AOC Q24G2A/BK

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.

We didn’t observe any static interlace patterns on this model, but we observed dynamic ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ under certain conditions. Fine interlaced vertical lines could be seen during movement or when scanning our eyes across the screen at times. They were difficult or impossible to see at relatively high refresh rates (e.g. 120Hz+), but more noticeable though not extreme at lower refresh rates such as 60Hz. They were observed in a similar fashion regardless of VRR being active and regardless of ‘Overdrive’ setting. Not everyone will find them bothersome or necessarily notice them even at lower refresh rates.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to analyse the latency of the Q24G2A. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method we calculated 1.55ms (~ 1/4 of a frame at 165Hz) of input lag and recorded similar values at lower refresh rates including 60Hz. This was with ‘Low Input Lag’ enabled, which is greyed out and forcefully enabled with ‘G-SYNC’ (the Adaptive-Sync toggle) active in the OSD. This indicates an exceptionally low signal delay which shouldn’t be bothersome even for sensitive users. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with VRR technology active in a VRR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores various factors affecting monitor responsiveness. A key concept explored is ‘perceived blur’, contributed to by both the pixel responses of the monitor and movement of your eyes as you observe motion on the screen. This second factor dominates on modern monitors, but both factors play an important role. A photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’ is also described, using a moving rather than stationary camera to capture motion on the screen in a way that reflects both parts of perceived blur. Rather than only reflecting 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, 144Hz and 165Hz using various ‘Overdrive’ settings. The final column shows the Gigabyte M27Q for reference, an IPS model which provides a decent performance level most are comfortable with.

Note that any wavy patterns surrounding some UFOs in the background are slight image retention. We observed a bit of image retention when running this test and this is something we’ve seen on various monitors before. It soon disappeared when using monitor normally and wasn’t something we observed forming outside of tests like this.

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. Trailing is observed in places behind the UFO, due to weaknesses in pixel response time or overshoot (inverse ghosting) from aggressive pixel overdrive. With the ‘Off’ setting there’s a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing with quite a bold initial section to the trailing, especially for the dark background (top row). This can be observed to some extent for the medium background (middle row) but is much fainter for the light background (bottom row). The ‘Weak’ setting significantly cuts this down but replaces it with light overshoot, ‘halo’ trailing that’s a bit brighter than the background shade. The reference screen performs some way between the ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’ setting. The ‘Medium’ setting causes significantly stronger overshoot that’s particularly colourful and eye-catching, with ‘Strong’ intensifying that further. In practice we found ‘Weak’ optimal at 60Hz, including when observing a broader range of transitions than shown here. Some may prefer the ‘Off’ setting if they’re particularly sensitive to overshoot. 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. To the eye the black lines which separate the segments of the UFO are less blended than they appear in the photos at 120Hz and above, so segmentation is more distinct. The pixel response requirements for a good performance here are significantly increased. The initial section of the trailing using the ‘Off’ setting is now bolder and the ‘powdery’ trailing somewhat denser, though performance is similar if not slightly stronger in places compared to the reference screen even with this setting. The ‘Weak’ setting cuts down on the ‘powdery’ trailing, with a little remaining particularly for the dark background. Overshoot is introduced, but it’s faint and less eye-catching than at 60Hz. The ‘Medium’ setting intensifies this overshoot somewhat, though not to the levels observed using the same setting at 60Hz. The ‘Strong’ setting provides strong and obvious overshoot. We consider ‘Weak’ optimal at 120Hz, though ‘Medium’ could be considered acceptable depending on overshoot sensitivity. Below you can see how things look with a slight bump in refresh rate 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 nowhere near as significant as the initial boost from 60Hz to 120Hz – this is only an extra 24Hz. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance have stepped up further. Overall the trailing behaviour for the respective overdrive settings is quite similar to 120Hz, with a bit of an increase in ‘powdery’ trailing in places with the ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’ settings and slight reduction in overshoot compared to 120Hz using the ‘Medium’ setting. The reference screen is outperformed even using the ‘Off’ setting of the AOC. We consider ‘Weak’ or ‘Medium’ optimal here depending on overshoot sensitivity, but ‘Strong’ may even appeal to some competitive gamers if overshoot isn’t too bothersome to them – it’s less extreme now than at 60Hz, for example. Below you can see things bumped up again to 165Hz.

