatable to us.

Even as frame rate dropped well below 80fps, the monitor provided a sensible level of pixel overdrive which adapted properly to the lower frame rate and refresh rate. This contrasts with many FreeSync models, which are often tuned to the highest refresh rate of the monitor but use excessive acceleration for lower refresh rates. The result is much more obvious overshoot as the frame rate (and hence refresh rate) decreases. On this model this wasn’t an issue, although it rarely is on G-SYNC models. Nvidia tunes the pixel overdrive for a range of refresh rates, something they call ‘Variable Overdrive’, rather than simply optimising for decent high refresh rate performance.

ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur)

We’ve introduced ULMB earlier, including its principles of operation and its effect on perceived blur using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. This section will explore how to activate the technology and also provide some subjective analysis of the experience when gaming. ULMB can be enabled by first setting the monitor to a supported refresh rate (85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz). The next step is to navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’ in the Nvidia Control Panel and select ‘ULMB’ for ‘Monitor Technology’ as shown in the image below. There is also a ‘ULMB’ setting in the ‘Gsync Setting’ section of the OSD for the monitor, which should be enabled – this generally happens automatically if the monitor is set to an appropriate refresh rate and driver option anyway. An additional setting called ‘ULMB Pulse width’ can be configured in the OSD, which adjusts the length of the ‘on phase’. A lower setting reduces the length of the ‘on phase’, resulting in a dimmer image but potentially offering further improvement in motion clarity. Most users will find that a high ‘Pulse Width’ setting delivers a nice low level of perceived blur and won’t find the slight benefits of lowering this much noticeable. Although many will also find a setting of ‘100’ too bright (with default monitor brightness) so might prefer lowering this a bit according to preferences, perhaps to around ’60 or ‘70’.

Set Monitor Technology to ULMB

You should notice a change in the image brightness and perhaps notice a mild flickering with ULMB enabled, especially when you first activate it. You can also confirm that it is activated by navigating to the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD and seeing whether ‘Mode’ is listed as ‘ULMB’. It’s very important to understand that ULMB or indeed any strobe backlight feature will only work properly if your frame rate is able to consistently match the refresh rate of the display. Without this, you’ve got very little perceived blur (due to eye movement) to mask stuttering or juddering. This becomes painfully obvious and it just doesn’t look pleasant at all. With Battlefield V running at a solid 120fps, we found the significant decrease in overall perceived blur to be very easy to notice. The setting very much did what it said on the tin in that respect, delivering ultra low levels of motion blur. Even during rapid manoeuvres in vehicles or rapidly moving the mouse whilst on foot, the level of clarity retained in the in-game environment was excellent. This can provide a nice competitive advantage, making it easier to spot and track enemies during such rapid manoeuvres.

Having said that, there was quite a bit of strobe crosstalk on this model as we identified earlier. We observed objects appear with a faint repetition of said object during fast motion in particular, much as demonstrated on TestUFO earlier. We found this easy to notice when gaming and found it quite eye-catching, although sensitivity to this varies and some users would still find the overall low levels of perceived blur to be a nice bonus. Whilst observing movie content we found a bit of a reduction in perceived blur was apparent with ULMB active. This was more noticeable for 60fps content (on YouTube, for example) as ~24fps content is far too restrictive in terms of frame rate, with an underlying juddering due to the low frame rate. For fast pans on 60fps content the edge in perceived blur was noticeable, although less so than for frame rate gaming content. 60fps also worked well as it divides nicely into 120Hz (each frame displayed twice) and we found the strobe crosstalk was masked at this sort of relatively low frame rate as well.

ULMB isn’t something we personally make much use of and prefer instead to use G-SYNC instead. The flickering, more noticeable ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ and strobe crosstalk on this model didn’t appeal to us. Neither did the requirement to have the frame rate consistently matching the refresh rate to avoid painfully obvious stuttering. Finally, we preferred the ‘connected feel’ of 165Hz at suitably high frame rates. But some users do like the significantly lower perceived blur offered by ULMB. And although the implementation on this monitor was far from perfect, it did work for its intended purpose and it’s there if you wish to use it.

The 27” 2560 x 1440 curved experience

Curved monitors are nothing new to us here, we’ve used quite a few now. But this is the first curved model that uses a TN rather than VA or IPS panel we’ve used. That fact alone did not change the experience of the curve itself and the (subtle) effect on the image. The AG273QCG features a 1800R curve and a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution. The resolution brings with it a fairly good pixel density and a decent amount of useful ‘real-estate’ on the screen, whilst keeping things a good size for many users to use without scaling or application-specific zoom. It also provides a nice level of detail for games, suitably high-resolution images and other content. Users who haven’t experienced a curved monitor in person may observe images and feel that the curve would make the image feel unnatural or distorted. Indeed, images tend to exaggerate the effect greatly. In reality the effect of the curve is subtle, an addition that we find easy to get used to. Some users (and indeed manufacturers and researchers) may claim there are viewing comfort benefits to be had as well, with the curve creating a more uniform viewing distance between your eyes and different sections of the screen. We found the monitor perfectly comfortable to use, but don’t generally have an issue with flat screens in that respect either. The only users we feel should ‘fear’ the curve are designers or those who require geometric perfection for their work, others should judge with their own eyes and certainly not dismiss based on potentially misleading images. Speaking of which, we’ve included shots showing the monitor on the desktop below. These certainly exaggerate the curve but are there to give a rough feel for how things look.

