AOC 24G2U (24G2)

Author: Adam Simmons
Date published: October 15th 2019

 

Introduction

Many gamers are comfortable with a screen size of around 24” and are seeking an affordable solution with a good mixture of image quality and responsiveness. So far the high refresh rate options have centred around either TN models, built for speed, or VA models offering strong contrast and some improvements in colour handling at the expense of responsiveness. The AOC C24G1 is a good example of a VA model that offered a nice mixture of image quality and responsiveness. The AOC 24G2U (referred to as 24G2U/BK or 24G2/BK due to black plastic, or simply 24G2 in some regions) offers an alternative with IPS-type panel. It isn’t designed to replace the C24G1, comparing IPS and VA panel types is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. But some notable changes aside from just panel type include a more generous colour gamut and the use of a flat rather than curved screen. We test all of these features out and assess the performance of the monitor more generally, using out usual suite of ‘real-world’ tests.

Specifications

The monitor uses a 23.8” IPS-type panel. More specifically, it’s based around a Panda FFS (Fringe-Field Switching) IPS-type CELL* with a custom backlight solution. This supports a 144Hz refresh rate and 8-bit colour. A 1ms MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time) is specified, with the monitor using its strobe backlight setting. As usual, take such response times with a pinch of salt. Some of the key ‘talking points’ for this monitor have been highlighted in blue below, for your reading convenience.

Screen size: 23.8 inches

Panel: TPV TPM238WF1 LF1F [Panda panel with custom backlight] FFS IPS (In-Plane Switching) type LCD*

Native resolution: 1920 x 1080

Typical maximum brightness: 250 cd/m²

Colour support: 16.7 million (6-bits per subpixel plus dithering)

Response time (MPRT): 1ms

Refresh rate: 144Hz (variable, with Adaptive-Sync)

Weight: 4.25kg

Contrast ratio: 1000:1

Viewing angle: 178º horizontal, 178º vertical

Power consumption: 21W (max)

Backlight: WLED (White Light Emitting Diode)

Typical price as reviewed: £180 ($350 USD)


* AOC had temporarily switched to using a BOE CELL for this model but have now switched back to the Panda CELL as reviewed here. Further details in this post.

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.

AOC 24G2


Features and aesthetics

The monitor adopts a homely style, with only a subtle hint of ‘gaming monitor’ look. Matte black plastics are used extensively, broken up by some dark metallic red plastic elements. We found these well-blended overall and not eye-catching when just using the monitor normally, less eye-catching than they appear in press photos. The stand base has an interesting design, with 2 longer front legs and 2 short rear legs. In some regions such as North America this is silver matte plastic rather than the black matte plastic shown in the image (unless ‘/BK’ is included at the end of the model code). The monitor adopts a 3-sided borderless design – or ‘dual-stage’ as the less misleading term we prefer to use. This includes a very slender panel border around the image, blending in seamlessly with the rest of the screen, plus a sleek black plastic outer component. Including both elements the bezels are a svelte ~4.5mm (0.18 inches) at the top and sides. The bottom bezel is thicker, ~18mm (0.71 inches) with just a sliver of panel border. The screen itself is naturally dominant from the front, with a medium matte anti-glare screen surface. We explore this later.

Very slender bezels

Switched on

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

The OSD (On Screen Display) is controlled by pressable buttons beneath the right side of the bottom bezel. A small forwards-facing power LED is also included in this region, to the right of the buttons. This glows white when the monitor is on and amber when it enters a low power state (signal to the system is lost). The video below explores this menu system.



From the side the screen is quite svelte; ~10mm (0.39 inches) at thinnest point but lumping out towards the stand attachment point, centrally. The reasonably robust and fully adjustable stand can be seen from this angle. The stand offers the following adjustability; tilt (3.5° forwards, 21.5° backwards), height (130mm or 5.12 inches), swivel (30° left and 30° right) and pivot (90° clockwise rotation into portrait). At lowest stand height the screen clears the desk by ~60mm (2.36 inches), with the top of the screen ~380mm (14.96 inches) above the desk. The total depth of the monitor including stand is ~230mm (9.06 inches), with the screen sitting ~45mm (1.77 inches) back from the front edge of the stand. It’s therefore a fairly compact design, which will be welcomed by some users with less deep desks who still wish to keep a decent distance between the screen and their eyes.