At 165Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower again with slightly better definition. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur to eye movement, but again a minor incremental improvement. The pixel response behaviour is quite comparable to at 144Hz overall, again the pixel response requirements are increased so some of the ‘powdery’ trailing is a touch bolder or more extended. The monitor again outperforms the reference even using the ‘Off’ setting. The overshoot levels are also reduced, with little visible using the ‘Medium’ setting. In practice there are some transitions which will show a bit more overshoot using ‘Medium’ than can be seen here, but as we explore subjectively shortly it pretty tame overshoot really. We consider ‘Medium’ optimal at 165Hz, but depending on overshoot sensitivity other options could be considered.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, the monitor offers an alternative in the form of ‘MBR’ (Motion Blur Reduction). This is a strobe backlight setting that causes the backlight to pulse at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – 120Hz, 144Hz or 165Hz. Sensitivity to this flickering varies and some may find it bothersome whilst others will notice accelerated eye fatigue when using the setting, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 120Hz using MBR. A few reference screens are also shown for comparison, using their respective strobe backlight settings at 120Hz. 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. Our preference was for either ‘Medium’ or ‘Strong’ depending on refresh rate, so we’ve included an analysis of both settings here. Also be aware that setting the ‘Overdrive’ to ‘Boost’ is equivalent to using the ‘Strong’ setting and setting ‘MBR’ to ‘20’.

With MBR active at 120Hz, above, the main object appears significantly narrower with clearer internal detailing. This is most noticeable for ‘MBR = 20’ where segmentation is distinct and the white notches can be counted. This more focused look to the object with more distinct and clear internal detailing indicates a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement, the main goal of a strobe backlight setting like this. Although intermediate steps aren’t included in this analysis, we found the main object and internal detail clarity particularly strong at a setting of ‘MBR = 15’ and above. Some trailing is visible behind and in some cases in front of the object, fragmented due to the strobe nature of the backlight. 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. This strobe crosstalk basically melds into the main object and creates what appears to be a duplication using ‘MBR = 1’ so that setting is a bit messy. Overall, the level of strobe crosstalk observed here for ‘MBR = 20’ is reasonable as it remains less bold than the main object. The ‘Strong’ overdrive setting replaces some of the fragmented trailing with overshoot fragments. We found the overshoot a bit too eye-catching at 120Hz using the ‘Strong’ setting for some transitions not shown here and felt ‘Medium’ was better balanced. The images below show results with MBR active at 144Hz.

Results here are quite comparable to at 120Hz, with slightly stronger trailing fragments behind the UFOs in some cases. In both cases (120Hz and 144Hz) remember that the segmentation is a bit more distinct than it appears in the photos, but there’s still a slight relative improvement at 144Hz vs. 120Hz. Below you can see things bumped up again to 165Hz.

With MBR active at 165Hz, above, there’s a further increase to the clarity of the main object, with the white notches clearly countable and the black segmentation very distinct and clearly defined (slightly more so by eye). This is applicable to higher MBR settings such as ‘MBR = 20’ shown here, at least. The aliasing at the edges of the UFOs can also be clearly seen due to the very strong motion clarity. Although not so clear for these transitions, the overshoot levels were generally reduced a bit by eye when using the ‘Strong’ setting compared to at lower refresh rates and we slightly preferred this setting for overall motion clarity with high MBR settings. As noted earlier, 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 photographs with UFOs running along various sections of the screen from top to bottom.

Note that the image below is designed to show strobe crosstalk behaviour and doesn’t accurately show how distinct details on the main object appear. The overdrive setting didn’t affect the bold strobe crosstalk further down the screen assessed here. This was also similar for lower refresh rates, with performance centrally assessed earlier for 120Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz – so we’ve only included this single image to represent strobe crosstalk behaviour at different points of the screen. The monitor was set to our preferred settings noted before (‘MBR = 20’ with overdrive set to ‘Strong’ for 165Hz).

