AOC 24G2SPU (24G2SP)

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively those with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern, mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did not observe either artifact type on this monitor.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to analyse the latency of the 24G2SPU (24G2SP). Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.37ms (slightly over ½ a frame at 165Hz) of input lag. Similar values were recorded at lower refresh rates, including 60Hz. These figures are influenced by both the element of input lag you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). They indicate a low signal delay which most users should find acceptable. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a VRR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

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

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed to take such photographs at and highlights both elements of perceived blur well. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are analysed to highlight a range of pixel transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz using various ‘Overdrive’ settings; ‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’. The two final columns show reference screens, where possible, set to what we consider their optimal response time setting for a given refresh rate. The AOC 24G2(U), which is the predecessor to this model, and the Acer XB253Q GP which is a fast IPS model tuned for a fluid 144Hz experience.

At 60Hz, above, the UFO appears soft and unfocused without clear internal detailing. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement. Some conventional trailing and overshoot (inverse ghosting) is observed in places behind the UFOs due to pixel response time weaknesses and aggressive tuning, respectively. With the ‘Off’ setting there’s a moderate amount of ‘powdery’ trailing due to some pixel response time weaknesses – this isn’t as bold or extended as the ‘smeary’ trailing you’d typically see on VA models. The ‘Weak’ setting cuts through this. A bit remains for the dark background (top row), whilst for the medium background (middle row) and light background (bottom row) overshoot is visible. This is ‘halo’ trailing that’s brighter than the background and stands out a bit for this reason. The ‘Medium’ setting introduces this with an inky appearance for the dark background and strengthens it elsewhere whilst ‘Strong’ provides even stronger overshoot for the dark background. Overall we consider ‘Off’ or ‘Weak’ optimal, depending on overshoot sensitivity. In practice we didn’t find the overshoot using the ‘Weak’ setting to be as eye-catching or widespread as you might think based on the pursuit images. But the reference screens were better tuned at 60Hz in our opinion, providing just a touch of ‘powdery’ trailing and very little 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. The pixel response requirements for a solid performance here have increased significantly. The ‘Off’ setting shows quite distinct and bold ‘powdery’ trailing due to significantly slower than optimal pixel responses. The ‘Weak’ setting cuts down on this reasonably effectively and introduces slight overshoot for the light background. The ‘Medium’ setting provides a further cut in the ‘powdery’ trailing. A bit remains for the dark background, whilst it’s replaced with some overshoot elsewhere. ‘Strong’ provides a further reduction in the ‘powdery’ trailing for the dark background whilst only slightly strengthening the overshoot elsewhere. The reference Acer screen, in comparison, provides stronger overshoot than even the ‘Strong’ setting of the AOC – but is free from ‘powdery’ trailing. Based on the photos, you may feel ‘Strong’ appears optimal. But as we explore in a bit more detail at 165Hz shortly, there are some transitions not shown here which show significantly higher overshoot using the ‘Strong’ setting. Our preference therefore goes to ‘Medium’ at 120Hz, but the optimal setting to use depends on overshoot tolerance and that could be ‘Strong’ or potentially even ‘Weak’ depending on that.

It’s also worth noting that overdrive artifacts were observed at 120Hz and also higher refresh rates. They were particularly faint at lower refresh rates, but still faintly visible upon close inspection. The overshoot appeared with interlaced horizontal lines of alternating slightly lighter and darker version of the shade, both of which are brighter than the background as expected from bright overshoot trailing. This isn’t obvious when using the monitor normally, including for gaming or on the desktop, rather than specifically focusing in on the trailing on simplified tests such as this. These artifacts are masked on the image by the horizontal lines that are seen in the background – your eyes don’t see these lines in the background, they’re due to how the images are captured. Below you can see things bumped up slightly, to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower with slightly better definition. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur to eye movement, but it’s only an extra 24Hz so this difference is minor compared to the initial doubling from 60Hz to 120Hz. The relative behaviour of the various overdrive settings is similar to at 120Hz. There’s a slight move towards just a touch more ‘powdery’ (conventional) trailing but lower overshoot now. The older AOC reference shows slightly more conventional trailing, with a bolder initial section to the trailing and longer overall trail behind the red UFO body for the medium background. It shows lower overshoot levels for the light background, albeit with extra conventional trailing. The Acer reference is well-tuned here with a mere whiff of ‘powdery’ trailing and a touch of overshoot. The ‘Strong’ setting could again be considered optimal based on the photos, though ‘Medium’ appears fairly similar. And again, for transitions not shown here some more noticeable overshoot is introduced with the ‘Strong’ setting – so ‘Medium’ is our preference at 144Hz. Below you can see things bumped up just a touch more, to 165Hz.