A side view

Portrait orientation

The rear of the monitor is mainly matte black plastic, with some dark red satin-finish plastic elements. These include some red chevrons towards the sides, a vertical red stripe running down the centre of the stand neck and a red ring where the stand neck and base meet. A cable-tidy loop can be found towards the bottom of the stand neck. The included stand is attached with a quick-release mechanism and can be easily removed using by pressing the button beneath the port attachment point. This reveals 100 x 100mm VESA holes for alternative mounting. The ‘U’ variant of the monitor includes 4 USB 3.0 ports (yellow coloured one supports fast charging) plus upstream, facing diagonally downwards. The remaining ports face downwards and include; 2 HDMI 1.4 ports, DP 1.2a, VGA, 3.5mm audio input, a 3.5mm headphone jack and AC power input (internal power converter). Beneath and slightly to the right of the port area there’s a K-Slot. The ‘U’ variant also includes 2 x 2W speakers, which provide basic and not particularly high-quality sound output.

The rear

USB ports

The main ports

AC power input

The full capability of the monitor including the 1920 x 1080 resolution, 144Hz refresh rate and Adaptive-Sync can be leveraged via either HDMI or DP. Note that Nvidia users with compatible systems can only use Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’) via DisplayPort. Standard accessories include a power cable, DP cable and HDMI cable. This may vary regionally.

Calibration

Subpixel layout and screen surface

The image below is a macro photograph taken on Notepad with ClearType disabled. The letters ‘PCM’ are typed out to help highlight any potential text rendering issues related to unusual subpixel structure, whilst the white space more clearly shows the actual subpixel layout alongside a rough indication of screen surface. This model employs a medium matte anti-glare screen surface with a fairly smooth surface texture. The screen surface offers good glare handling, whilst the fairly smooth surface texture prevents an obvious grainy look to lighter shades. There is just a light ‘misty’ graininess, no ‘smeary’ graininess nor a sandy appearance. This provides a somewhat smoother appearance to lighter shades than offered by competing TN models. The screen surface isn’t quite as ‘light’ or low haze as on competing VA models such as the C24G1.

Subpixel layout

As shown above, the monitor uses the standard RGB (Red, Green and Blue) stripe subpixel layout. This is the default expected by modern operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and Apple MacOS. You needn’t worry about text fringing from non-standard subpixel layouts as a Mac user and don’t need to run ClearType as a Windows user. You may still wish to run through the ClearType wizard and adjust according to preferences, however. The subpixel layout and arrangement is normal and we had no subpixel-related concerns related to sharpness or text clarity on this model.

Testing the presets

The monitor includes a variety of ‘Game Mode’ image presets; ‘FPS’, ‘RTS’, ‘Racing’, ‘Gamer 1’, ‘Gamer 2’ and ‘Gamer 3’. These change various settings in the OSD and blocks off certain settings. Many also add a sharpness filter, over-sharpening the image with no way to disable this filter on that specific preset. They do nothing to improve input lag or monitor responsiveness, although different presets have different ‘Overdrive’ settings associated with them. The ‘FPS’, ‘RTS’ and ‘Racing’ presets lock off the ‘Luminance’ menu (brightness locked to a high level), ‘Color Setup’ menu and disable access to most of the ‘Game Setting’ menu (including ‘Overdrive’). The numbered ‘Gamer’ presets offer more flexibility and allow customisation of various settings, although the ‘Color Setup’ menu is still blocked off. We explore these briefly in the OSD video but for this section will be focusing on settings which we see as more practical and interesting.

The table below shows white point and gamma readings taken using a Datacolor SpyderX Elite colorimeter, using various OSD settings, alongside general observations on the image. Our test system runs Windows 10 and an Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti connected via the supplied DP cable. Additional testing was performed using an AMD Radeon RX 580 and using HDMI, although observations for this table didn’t vary significantly between GPUs or inputs. No additional monitor drivers or ICC profiles were specifically loaded for testing purposes and the monitor was left to run for over 2 hours before observations and readings were taken for the below table. Aside from for our ‘Test Settings’, where various adjustments were made, assume factory defaults were used. The refresh rate was set to 144Hz in Windows, although this didn’t significantly affect the values or observations on this table. When viewing the figures in this table, note that for most PC users ‘6500K’ for white point and ‘2.2’ for gamma are good targets to aim for. Individual targets depend on individual uses, tastes and the lighting environment, however.