As per the previous paragraph, the screen size and curvature added some immersion to the experience. It simply ‘drew us in’ to the game environment a bit better without making the experience feel uncomfortable or alien. This effect is more pronounced with a curve of this sort of steepness (or more so if steeper) but also on a screen that’s this wide. The 21:9 aspect ratio also offers a good Field of View advantage in most titles, as explored in our article on the topic linked to previously. The images below, which again tend to exaggerate the curve, in no way indicate the image quality when observing the screen in person. They’re simply there to fire up your imagination and also demonstrate the screen in action with its 21:9 aspect ratio. The titles shown are, respectively; BF1, Dirt Rally and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus.

Interpolation and upscaling

Some users will want to use the monitor at a lower resolution than the native 2560 x 1440 (WQHD). Perhaps for performance reasons, or because they’re using a device such as a games console that doesn’t support the full native resolution. As usual for a G-SYNC monitor, there is no scaling functionality from the monitor itself when connected via DP – although the GPU can handle this instead if you’re a PC user. The monitor provides some basic scaling functionality via HDMI, however. The monitor can use an interpolation process to display a non-native resolution (such as 1920 x 1080 Full HD) using all 2560 x 1440 pixels of the screen. This is primarily designed for connecting devices such as games consoles or Blu-ray players that are limited to resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or ‘1080p’). If you wish to make use of the monitor’s scaling rather than the GPU scaling, via HDMI, you need to ensure the GPU driver is correctly configured so that the GPU doesn’t take over the scaling process. For those unconventional AMD users that are using this monitor, the driver is set up correctly by default to allow the monitor to interpolate where possible. 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.

When running the monitor at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) using the monitor’s interpolation process, there is a bit of softening compared to a native Full HD monitor of this size. This is not extreme, the monitor actually retains a decent degree of sharpness and texture detail. A fairly strong sharpness filter is used to avoid things looking too soft/blurry, although this has the opposite effect and makes things look somewhat over-sharpened. Things don’t look as naturally detailed (or natural in general) as a native 27” Full HD display, but it’s passable especially if you’ll be using it from some distance (for example, with a games console and controller). As usual, 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

High refresh rate 2560 x 1440 monitors now come in various sizes and panel types. For many the 27” screen size hits the sweet spot between immersion and pixel density, whilst the TN panel type offers the snappy pixel responses that can also be endearing. The AOC AG273QCG ticks both boxes, coupling them with a 1800R curve and a unique design. The curve isn’t something which dramatically changes the experience, it’s a subtle but in our view welcome addition which users shouldn’t shy away from. But at the same time, shouldn’t expect miracles from. The design of this AGON 3 product landed it a Red Dot Design Award when it was initially unveiled in 2018. Key ergonomic flexibility (tilt, swivel and height adjustment) is maintained and VESA mounting is also an option if the integrated stand doesn’t suit. We also liked the flexibility and utility offered by the ‘Light FX’ RGB lighting solution of the monitor. Whilst some settings were admittedly a bit gimmicky, the level of customisation and ability to set things up as a fairly effective bias light was certainly praiseworthy.

In terms of contrast the monitor put in a reasonable performance, largely in line with our expectations given the panel type. Static contrast fell a bit below the specified 1000:1, particularly after suitable colour channel adjustments were made. But not enough of a drop in that respect to significantly change the viewing experience. Although it’s not something all users are sensitive to, we did find the screen surface too grainy for our taste and would’ve preferred a lighter solution with a smoother surface texture. As seen on all but the oldest revisions of the Dell S2716DG, for example. One area where the AOC has an unequivocal advantage over the Dell, though, is its gamma handling. It was still bound by the usual perceived gamma shifts that go with the TN territory. But the central gamma was much closer to the desired ‘2.2’ curve. This helped avoid the sort of ‘unintended detail’ revealed on the Dell (‘blockiness’ or ‘banding’) which persists to an extent even after calibration.

The gamma handling also ensured the overall look to the image was rich. Even with the TN related saturation shifts accounted for, which weakened saturation lower down the screen but not to an extreme enough degree to really make things look ‘washed out’. The colour gamut was not as generous as that seen on some models, either, and that’s something that would invite a bit of extra saturation and vibrancy. This wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste, though, and some would prefer just the slight overextension beyond sRGB offered by this model. Perceived vibrancy would also be enhanced by a lighter screen surface, although the glare handling is certainly quite strong which will appeal to some users as well.

The most impressive aspect of this model was undoubtedly its responsiveness. Input lag was very low and the 165Hz refresh rate was delivered in a very convincing way thanks to rapid overall pixel responsiveness. There were no real standout weaknesses in terms of pixel responsiveness, either. A bit of overshoot in places, but nothing as eye-catching as what can be seen on models like the Dell S2716DG. G-SYNC also worked nicely to rid the experience of tearing and stuttering that would otherwise be caused by frame rate and refresh rate mismatches. The alternative Nvidia-specific operating mode, ULMB, was also available and certainly worked to reduce overall perceived blur. But there was quite a bit of strobe crosstalk, which meant the experience was not as ‘clean’ as some strobe backlight implementations. Overall we feel that the positives of this product outweigh the negatives, especially if you weight things towards responsiveness. As noted in our post on the subject, the ‘recommended badge’ is awarded based on our own personal expectations and experiences with a monitor and it ultimately weighted towards our personal preferences. With that said, it’s something we’d be quite happy to award this monitor were it not for the screen surface. It’s something that soured the experience for us, particularly as we use a Dell S2716DG as a reference monitor. But it’s something you’ll have to weigh up against your own personal tolerances.

The bottom line; a very responsive monitor with a nice design and a solid gaming feature-set, improving on the Dell S2716DG in many ways – except for smoothness of the screen surface.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.