At 165Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower with slightly better definition. It’s difficult to see from the photos, but to the eye the segmentation of the UFOs is more distinct and internal details slightly sharper at 165Hz compared to 144Hz. It’s a subtle difference, with only an extra 21Hz – so nothing like that initial doubling from 60Hz to 120Hz. The pixel response behaviour is similar to 144Hz, with the slight increase in pixel response requirements meaning some weaknesses are just a touch more pronounced. For example, there’s a slightly longer ‘powdery’ trail for the dark background. ‘Strong’ and ‘Medium’ appear similar at this point, so it may be tempting to simply use the highest setting (‘Strong’). This setting introduces stronger overshoot for some transitions involving bright to medium-bright shades, producing a bright bluish overshoot trailing which we found quite distracting at times. ‘Medium’ toned this down significantly – some overshoot remained but it wasn’t as eye-catching in our view. And the weaker pixel responses that provided more pronounced ‘powdery’ trailing remained fairly similar with both settings. So our preference went to ‘Medium’.

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 ‘Medium’ for similar reasons to with ‘MBR’ disabled and that’s what we use for this analysis. ‘Strong’ didn’t provide a significant improvement in our view but introduced some rather eye-catching bright overshoot in places. ‘Weak’ and ‘Off’ were too slow overall, adding some conventional trailing and ‘strobe crosstalk’. 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 certainly the case for ‘MBR = 20’ where segmentation is quite distinct and the white notches can be counted. By eye the black lines which separate the segments are bolder than they appear in the photos at ‘MBR = 20’ – the segments are just a bit less distinct than for the photo of the ULMB reference screen. 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 main object and internal detail clarity to be 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.

For ‘MBR = 1’ the strobe crosstalk basically melds into the object for the dark and medium background – it looks quite messy, really and it looks like there are multiple overlapping objects instead of a single distinct UFO with fragmented trailing around it. For ‘MBR = 20’ the strobe crosstalk is moderate but weaker than and distinct from the main object in these photos. Some overshoot is also visible in places, though this is largely absorbed by the strobe crosstalk for ‘MBR = 20’. You can see a magenta to red fringe directly behind the UFO body, clearest at a higher MBR setting. It’s also visible quite noticeably in front of the UFO cockpit for the dark background. This is due to the slow decay of the red KSF phosphors used for the backlight and is very commonly observed with strobe backlight modes on wide gamut models. The reference screens are standard gamut screens and don’t show this – they also show quite distinct overshoot with little to no strobe crosstalk for the images shown. The images below show results with MBR active at 144Hz.

With MBR active at 144Hz, above, there’s a slight boost to object clarity. Most noticeable for ‘MBR = 20’. 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. The strobe crosstalk is just a touch bolder now and the fragments are slightly narrower due to the increased refresh rate and overshoot levels are lower. The secondary trail of strobe crosstalk is more visible as well, for the dark and medium backgrounds. The C24G1 reference also shows this strobe crosstalk, whilst for the AG254FG used as a reference here this is replaced with overshoot. This is significantly less bold than the main object and doesn’t significantly impact motion clarity in practice. 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. At this point, with a higher MBR setting at least, the segmentation is rather distinct (a bit more so by eye) and white notches easy to count. The aliasing at the edges of the UFOs can also be clearly seen due to the very strong motion clarity. Overshoot levels are further reduced, not just for the transitions shown but more broadly. The strobe crosstalk is a touch bolder now, quite distinct for all rows really but more so for the dark and medium backgrounds. 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 images below show pursuit photographs running from the top to bottom regions of the screen, with the screen set to 120Hz, ‘Overdrive = Medium’ and ‘MBR = 20’. Strobe crosstalk variation at different points of the screen was similar at lower MBR settings so we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations.