Further up the screen you can see a bit of strobe crosstalk in front of the UFO, but centrally there’s very little strobe crosstalk with it displaced behind the UFO just below centre. Further down the screen this strobe crosstalk behind the screen becomes rather bold and basically melds into the main UFO as it’s about as bold. Overshoot is visible throughout the screen – it’s not extreme overshoot and for some transitions less obvious than it appears here, so it’s not necessarily going to be distracting when gaming. Overall, the decent levels of strobe crosstalk centrally and lack of extreme overshoot meant this setting has good potential. Remember that the central region is where your eyes mainly focus when playing games such as fast-paced FPS titles that see most potential benefit from such a setting. Remember that wavy patterns in the background are slight image retention, only observed in tests like this and which went away when using the monitor normally.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On various Battlefield titles, with the frame rate keeping up with the 165Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided a fluid experience. The monitor outputs up to 2.75 times as much visual information per second as a 60Hz monitor (or this running at 60Hz / 60fps). This significantly improves the ‘connected feel’, which describes the precision and fluidity felt when interacting with the game. The exceptionally low signal delay of the monitor also helps in this respect. The high frame and refresh rate combination also reduces perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated using Test UFO earlier on. This provides a competitive edge by making it easier to track and engage enemies, whilst some will find the gaming experience or simply general usage of the monitor more comfortable.

Pixel responses are also important to consider, which as covered earlier were quite strong on this model. Using our preferred ‘Medium’ setting (for 165Hz), there was just a touch of ‘powdery’ trailing. It was most significant where bright shades stood against a contrasting background, but even then was not extreme and was far from the clearer weaknesses observed on VA and even some IPS models. There was a bit of overshoot in places, mainly observed as ‘halo’ trailing that was somewhat brighter than the background. We didn’t find this to be strong and eye-catching overshoot, but sensitivity varies and some people prefer this to be minimised. The ‘Weak’ setting may be preferred to tone this down – it increases ‘powdery’ trailing though not to an extreme degree.

Similar observations were made on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. There are plenty of high contrast scenes here where the weakest pixel responses of the monitor can be observed. And again, it was ‘powdery’ trailing that stuck reasonably close to the object and was not too bold – so more subtle than the weaknesses observed on slower IPS models and typical VA models. No ‘smeary’ trailing or anything close to that. There was some overshoot that we’d say was generally quite tame and not strong or eye-catching, but the ‘Weak’ overdrive setting is again an option if you need it. We also observed video content at a range of refresh rates, including ~24 – 30fps content on platforms such as Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime Video as well as 60fps content on YouTube. Aside from a little overshoot in places (essentially removed using the ‘Weak’ setting) there were no real weaknesses from the pixel responses of the monitor. 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.

MBR (Motion Blur Reduction)

Earlier in the review we covered ‘MBR’, including its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using a strobe backlight feature such as this, your frame rate should ideally match the refresh rate precisely. Otherwise you can be 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. You can’t use Adaptive-Sync at the same time, so you’re at the mercy of potential frame rate fluctuations. We tested a range of titles using the technology but will simply focus on Battlefield titles for this section as they provide a suitable test bed. Our observations here are based on our preferred setting of ‘20’ for MBR, but we felt clarity was strong above a setting of ‘15’ or so and you should experiment to find your own sweet spot for brightness and clarity. We mainly made observations at 165Hz, though broadly similar observations were made at lower refresh rates such as 120Hz. Overshoot levels are increased a bit at lower refresh rates, flickering becomes more noticeable and ‘connected feel’ takes a slight hit due to the reduced refresh rate.

The main purpose of the technology, to reduce perceived blur due to eye movement, was achieved. The clarity and details found on various objects during movement was superior, which can give a nice competitive edge when gaming. Making it easier to track and engage enemies even during rapid character movement and manoeuvring in vehicles for example. Some central strobe crosstalk was observed, strongest but still not extreme for brighter objects. It was generally significantly fainter than the main object so didn’t prevent MBR from achieving its main goal and didn’t prove hugely distracting. Your eyes mainly focus on the central region when gaming competitively, but strobe crosstalk further up and moreover down the screen was quite strong as explored earlier. There was a moderate amount of overshoot that was fairly bright for some transitions using our preferred ‘Strong’ setting (for 165Hz strobe operation), but we didn’t find this generally distracting enough to detract from the purpose of the MBR setting. Because KSF phosphors aren’t used for the backlight of the monitor, we didn’t observe the colourful flashes and fringes associated with this when using a strobe backlight setting. Overall, whilst this setting wasn’t perfect and the lack of VRR support, flickering and moderate to strong strobe crosstalk in places isn’t ideal. But overall, it’s a decent strobe backlight implementation with quite a good brightness adjustment range that some will find very useful.

