AOC Q3279VWF

Colour in games and movies

On BF1 the monitor provided a good array of vibrant-looking shades. The warm orange glow of embers and roaring fires and some fairly lush-looking green trees were presented in quite an eye-catching way. There was a nice array of more muted greens and good rich woody brown hues in the mix as well, keeping environments in the game looking vivid but natural. There was a noticeable loss of saturation towards the edges and bottom edge of the screen (and even near the very top), with such shades losing a bit of their lustre there. The saturation shifts are related to perceived gamma changes and viewing angle weakness. This was quite pronounced on red shades, affecting some of the characters skin tones so that they went from appearing quite human centrally to a bit ill-looking and very much off-colour towards the extreme edges of the screen. Earthy brown tones lost some of their richness as well, appearing more of a clay-like colour rather than a rich earthy shade in affected regions. Because this is such a large screen and most gamers will be focusing on the action in the centre of the screen, these shifts aren’t necessarily going to be bothersome or even noticeable. And they weren’t as extreme as the saturation losses you see on TN models when observing shades higher up vs. lower down the screen. They were more pronounced than we’ve seen on modern Samsung and AUO VA panels used in the likes of the AOC AG322QCX and BenQ PD3200Q, however.

Dirt Rally highlighted similar strengths and weaknesses. The saturation shifts meant that apparent shade variety for subtler green hues was reduced and that some of the lusher forest green shades appeared less vivacious peripherally. Nonetheless, the environments had quite a rich look overall and appeared vivid but natural. The monitor got to showcase a good range of vibrant shades where car liveries were concerned, with the glossy screen surface giving these shades a nice ‘wet’ and ‘painted on’ look in some lights which matte screens simply don’t give. Particularly when observed in the central bulk of the screen, there were some excellent deep purples and reds and some nice rich golden yellow hues as well. Some of these shades weren’t as lively as they would have been if the colour gamut were more generous, but appeared far from ‘washed out’ on the whole.

We also tested the Blu-ray of Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder. This is a particularly unforgiving test for colour consistency, with large areas of individual shade being displayed in many scenes. Unsurprisingly, it highlighted some of the weaknesses here. One of the main characters, Dr Zoidberg, appeared an appropriate if not slightly too vibrant red centrally and appeared quite anaemic towards the flanks and bottom of the screen. Character skin tones also changes significantly depending on where on the screen they were displayed. The monitor was still able to provide an appropriate look to different ‘shade classes’ on this title, though. Pastel shades looked relatively muted whilst deeper shades generally looked appropriately deep and neon shades nice and bright and eye-catching. In fact, there were some shades from this last category which were particularly noteworthy in their vibrancy. There were some excellent neon greens, yellows and pinks – standing out particularly well against darker backgrounds. The strong contrast performance and glossy screen helped bring these shades to the viewer’s attention with a nice vibrant ‘pop’.

Viewing angles

Lagom’s tests for viewing angle tests were used to analyse colour consistency and viewing angle performance in a more specific way. The following observations were made from a normal viewing position, eyes around 70-80cm from the screen. Perceived changes in gamma and saturation can be more pronounced if you sit closer to the screen.

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors faint interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions, particularly noticeable where light shades (muzzle flashes, explosions etc.) briefly pop up on the screen. These are sometimes referred to as ‘pixel inversion artifacts’, but we prefer the more descriptive term; ‘dynamic interlace pattern artifacts’. Alternatively, static interlace patterns can be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did not observe any dynamic interlace pattern artifacts on this model. We did observe some extremely faint static interlace patterns, however. They were generally constrained to the bottom of the screen, where they appeared as vertical stripes of a slightly lighter and darker alternation of the intended shade. Or the far left, where they appeared to slope upwards diagonally. It’s possible these were ‘cross hatching’ imperfections on the screen surface. They were not specific to certain shades and appeared even with white content. At any rate they were extremely faint and not something most users would notice, with some struggling to see them even if they were specifically pointed out on the screen. We’re just mentioning them for completeness.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the Q3279VWF, with over 30 repeat readings taken to improve accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.95ms (under 1/3rd of a frame at 75Hz) of input lag. This value was not influenced by enabling one of the ‘Game Mode’ presets in the OSD. We have no way to accurately measure input lag in the variable refresh rate and frame range environment under which FreeSync would be active, however. This value is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay, which even sensitive users shouldn’t take issue with.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

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

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a practical speed for taking such photographs and sufficient to highlight both elements of perceived blur. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The monitor was set to 60Hz and 75Hz using the full range of ‘Overdrive’ settings; ‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’. All rows of the test were used, with the backgrounds showing various shade levels (dark, medium and light). The final column shows a reference screen (Dell S2417DG), which is able to perform pretty much optimally at 60Hz without obvious weaknesses in pixel responsiveness.