Note that these images are designed to show strobe crosstalk behaviour and don’t accurately show how distinct details on the main object appear.

Further up the screen you can see a bit of overshoot behind the object and quite bold strobe crosstalk in front. Strobe crosstalk is displaced behind the UFOs lower down the screen, masking any overshoot. In the centre of the screen you can see moderate but not extreme strobe crosstalk behind the UFO, becoming stronger lower down the screen where it eventually appears as bold as the object itself. Overall strobe crosstalk is moderate towards the central rows of the screen, which is where your eyes mainly focus when playing games such as fast-paced FPS titles that see most potential benefit from such a setting. Below you can see how things appeared with refresh rate increased to 165Hz. Although images aren’t included, 144Hz was also assessed and appeared some way between 120Hz and 165Hz for strobe crosstalk as you might expect.

At 165Hz with MBR active, above, strobe crosstalk position is similar. It’s also a bit bolder and just below centre it’s almost as bold as the object itself. Some may prefer to run at a lower refresh rate, particularly 120Hz, due to the somewhat fainter strobe crosstalk. Though we found the moderate strobe crosstalk ‘noticeable’ regardless and there are some other factors to consider, as explored shortly.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On various Battlefield titles, at a frame rate keeping up with the 165Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided decent fluidity. Compared to a 60Hz monitor or the AOC running at 60Hz (or 60fps), 2.75 times as much visual information is displayed every second. This significantly enhances the ‘connected feel’, describing the precision and fluidity felt when interacting with your character on the game. The low input lag of the monitor is also beneficial in this respect and complements the high frame and high refresh rate combination nicely. The high frame rate and high refresh rate combination also decreases perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated earlier using Test UFO. As also demonstrated, the bump up from 144Hz to 165Hz is hardly dramatic in that respect – though the extra refresh rate is still a bonus, if you have the frame rate to match.

The other important area to consider when it comes to perceived blur is pixel responsiveness. The pursuit photographs indicated that the monitor performed reasonably well here, but not perfectly. This was observed over a broader range of pixel transitions as well. The weakest pixel responses occur where very dark or very bright shades are involved. Even then the weaknesses are not massive, but it produces some ‘powdery’ trailing that is a bit bolder and therefore has a more significant impact on perceived blur compared to transitions confined to medium shades. Even these weak transitions are significantly faster than those performed in similar places by competing VA models and for most people they shouldn’t prove bothersome or necessarily all that noticeable. The monitor performs many other transitions more rapidly and it certainly makes better use of its 165Hz refresh rate than competing VA models, overall. There’s also some overshoot in places, mainly as a ‘halo’ trailing that’s a bit brighter than the background shade. As with sensitivity to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, sensitivity to overshoot varies. We didn’t find this particularly eye-catching or strong overshoot using our preferred ‘Medium’ overdrive setting and it shouldn’t prove bothersome to most users.

Similar observations were made on Shadow of the Tomb Raider, so a pretty fluid 165Hz experience overall. The weaknesses were again not too pronounced, even though this title contains many ‘high contrast’ scenes with intertwined dark and bright elements that cover some of the weakest transitions. There was again some overshoot in places, but nothing overly eye-catching or bothersome in our view. We also observed movie content at a range of frame rates, including ~24 – 30fps content on platforms such as Netflix and 60fps YouTube content. There were no clear weaknesses from the monitor. There were some minor weaknesses for some ‘high contrast’ pixel transitions, but for the lower frame rate movie content in particular these were not distinct. Most pixel responses were performed suitably rapidly for movie content, without obvious or eye-catching overshoot either. The frame rate of the content itself rather than weaknesses related to the pixel responses of the monitor are really the key barrier to visual fluidity here.