Finally, note that Nvidia GPU users will see two separate lists of refresh rates in Nvidia Control Panel. The first list (‘Ultra HD, HD, SD’) will be used by default with the ‘1080p, 1920 x 1080 (native)’ option. The highest refresh rate listed there will be 120Hz. If you scroll down you’ll see another list, ‘PC’. If you select ‘1920 x 1080’ in that list you’ll have access to additional refresh rates, including 144Hz. Also be aware that some refresh rate options (in the first list) will default to using a limited range RGB signal which will greatly affect the image when using HDMI; refer to this article for information on correcting the issue.

Monitor SettingsGamma (central average)White point (kelvins)Notes
Gamma1 (Factory Defaults) 2.2 6461KThe monitor has a slight green push by default, but is otherwise nicely balanced. Shades appeared varied and vibrant, without the shifts in gamma and saturation associated with TN and VA panels.
Gamma22.1 6461KAs above with some gamma curve changes. The average gamma is now ‘2.1’, but the top and bottom of the curve (dark and light shades) sits above and mid-section (medium shades) below this. The overall changes to the image are reasonably subtle.
Gamma3 2.5 6399KThe gamma is now significantly increased, giving a deep ‘cinematic’ look that is inaccurate but that some users may like. This greatly affects dark shades, masking a lot of low-end details.
Color Temp. User 2.2 6981KAs factory defaults but somewhat brighter with a cooler tint (elevated colour temperature).
Color Temp. sRGB 2.2 6480KThis is an sRGB emulation mode, restricting the colour gamut so that it corresponds more closely with sRGB. The image appears significantly less saturated. It’s also rather bright, with brightness adjustment locked off. The colour temperature is very well balanced with a good neutral look (no green tint). The gamma averages ‘2.2’ although deviates just a little at various sections of the curve.
LowBlue Mode = Multimedia 2.2 6239KThis is a weak Low Blue Light (LBL) setting. It reduces the blue colour channel compared to factory defaults and slightly lowers the colour temperature. The green channel remains strong, so there’s a slight green tint that your eyes adjust to quite readily.
LowBlue Mode = Internet 2.2 6058KAs above, marginally more effective.
LowBlue Mode = Office 2.2 5726KThe blue channel is weakened further – this is a moderately effective LBL setting. The green tint is a bit more noticeable, but not too strong in our view (your eyes should adjust to this quite readily).
LowBlue Mode = Reading 2.2 5369KAs above but even more effective. Blue light output is significantly reduced, more so if brightness is also lowered.
Test Settings (see below) 2.2 6496KThe image appears vibrant, varied and well-balanced.
Wordpress Table Plugin

Straight from the box the monitor provided a fairly bright, vibrant and varied image. Aside from a slight green tint, things were quite well-balanced. Gamma tracking was appropriate for the ‘2.2’ curve, with a few alternative settings available if users wish to adjust this according to preferences. The image below shows the gamma curve under our ‘Test Settings’, making fairly minor adjustments compared to the factory defaults. Things track rather close to the desired ‘2.2’ curve. Given the intended uses of the monitor, inter-unit variation and pleasing performance following OSD tweaking alone we will not be providing any ICC profiles for this model or using them in the review.

Gamma 'Test Settings'

Gamma 'Test Settings'

The monitor also includes some ‘LowBlue Mode’ Low Blue Light (LBL) settings, accessible in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD. It would’ve been nice if these could be quickly cycled or enabled and disabled without entering the main menu, but they’re still quite easy to access. The ‘Reading’ mode was particularly effective, significantly reducing blue light output. Reducing exposure to blue light is particularly important in the hours leading up to sleep as blue light affects sleep hormones. Increasing alertness and making it more difficult for the body to shut off. These settings retain a relatively strong green channel, as this maximises contrast compared to reducing this significantly alongside the blue channel. The overall balance was better than some LBL settings we’ve tried and we found our eyes adjusted to the tint quite well in time. We used this setting for our own viewing pleasure in the evenings, although not for specific testing beyond that involving this particular setting.