At 60Hz you can see that the object itself looks relatively soft and unfocused, without clearly defined details. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur caused by eye (camera) movement. You can also see various degrees of trailing behind the object. The boldest and most extensive trailing can be seen for the dark background, shown in the top row. This is reduced slightly by increasing the ‘Overdrive’ setting, although it is replaced with a dity-looking trail of inverse ghosting (overshoot) for the ‘Strong’ setting. The medium cyan background (middle row) shows some improvement using the ‘Weak’ setting compared to ‘Off’, whilst the ‘Medium’ setting increases the levels of overshoot (dark shadowy trailing) behind the cockpit area in particular, without really reducing the conventional trailing. The ‘Strong’ setting introduces obvious bright and colourful overshoot. For the lightest background, there is little difference between ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’, whilst ‘Medium’ is also fairly similar but has slightly increased levels of overshoot. The ‘Strong’ setting again introduces obvious overshoot.

At 75Hz the object itself becomes marginally narrower, although it still remains rather unfocused. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur, but still a moderate amount compared to what you’d see at significantly higher refresh rates. The trailing characteristics are fairly similar to at 60Hz. However; because the object itself is narrower and the screen updates more frequently, the pixel responsiveness requirements are increased. You can see the trailing becomes slightly more extended, again boldest with the dark background. The ‘Medium’ setting again looks similar to ‘Weak’, but with a bit of extra overshoot. Whilst the ‘Strong’ setting remains utterly useless due to extreme overshoot. We studied a much broader range of pixel transitions not specifically documented here, both in game and using TestUFO, and came to the conclusion that ‘Weak’ is the optimal setting on this monitor. There was a noticeable reduction in trailing compared to ‘Off’ for quite a few pixel transitions (especially where various ‘medium’ shades were involved), without troubling levels of overshoot being introduced. The ‘Medium’ setting did little to reduce conventional trailing, it simply intensified the overshoot. Whilst ‘Strong’ sort of speaks for itself even in the more limited pursuit photography testing above. Note that we will not be including a section on ‘overclocking’ in this review as the monitor lost signal when set much above 75Hz.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1), the 75Hz refresh rate provided some advantages over a 60Hz refresh rate. Where the frame rate kept up, at least. Most noticeably, the ‘connected feel’ as you interacted with your character in the game was improved. The precision and ‘flow’ as you move your character in the game, particularly with the mouse, is improved. There was also a slight decrease in perceived blur, with the monitor pumping out more information every second and therefore reducing eye movement. The monitor also provided a decent enough performance for quite a few pixel transitions to make good use of its 75Hz refresh rate. For most pixel transitions, between medium and lighter shades, there was very little between the performance of this and the fastest 75Hz LCDs. There was a bit of extra powdery trailing for some transitions and also some overshoot (bright trailing), but neither issues was particularly eye-catching with the ‘Weak’ overdrive setting, in our view. Individual sensitivity to such things does vary, however.

There were definite imperfections where darker shades were involved in the transitions, however. Some of the pixel transitions were noticeably sluggish, giving some ‘smeary’ trailing that even appeared ‘smoke-like’ in the worst cases. There was also some ‘break-up’ trailing, whereby colours that appear almost black but contain other hues (such as red or purple) will have the more colourful hue appear to leach out. We liken this to wetting fountain pen ink on paper, where the ink will run a bit. These imperfections occur to a degree on all VA panels, but were more pronounced and widespread on this model compared to some other large VA models we’ve used recently. Such as those using AUO’s AMVA+ panels or curved Samsung SVA panels. For example the Samsung C34F791 and the AOC AG322QCX). The weaknesses were not as pronounced as we’ve seen on various older VA models (EW2430 and older) nor on the recent but rather sluggish Philips BDM4037UW. The video below runs through these imperfections and provides visual demonstrations. It also stresses the important point that not everybody will find these imperfections bothersome and given the other strengths of the monitor, don’t automatically dismiss it because of these weaknesses.