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 Q24G2A supports FreeSync (manufacturer claims FreeSync Premium after AMD certification) via DP and HDMI on compatible GPUs and systems. You need to make sure ‘G-SYNC’ is enabled in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD, as this is the Adaptive-Sync toggle of this model. You should also ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync – so open ‘AMD Software’, click ‘Gaming’ 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 ‘Adaptive Sync Compatible’ via DP and ‘VRR’ via HDMI, although the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 165Hz (48 – 144Hz via HDMI). That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 165fps (for DP), 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 selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 165fps, 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 >165fps). 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 38fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 76Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. LFC usually activated at a slightly higher refresh rate of 55Hz or just slightly below – this slightly different floor of operation makes little difference in practice. 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 ‘Gaming’ 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. 162fps) 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 enable the ‘Frame Counter’ feature in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD, 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 game titles using AMD FreeSync and the experience was very similar on all of them. Issues affecting one title but not others would suggest a problem with the game or GPU driver rather than the monitor. To keep things simple, we’ll just focus on Battlefield titles for this section. With these, there’s suitable flexibility in the graphics options to allow assessment of the full FRR range using our Radeon RX 580. This is far from a powerful GPU, so even with greatly reduced graphics settings dips below 165fps are common. Without a VRR technology like FreeSync active, tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on) is experienced due to a lack of synchronisation between frame and refresh rate. FreeSync instead ensures the frame and refresh rate are appropriately synchronised, removing this tearing and stuttering and very welcome if you’re sensitive to such things. It doesn’t make low frame rates feel like high frame rates, though, so it’s still beneficial in terms of perceived blur levels and ‘connected feel’ to have a high frame rate where possible.

The monitor doesn’t use variable overdrive which would retune pixel overdrive and slacken off acceleration as refresh rate drops, avoiding a corresponding increase in overshoot. Using our preferred ‘Medium’ overdrive setting, overshoot become a bit stronger and more eye-catching by ~120Hz (~120fps with VRR active) and certainly as frame rate dropped into the double digits. We feel the ‘Weak’ overdrive setting is preferable to use here and certainly as things drop (un)comfortably into the double digits. There is a bit of an increase in ‘powdery’ trailing as pixel responses are a bit slower, but they’re still reasonably fast overall so this isn’t a terrible setting to have to use. Remember that individual preferences and sensitivity to overshoot varies, but our general recommendation is ‘Medium’ for higher refresh rates and ‘Weak’ if frame rate drops to ~120fps and certainly into the double digits. FreeSync worked down to the floor of operation which was usually ~55Hz (55fps), below which LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kicked in. LFC keeps 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’. The AOC is amongst models which are specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means it has been tested by Nvidia and passes specific quality checks. With the AOC Q24G2A you need to connect the monitor up via DP to use ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. You also need to make sure ‘G-SYNC’ is active 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 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.



As noted previously and as highlighted in Nvidia Control Panel, this model has been specifically tested and validated as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ by Nvidia. 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 (typically ~55Hz – 165Hz in our testing). 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 ‘Frame Counter’ feature in the ‘Game Setting’ 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.

The 23.8” QHD experience

Most monitors with a 2560 x 1440 (QHD or 1440p) resolution have a 27” or larger screen size, yielding a pixel density of ≤108.79 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). With its 23.8” QHD screen, the AOC Q24G2A has a somewhat higher pixel density of 123.41 PPI. This means various elements such as text and UI elements on the desktop appear a bit smaller, though not as small as on a 32” ‘4K’ UHD model for example with a pixel density of 137.68 PPI. As we’ve become used to using monitors with an even tighter pixel density without scaling, we were happy to use the AOC without any scaling from our normal viewing distance of ~70cm, with a good level of useful work area provided even with the relatively small screen. Everybody will have their own preferences for scaling level, but it’s worth remembering that for elements that scale cleanly (most content now does) applying scaling or using application-specific zoom doesn’t negatively affect the clarity or crispness provided by the tight pixel density. The images below show the screen in action on the desktop and with some multi-tasking. A 27” (technically 26.5”) QHD screen, the 27GR95QE, is placed to the left of the AOC for comparison.