Test Settings

For our ‘Test Settings’ we reduced brightness and adjusted the colour channels. It’s important to bear in mind that individual units and preferences vary, so these settings are just a suggestion and won’t be optimal in all cases. Assume any setting not mentioned, including ‘Contrast’, was left at default. We’ve also included the refresh rate used in Windows and the preferred ‘Overdrive’ setting used for most of the review, just for reference.


Brightness= 35 (according to preferences and lighting)

Color Temp. = User

R= 50

G= 50

B= 45

Overdrive= Strong

FreeSync (Adaptive Sync)= On

Refresh rate (Windows setting)= 144Hz


Contrast and brightness

Contrast ratios

An X-Rite i1Display Pro was used to measure the luminance of white and black using various monitor settings, including those explored earlier in the calibration section. From these values, static contrast ratios were calculated. The table below shows the result, with blue highlights indicating the results under our ‘Test Settings’. Black highlights indicate the highest white luminance, lowest black luminance and highest contrast ratio recorded (‘MBR’ deactivated). Assume any setting not mentioned was left at default, aside from the exceptions noted here or in the calibration section.

Wordpress Table Plugin
The average static contrast with only brightness adjusted was 1486:1, which is comfortably beyond the specified 1000:1 and as good as we’ve seen from an IPS-type panel. Whilst this isn’t as high as most VA panels would go, it provides a bit of an edge in depth for dark shades compared to most non-VA LCDs. Relatively strong contrast was maintained for all settings tested in the table, with the lowest value of 1395:1 (‘LowBlue Mode = Reading’) still comfortably exceeding specifications. Under our ‘Test Settings’ we recorded a very respectable 1400:1. The highest white luminance recorded on the table was 356 cd/m², significantly exceeding the specified 250 cd/m², whilst the minimum white luminance recorded was 89 cd/m². This gives a luminance adjustment range of 276 cd/m², although the minimum white luminance achieved (without loss of contrast) will be a bit high for some sensitive users.

The monitor also has a ‘Dynamic Contrast’ (DCR – Dynamic Contrast Ratio) setting which allows backlight brightness and gamma to adjust according to the content being displayed. As usual for such a setting, the backlight is controlled as a single unit so there’s no accounting for intricate mixtures of light and dark in a scene. The backlight responded at a reasonably relaxed pace to changes in scene brightness. It dimmed quite effectively for predominantly dark content, although tended to be quite bright for mixed content with plenty of lighter shades mixed in. As usual, we prefer manual brightness control, but this setting is there if you want to use it.

PWM (Pulse Width Modulation)

The 24G2U (24G2) uses DC (Direct Current) to dim the backlight and does not use PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) at any brightness setting. The backlight is therefore considered ‘flicker-free’, which will come as welcome news to users who are sensitive to flickering or worried about the side-effects of PWM usage. The exception to this is with ‘MBR’ active, as this is a strobe backlight function which causes the backlight to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display.

Luminance uniformity

Whilst observing a black background in a dark room, using our ‘Test Settings’, we noticed slight backlight bleed and a little clouding. It’s important to bear in mind that individual units vary when it comes to all aspects of uniformity, including backlight bleed and clouding. The following image was taken a few metres back to eliminate ‘IPS glow’. This is a slightly reddish-golden or silver sheen which is most readily apparent from a normal viewing position towards the bottom corners of the screen. It ‘blooms out’ more noticeably from sharper viewing angles, as demonstrated in the viewing angles video deeper into the review.

Monitor displaying black in a dark room

The SpyderX Elite was used to assess the uniformity of lighter shades, represented by 9 equally spaced white quadrants running from the top left to bottom right of the screen. The table below shows the luminance recorded at each quadrant as well as the percentage deviation between each quadrant and the brightest recorded point.

Luminance uniformity table

Luminance uniformity table

The luminance uniformity was reasonable overall. The maximum luminance was recorded at ‘quadrant 5’ in the centre of the screen (165.3 cd/m²). The greatest deviation from this occurred at ‘quadrant 9’ towards the bottom right of the screen (144.0 cd/m², which is 13% dimmer). The average deviation between each quadrant and the brightest recorded point was 6.88%, which is decent. Note that individual units vary when it comes to uniformity and you can expect further deviation beyond the points measured. The contour map below shows these deviations graphically, with darker greys representing lower luminance (greater deviation from brightest point) than lighter greys. The percentage deviation between each quadrant and the brightest point recorded is also given.