We tested a range of other titles, such as Dirt Rally, and found similar strengths and weaknesses became apparent on the monitor. Dirt Rally is quite unforgiving when it comes to high-contrast transitions, particularly when racing at night where they were very widespread. Looking at trees against a dark hill in the background or that same hill against a blue midnight sky created an almost watercolour painting effect. Quite a bit of smeary trailing and a generally more dizzying experience than was necessary. We’d still consider the game playable, but these imperfections were difficult not to notice in such scenarios. Driving in the daytime generally presented transitions the monitor was more comfortable with, with weaknesses being restricted to a bit of inverse ghosting or some light powdery trailing in places.

We also tested our Blu-ray film titles, which didn’t highlight the weaknesses in the same way. That is because the 24fps or so at which these titles run essentially breaks up the action and reduces the pixel responsiveness requirements for ‘optimal performance’ quite considerably. So, for the most part, things looked about as good as you’d usually see when watching these films. There were some pixel transitions that were slow enough to cause some slight issues here, though. There was a little bit of ‘break-up’ trailing in places, with some dark objects appearing with a slight and non-extensive ‘fringe’ of purple, red or other colours. This was short lived, sharp and overall quite tame compared to the ‘break-up’ trailing observed at higher frame rates. There were also occasional after images, particularly where the scene would change from very dark to very bright quickly. This was a momentary effect and quite faint, but still something we observed. We sometimes saw this when scrolling through content on the internet as well, but didn’t find it bothersome. It should be noted that, although a lot of movie content is ~24 – 30fps, some runs at a higher frame rate such as 50fps or 60fps. This would introduce the sort of weaknesses observed when gaming at higher framer rates, where pixel responsiveness requirements are tighter.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. This technology enables the monitor to dynamically alter its refresh rate so that it matches, where possible, 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 Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce used in our test system. There is a list of GPUs which support the technology here, with future AMD GPUs also expected to support FreeSync. 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 Q3279VWF supports FreeSync via DP 1.2a (or ‘DP 1.2a+’) or HDMI 1.4a on compatible GPUs. AMD’s recent drivers include AMD Radeon Settings, which makes activating the technology very straightforward. It should be enabled automatically, but you can check its status by opening ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and clicking on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. Note that the image below is for a different monitor and is just used as an example here.



The monitor supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 75Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 75fps, the monitor adjusts its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 75fps, the monitor will stay at 75Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 75fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >75fps). Below the floor of operation (48Hz or 48fps), you will go back to experiencing either stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). This monitor officially supports quite a narrow range of operation for FreeSync, but as per our ‘experience’ section below, it’s best to keep the frame rate from dipping so low anyway. Easier said than done in some cases, of course, and it is always a bonus having the broadest possible variable refresh rate range.

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. You can either configure this globally under ‘Global Settings’ or for each game individually. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or final option in the list, shown in the image below.



Note that in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD it will have ‘FreeSync’ listed as the ‘V. Frequency’ if the technology is enabled in the graphics driver, but this does not tell you whether it is currently being used by an application or not. Hopefully the difference that the technology makes in practice will be an obvious enough indication that it is working, however.

FreeSync – the experience

We tested FreeSync on a range of game titles on this monitor, but as usual we found the experience to be very similar on all of them. And any differences we may have potentially come across would have been down to the GPU and graphics driver, rather than the monitor. We will therefore be focusing on Battlefield 1 (BF1) in this section. Under the ‘Ultra’ graphics preset, our Radeon 290 spent most of its time at 75fps. There were some dips below that every now and then, though, sometimes to around 60fps and occasionally a bit below that. Without FreeSync active and VSync on, those dips translated into stuttering which to us was very noticeable and quite jarring. With VSync off those dips provided tearing and juddering due to different sections of multiple frames being displayed at once. Similar issues would occur with VSync off and the frame rate rising above 75fps, of course. We found this to be equally unpleasant and noticeable at these sorts of frame rates – more so than on a higher refresh rate monitor running at a higher frame rate. With our more powerful Nvidia GPU (GTX 1070), which of course doesn’t support FreeSync, we were quite keen on making sure the frame rate didn’t dip below 75fps. Fortunately, it ran this title quite happily with only very rare dips below that, even under the ‘Ultra’ preset. Some more demanding game titles, of course, wouldn’t have been so forgiving.