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

This fairly tight pixel density provided a slight edge in detail and clarity to high resolution image and game content. This wasn’t a dramatic difference and it wasn’t the same as going up to the ‘4K’ UHD resolution on a ~32” and certainly ~27” screen, but there was still a slight edge in how crisp things appeared. Including as you look into the distance on a game for example, even if it’s a graphically ‘simple’ game or the graphics settings (resolution aside) are turned down. The smaller screen size reduces immersion from a given viewing distance, but some may prefer the more compact size. It takes up less space on the desk – which may be at a premium – and some just find larger screens a bit overwhelming or undesirable. Some favour the smaller viewing area for competitive gaming as it reduces the distance your eyes have to move and keep more of the content in your central area of vision, too. The images below show the monitor in action on various game titles. Again, the images are just for illustrative purposes and don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears first hand.

Interpolation and upscaling

It may be desirable or perhaps necessary to run the monitor below its native 2560 x 1440 (QHD or 1440p) resolution. This could be for performance reasons or because you’re using a system (such as a games console) that doesn’t support a QHD signal. The monitor provides scaling functionality via both DP and HDMI. It can be run at resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) and can use an interpolation (scaling) process to map the image onto all pixels of the screen. This is supported for refresh rates listed in the first list (‘Ultra HD, HD, SD’) in the ‘Features and aesthetics’ section, so up to 120Hz. 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 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.



The monitor has an ‘Image Ratio’ setting in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD, but this always seemed to be set to ‘Wide’ where interpolation was supported. We tested various resolutions and refresh rates where interpolation was supported and confirmed this was the only option, but perhaps other options are available for very specific resolution and refresh rate combinations. This default ‘Wide’ behaviour allows the monitor to use interpolation to fill up all pixels of the screen regardless of the aspect ratio of the source resolution – potentially stretching and distorting things. When running the 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) resolution, the interpolation process provided moderate softening so things didn’t appear as crisp as they would when running a monitor of this size natively at the Full HD resolution. We actually found things appeared softer in general than when GPU is scaling is used. The monitor would’ve benefited from a sharpness control to help offset this, but that wasn’t a luxury afforded in this case. Although we didn’t measure input lag when using interpolation, even when running Full HD at 120Hz with a matching frame rate we felt a hit to latency which went beyond that provided by GPU scaling. Given this, we didn’t find the interpolation process of the monitor very good and would recommend using GPU scaling where possible.

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 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
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (VRR)

Conclusion

The AOC Q24G2A/BK is a rare proposition, owing to its 23.8” screen size, QHD resolution and 165Hz refresh rate. This more compact QHD experience is exactly what some gamers will be after, whilst also providing a surprising amount of ‘desktop real estate’ for a relatively small screen. The monitor is quite solidly built for a budget offering, with good ergonomic flexibility as well. The stand has a few dark red metallic-looking plastic elements but is otherwise matte black plastic, so able to blend in pretty well with most setups. Integrated speakers are included for convenience, though the quality of those is nothing to write home about, and basic connectivity is offered including a couple of HDMI ports and DisplayPort. The OSD is laid out in the manufacturer’s usual style, which they’ve used for several years now, but key functions and a few extras are included such as a ‘Frame Counter’ and saturation control.

Colour consistency was good, as expected from the IPS-type panel, and a significant step above the older TN models of this size, resolution and refresh rate we tested a while back (Dell S2417DG and AOC AG241QX). This was combined with a colour gamut sticking quite close to sRGB, extending just a bit in the red region, providing a look we’d describe as ‘rich and natural’. An sRGB emulation mode was included to remove the slight red overextension, but it introduced some undercoverage and was highly inflexible including brightness locked to a moderately high level. Contrast was as expected for the panel, close to the specified 1000:1 and with an average level of ‘IPS glow’. The brightness adjustment range was quite good, with a reasonably low minimum and fairly high maximum. No HDR support is offered (despite a misleadingly named “HDR Mode” setting in the OSD), though monitors of this price never offer an impressive HDR performance anyway.

When it came to responsiveness, the monitor put in a competent 165Hz performance. Input lag was exceptionally low and pixel responses were pleasing overall, with good tuning for higher refresh rates and useful settings for lower refresh rates. VRR worked properly via both AMD FreeSync and Nvidia ‘G-SYNC Compatible’, with a pretty well-tuned strobe backlight setting (MBR) with good brightness flexibility. Performance at non-native resolutions was subpar if using the interpolation of the monitor due to moderate softening and an apparent latency penalty. Though as a PC user, GPU scaling could be used and this would offer a better experience. Overall, this is an accomplished performer at a very reasonable price. There is no US availability at time of review and EU stocks are clearly strained with demand greatly outstripping supply. We hope to see this improved and for this very interesting product to be more widely available in time.

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.