Luminance uniformity map

Luminance uniformity map

The SpyderX Elite was also used to analyse variation in the colour temperature (white point) for the same 9 quadrants. The deviation between each quadrant and the quadrant closest to the 6500K (D65) daylight white point target was analysed and a DeltaE value assigned. Darker shades are also used on this map to represent greater deviation from 6500K. A DeltaE >3 represents significant deviation that may be readily noticed by eye.

Colour temperature uniformity map

Colour temperature uniformity map

Results here were variable, with significant deviations recorded towards the right side of the screen. The highest deviation was recorded towards the bottom right (DeltaE 4.3). By eye we could see that this side of the screen and in particular the bottom right corner appeared noticeably cooler (higher colour temperature) than the rest of the screen, when viewing some lighter shades such as white. As with other aspects of uniformity, it’s important to remember that individual units vary and that you can expect deviation beyond the measured points.

Contrast in games and movies

On Battlefield V the contrast performance was decent, especially for the panel type. Dimly lit building interiors and well-shaded areas showed somewhat more depth to the dark elements than you’d typically expect from an IPS-type panel. Although things didn’t look as deep or atmospheric as a VA model with decent contrast – such as the AOC C24G1, where static contrast is around twice as high. There was also ‘IPS glow’ which ate away at detail peripherally. A sort of haze of light which lightens up darker shades peripherally, particularly towards the bottom corners from a normal viewing position. We’d say this was slightly weaker than average for an IPS-type panel of this size and didn’t eat away at detail to the same extent as some models, but it was still a ‘feature’ nonetheless. Brighter shades contrasted well with darker surroundings, whilst the screen surface kept such shades appearing fairly smooth without obvious graininess.

Contrast was also decent overall on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. This is a title where dimly lit interior locations, such as small passageways and caves are common. Often lit by a few point sources of light. As such, it looks its best where contrast performance is strong. Whilst the atmosphere the monitor created on this title wasn’t the same as on a VA model with stronger contrast, it was still respectable. The strong static contrast, for the panel type, and the ‘IPS glow’ being slightly more subdued than normal helped in this respect. But the ‘IPS glow’ is certainly still present and affects the dark regions of this title, if viewing in dimmer lighting conditions. There were no clear shifts in gamma as you’d get on VA models and to a greater extent TN models, though, so detail levels (‘IPS glow’ aside) were well-maintained. Brighter shades contrasted well with darker surroundings, whilst the screen surface imparted only a light misty graininess rather than anything more ‘smeary’ or obvious.

We also made some observations using the film Star Wars: The Last Jedi. This is a title with plenty of high-contrast scenes – or, at least, scenes that show contrasting content and look their cinematic best on models with strong contrast. Explosions ripping through space, light sabers lighting up dark interior locations and suchlike. The AOC provided a decent cinematic look to the film overall, with bright elements contrasting well against darker surroundings. Not comparable to models with much stronger contrast (and there’s ‘IPS glow’ in this case as well) but not bad at all for a non-VA LCD panel. The consistent gamma throughout the screen could also be appreciated, avoiding things appearing ‘flooded’ with extra unintended detail peripherally (especially lower down, on TN models) or too well-masked elsewhere (especially higher up, on TN models).

Lagom contrast tests

The Lagom tests for contrast allow specific weaknesses in contrast performance to be identified. The following observations were made.

  • The contrast gradients were displayed appropriately, with distinct brightness steps in all cases.
  • Performance on the black level test was very good. The first few blocks blended into the background readily, which is appropriate for a monitor tracking the ‘2.2’ gamma curve. The remaining blocks were distinct and showed good steps up in brightness. Some temporal dithering was evident on some of the lighter blocks, but this was finely controlled and well-masked.
  • Performance on the white saturation test was very good. All blocks were visible against the background, although the final block was a bit fainter than it ideally would be. There was not an obvious mask of graininess from the screen surface, just a light misty ‘dusting’.
  • The greyscale gradient appeared smooth without obvious banding or dithering. Some temporal dithering was evident upon close inspection, but it was very well-masked.