As the frame rate dipped, even with FreeSync enabled, you started to lose a bit of the ‘connected feel’ that is best at 75Hz @75fps. The level of perceived blur also increased. The difference between 60Hz (60fps) and 75Hz (75fps) we did find noticeable, but dips to values much below that we found quite unpleasant even with FreeSync active. By using the ‘Resolution Scale’ feature to up the rendering resolution, we were able to really stress the GPU and cause serious degradation to the frame rate. It was, of course, possible to get the frame rate below the 48fps (48Hz) floor of operation for FreeSync on this monitor. As mentioned earlier, the technology then deactivates, and you get the usual tearing or stuttering. Even if we managed to keep things just above that, though, we were hankering for higher frame rates. It would’ve been nice to see a broader FreeSync range employed, but the experience really remains quite sub-optimal regardless at such low frame rates. It should be noted, though, that sensitivity to reduced frame rates does vary. As does sensitivity to tearing and stuttering. So not everybody will find FreeSync to be such a valuable technology. But there will be some who can comfortably tolerate frame rates below the floor of operation for FreeSync on the monitor, yet are sensitive to tearing and stuttering, so would wish the technology remained active there.

A particular issue which we often find on FreeSync-compatible displays that is handled much better on G-SYNC displays is the pixel overdrive solution. Nvidia has a hand in fine-tuning the levels of grey to grey acceleration to various different refresh rates for G-SYNC models, typically loosening off the acceleration for lower refresh rates. The requirements are lower, so there’s no need to use excessive acceleration, which can result in unnecessary levels of overshoot. FreeSync models tend to just be optimised for performance at their maximum refresh rate and tend to ‘over-accelerate’ the pixel transitions for lower refresh rates. That was the case here, to a degree, as the overshoot that was observed at 75Hz was brighter and more obvious at significantly lower refresh rates (~50Hz). The difference wasn’t as profound as we’ve seen on some models, though, which are essentially overshoot free at high refresh rates but suffer noticeable issues at lower frame rates. This model already displayed some overshoot in places at 75Hz, it just became a bit brighter and more eye-catching as the refresh rate reduced. These changes are mainly tied to the refresh rate rather than frame rate, so don’t occur to the same degree if the frame rate alone drops (i.e. with FreeSync disabled).

The 31.5″ 2560 x 1440 experience

With a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) spread out across a 31.5” screen space, this monitor offers a pixel density of 93.24 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). This is somewhat lower than a 27” WQHD model (108.79 PPI) so doesn’t bring with it quite the same clarity and detail benefits. But it is similar to a 23” – 24” Full HD model and therefore offers a pixel density many users will find comfortable to use. It gives you a good amount of useful work space, too, with a nice readable text size for many users. The images below illustrate some of the productivity potential offered by the monitor. They don’t really give a good idea of how large the screen is when you’re sitting using it at the desk, but we found the size very usable from arm’s length and not at all overwhelming. As with many things, it comes down to individual preferences.

Despite the pixel density being decent rather than amazing, the level of detail and clarity when viewing images, watching suitably high-resolution videos or gaming is still good. And seeing this content spread out across such a large glossy screen really allows the user to appreciate some of the finer detail. It also makes for an immersive experience, with a good amount of your visual field and peripheral vision engaged in the on-screen action both horizontally and vertically. The images below are again just for illustrative purposes, to fire up your imagination. They don’t give a good impression of how it really is to sit in front of the monitor. And as with all images, you can’t get an idea of the image quality or colour reproduction characteristics from images viewed on a completely different monitor.

Interpolation and upscaling

Some users may wish to run the monitor at a non-native resolution such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p). This may be the case if they’re running an older game or application which doesn’t support 2560 x 1440 (WQHD), they lack the GPU horsepower for WQHD or they’re running a games console or Blu-ray player that doesn’t support the native resolution of the monitor. If you run the monitor at a non-native resolution, such as Full HD, the monitor can make use of its scaling capabilities over either HDMI or DP. It uses an interpolation process to spread that 1920 x 1080 source across all of its 2560 x 1440 pixels. If you are using a PC and want to make sure the monitor rather than GPU is handling the scaling, you’ll need to ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly for this. AMD users should find that the driver is set up correctly by default to allow the monitor to handle the scaling. 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 interpolation process used by the Q3279VWF isn’t exactly the best implementation we’ve seen, although it should be considered passable if you’re viewing the monitor from a distance (beyond arms length). That sort of extended viewing distance may be typical when gaming on a games console, for example. When using the monitor at 1920 x 1080 as a PC monitor, on the desk, we noticed significant softening to the image. Interpolation processes invariably give a degree of softening, and whilst the degree of softening wasn’t as extreme as we’ve seen in some cases, it was certainly stronger than it ideally would be. This gave a soft look to games, making textures and edges look noticeably undefined. PC users may wish to experiment with GPU scaling if they need to use this monitor at 1920 x 1080. The GPU scaling process is more or less comparable to the monitor’s own in terms of clarity, but it offers a bit more flexibility. The monitor itself doesn’t have 1:1 pixel mapping capability, but that is an option if you’re using GPU scaling. You would then have a perfectly sharp 1920 x 1080 image with a large black border around the screen.