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 must match the refresh rate precisely. Otherwise you’re left with extremely obvious stuttering or juddering. Standing out in such a clear way due to there being very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. 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. The main refresh rate we used this feature at was 165Hz, though our observations at lower refresh rates (such as 120Hz) are broadly similar. Strobe crosstalk becomes somewhat weaker at reduced refresh rates but is certainly still noticeable, as covered earlier. Overshoot levels are increased at lower refresh rates but aren’t really extreme either way. And flickering becomes a bit more noticeable whilst the ‘connected feel’ also takes a slight hit at reduced refresh rates, too.

The technology did its thing to significantly reduce perceived blur due to eye movement, with the clarity of the main object and most texture detail remaining sharper and more distinct during movement than with MBR disabled. This can provide a competitive edge when gaming by making it easier to track and engage enemies and spot people and other important in-game assets against the background, even during rapid movement. There was a bit of overshoot for some transitions, but more noticeable in general was the strobe crosstalk which was covered earlier using Test UFO. Even in the central region this was moderately strong for some transitions, introducing some quite distinct repetitions of objects during motion. This was far from the strongest strobe crosstalk we’ve seen, but it still impacted the overall clarity of motion and we felt made the setting more uncomfortable to use at times than it could be. Even at reduced refresh rates, such as 120Hz, there was moderate strobe crosstalk centrally or a bit below centre. We also observed some red or magenta fringes in places, usually easiest to observe where medium to light shades were included in the transition (object or background) and there were straight lines. Colourful flashes were also noticed in similar places, including not just magenta to red but also other colours such as blue and green. These issues (fringes and colourful flashes) are linked to the KSF phosphor backlights and weren’t as distinct here as on models with even wider gamut KSF backlights. As with the flickering of a strobe backlight setting, sensitivity to such issues varies.

Overall we feel this setting will have utility for some users and they’ll feel it provides a competitive edge whilst not finding the issues we’ve highlighted too distracting. The brightness adjustment range is relatively good for a strobe backlight setting, too. For others, the visual disturbances such as flickering, colourful flashes, fringing and strobe crosstalk might be quite unpleasant. For some game titles the lack of VRR capability alongside MBR and requirement to keep your frame rate matching the refresh rate will limit its appeal. Though generally such settings are most beneficial for competitive play at relatively high frame rates, either way.

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 24G2SPU (24G2SP) supports FreeSync Premium via DP and HDMI on compatible GPUs and systems. You need to make sure ‘Adaptive-Sync’ is enabled in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP, where the setting is referred to as ‘Adaptive Sync Compatible’. The bottom image shows the monitor connected using HDMI, with the setting referred to as ‘VRR’. Note that the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using – at time of review the monitor hadn’t been officially FreeSync Premium certified, though that is the ‘level’ supported.

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, 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. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

*This is the claimed VRR range for the monitor, also reported in the EDID. In our testing we often observed LFC kicking in at 55Hz or very slightly below, providing a ~55Hz floor of operation. This was the case regardless of the static refresh rate selected (120Hz, 144Hz or 165Hz) and also via HDMI at up to 144Hz. In most cases this makes little difference in practice compared to a 48Hz floor.

To configure VSync, open ‘AMD Software’. Click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click ‘Graphics’. The setting is listed as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This configures it globally, but if you wish to configure it for individual games click ‘Game Graphics’ towards the top right. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. Above this dropdown list there’s a toggle for ‘Radeon Enhanced Sync’. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature rather than a monitor feature.



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 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 go to the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD and enable the ‘Frame Counter’ feature, it will display the refresh rate of the display. This will reflect the frame rate if it’s 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 various titles using AMD FreeSync and experienced similar things across all of these. Any issues affecting one title points towards a game or GPU driver issue rather than a monitor issue. For simplicity we’ll just focus on Battlefield titles here which allow the full VRR range to be analysed on our Radeon RX 580. As this isn’t a particularly powerful GPU, there were some dips below 165fps with high graphics settings. Without VRR technologies such as FreeSync, you’d observe tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). If you’re sensitive to such things, as we are, having these visual distractions removed can be very welcome. As frame rate dropped there was a loss of ‘connected feel’ and increase in perceived blur due to eye movement. Both are linked to the frame rate, with a high frame rate being favourable for both elements.