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.

Conclusion

Since it was first revealed, the AOC Q3279VWF has garnered significant interest due to it being remarkably affordable for a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) model, particularly one with a 31.5” screen. This combination provided a decent pixel density, similar to a ~24” Full HD screen which many users will be quite comfortable with. For games and images that yields decent detail levels, whilst for productivity you get a good amount of useful workspace. The glossy VA panel was also an interesting choice, particularly as the vast majority of monitors these days feature matte screen surfaces. The panel used on this one actually has a very mild (low haze) anti-glare finish, which helped cut down a bit on reflections whilst delivering superior clarity and vibrancy compared with matte screen surfaces. This monitor also delivered on the key strength of Vertical Alignment panels; contrast. Measured static contrast far exceeded specified values, approaching 5000:1. Coupled with the glossy screen surface, the perceived contrast was very strong in a wide range of lighting conditions. There was a distinctly ‘inky’ look to some darker shades, whilst brighter shades stood out very nicely against darker backgrounds.

The out of the box setup of the monitor was far from ideal, although we’ve certainly seen a lot worse as well. Following some adjustments in the OSD, it was possible to get a better balance to the image. But it was still lacking a bit of depth in places due to gamma handling. Following proper calibration and the application of an ICC profile created for our unit, the image gained some extra depth and saturation. The colour gamut was not as generous as some ‘standard gamut’ models we’ve reviewed, but the sRGB coverage was still good and there was a bit of over-extension for a touch of extra vibrancy in places. The glossy screen surface, again, aided the ‘vibrant pop’ in some lighting conditions as well. A fair degree of saturation was lost peripherally, particularly near the bottom and side edges of the screen. Whilst this is expected to a degree on any VA panel, the overall colour consistency fell short of what we’ve seen on recent VA panels from the likes of AUO and Samsung.

Anybody who is well versed in the intricacies of different panel types will know that, without exception, VA technology has imperfections when it comes to pixel responsiveness. The severity of these weaknesses and how widespread they are does vary, though. On the Q3279VWF there was some obvious ‘smeary’ trailing, with a ‘smoke-like’ appearance in places. This was more widespread and noticeable than on some recent VA models we’ve used, but not as severe as we’ve seen on others. It is just one of those things that will bother some users but others won’t really care about. The monitor did provide some noticeable strengths when it came to responsiveness. For one thing, it ran ‘by default’ at 75Hz without any negative implications in terms of image quality such as artifacts, frame skipping or obvious gamma changes. This was the case on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs. Whilst it would be extremely misleading to suggest the 75Hz performance was ‘perfect’, due to the aforementioned weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, quite a few pixel transitions were fast enough to make good use of it. The monitor also had very little input lag, which when combined with the 75Hz refresh rate provided a decent ‘connected feel’. Not at the level of higher refresh rate models but certainly beyond what 60Hz LCDs deliver. AMD users also benefit from FreeSync, which worked as intended on this monitor. Albeit with a fairly restricted range of operation.

Overall, then, the monitor had some quite distinct strengths and weaknesses. It is easy to focus on the weaknesses and dismiss strengths – that’s quite normal, on a psychological level. However; it is important to remember that all monitors have their strengths and weaknesses. And that applies regardless of their price. In the case of this monitor, the price is simply too much of a ‘positive feature’ to ignore. Whilst it won’t provide the sort of experience some users are looking for, it will be just the sort of things other users are after. And their smile will return every time they turn the screen on and reflect on how little they paid for it. It’s a truly unique product. Whilst it wouldn’t necessarily stand as a model we’d openly recommend based on performance alone, once you factor in the price it becomes much easier to heartily endorse.

The bottom line; a large and fairly high-resolution monitor that’s big on contrast and huge on value.