The monitor doesn’t use variable overdrive, so there’s no re-tuning as refresh rate decreases. Overshoot becomes more noticeable as the frame rate dips, but didn’t ever become extreme using our preferred ‘Medium’ setting. It did become moderately strong as things dipped well into the double digits, though, so some will prefer to switch over to the ‘Weak’ setting if a lot of time is spent <100Hz. This setting still performs quite well there overall, where the pixel response requirements for a strong performance are slackened off compared to higher refresh rates. If you’re particularly sensitive to overshoot and want to eliminate it entirely, the ‘Off’ setting will provide that. FreeSync worked down to the floor of operation for the monitor, which seemed to be 55Hz (55fps) or just a touch below in our testing. Below this point, LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kicked in with the monitor sticking to a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate. This helped keep tearing and stuttering at bay, though there was a subtle momentary stuttering when LFC activated or deactivated. This is 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 24G2SPU (24G2SP) you must connect the monitor up via DisplayPort to use ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. You need to make sure ‘Adaptive-Sync’ is set to ‘On’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD to use the technology. 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. The floor of operation again seemed to be 55Hz or slightly below. 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 VRR window of the monitor.

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 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) resolution and ~24” screen size represents a relatively affordable and compact way to game on a PC or console. And it provides a reasonable but not particularly high pixel density, without the same sort of ‘desktop real estate’, clarity or detail provided by various higher resolution offerings. The monitor offers slightly ‘gamery’ styling, but nothing too flashy with mainly matte black plastic and a touch of dark metallic-looking red. Good ergonomic flexibility is offered by the stand and the monitor has a reasonably solid feel to it for a budget offering. Whilst the OSD isn’t the most intuitively controlled nor does it have the most modern design, it still offers a decent array of image adjustment options.

The IPS-type panel with extended colour gamut provided quite vibrant colour output. Consistency was also good – and though not up there with the best IPS offerings in that respect, it was superior to TN and VA options and also a touch better than its predecessor. An sRGB emulation setting provided a more muted look to things, closer to the developer’s intentions. The setting lacked flexibility, not just locked in terms of colour channels and other controls such as gamma but also locked to a rather high brightness. The contrast was relatively strong for the panel type, sitting at 1300:1 under our ‘Test Settings’. Not a scratch on what VA models would offer and there’s still a moderate amount of ‘IPS glow’ to contend with, but it still provides a bit of extra depth compared to many IPS offerings. The screen surface was also a bit smoother (less grainy) than many competing models, though still a ‘medium’ matte anti-glare surface providing relatively strong glare-handling.

The monitor provided quite a competent performance when it came to responsiveness. Not class-leading by any means – so not up there with the likes of the XB253Q GP or BenQ EX2510S for pixel responsiveness. But similar and for some transitions a touch faster than its predecessor (24G2/24G2U) in that respect. And that’s a level which many will be happy with, even with a bit of competitive gaming mixed in. This was coupled with low input lag, complementing the 165Hz refresh rate well. Adaptive-Sync also worked well, providing the usual VRR benefits via AMD FreeSync and Nvidia ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ – without unexpected issues with flickering, screen blanking or stuttering. A strobe backlight setting was also offered. This certainly minimised perceived blur, but it wasn’t the ‘cleanest’ performance we’ve seen from such a setting. Whilst no revolutionary changes were made compared to its predecessor, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It also offers a slight boost in maximum refresh rate and slightly more aggressive pixel response tuning – arguably better for higher refresh rates but a touch worse for relatively low refresh rates. The refreshed panel also seemed to offer improved colour consistency, as noted earlier. With this screen we feel you get a nice overall package for an attractive price.

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.