Colour reproduction

Colour gamut

The colour gamut of the 24G2U/24G2 (red triangle) is compared with the sRGB (green triangle) and DCI-P3 RGB (blue triangle) colour spaces in the image below. The monitor comprehensively covers the sRGB colour space (100%) with a fair amount of extension beyond. 92% DCI-P3 colour space coverage was recorded by our colorimeter. Although not shown for comparison on the graphic, the monitor also covered 86% of the Adobe RGB colour space. This colour gamut gives the monitor the potential to output all shades within the sRGB colour space, with an extra dose of vibrancy and saturation.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'


The monitor also provides an sRGB emulation mode (setting ‘Color Temp.’ to ‘sRGB’ in the ‘Color Setup’ section of the OSD). This cuts down on the gamut significantly, providing just a little under-coverage (98% sRGB) without over-coverage. As noted earlier, you can’t access the brightness (it’s locked to a moderately bright level) or colour channels when using this setting. So it isn’t ideal, but can be used to give a reliable emulation of the sRGB colour space for non-colour managed workflows. If you’re calibrating and profiling the monitor with your own colorimeter, the flexibility afforded when using the native gamut will likely be preferred.

Colour gamut 'sRGB'

Colour gamut 'sRGB'


Colour in games and movies

The monitor presented colours in a vibrant and varied way on Battlefield V. The extension in the colour gamut comfortably beyond sRGB added a good dose of extra vibrancy and saturation, with this content (as is typical) being created with the sRGB colour space in mind. Because the gamut is expanded, shades maintain good spacing so things don’t appear artificially ‘bumped up’ in saturation at the expense of shade variety. Which is what would happen if you digitally alter saturation, for example by using Nvidia Digital Vibrance or increasing ‘Game Color’ in the monitor OSD. These digital saturation enhancements simply pull shades towards the edge of the gamut without expanding the gamut itself, crushing things together and giving a cartoonish appearance. The natural environments on this game showcased a nice variety of lush-looking green shades alongside some more muted khaki shades and some good earthy browns. Some of the woody hues and earthy brown shades had a bit too much of a red hue, due to the colour gamut, whilst some of the vegetation had a bit too strong of a bright yellowish green hue. Overall, this is a ‘vibrant’ look that many would admire – but it’s subjective and personal preferences vary.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider told a similar story. The environments appeared vivid with moderately high saturation levels, but varied at the same time and not completely unnatural and cartoonish. Skin tones on the game, including that of main character Lara Croft, often reflected the somewhat higher than intended saturation levels by appearing a bit too tanned. And some reddish browns had red hues which were somewhat too strong. The overall vibrant look is, again, one that many users (but not all) will appreciate. There were good licks of vibrancy for fires within the game, showcasing a good array of strong yellows, oranges and reds. There was also some eye-catchingly colourful painted artifacts and suchlike. On both titles, some shades appeared somewhat deeper at the very edges of the screen. But this was not too pronounced from our preferred viewing position and could’ve been exacerbated by some of the uniformity issues on our unit. Shades were noticeably more consistent than on VA and moreover TN panels, overall, with relatively good saturation levels maintained throughout the screen.

Further observations were made using the animated TV series Futurama. This title has large areas of individual shade, making it a very unforgiving test for colour consistency. In this respect the monitor did relatively well, clearly identifying itself as an IPS-type panel. It was free from the sort of clear saturation shifts that occur at different sections of the screen for VA and moreover TN models. Some shades such as dark reds and medium blues appeared slightly deeper or duller towards the extreme side edges of the screen, from our preferred viewing position (eyes ~70cm from the screen). This becomes more pronounced if you’re sitting closer to the screen. It was not as pronounced as some of the TN or VA shifts you’d see from this sort of viewing distance, however. Shades appeared varied with distinct classes (pastel, deep, neon etc.) and excellent variety within each class. Saturation levels were again somewhat stronger than intended, but this was a universal increase in saturation. There were some excellent eye-catching neon pinks, purples and greens showcased and some impressive deep shades as well. This is again a sort of look many would find inviting, but it isn’t universally appreciated.

Viewing angles

Lagom’s tests for viewing angle were used to further explore colour consistency and viewing angle performance. The following observations were made from a normal viewing position, eyes around 70cm from the screen. Sitting closer to the screen exaggerates the sort of shifts explored here.

  • The purple block appeared a bluish purple throughout. It appeared pinker towards extreme side edges and top of the screen (something often observed on models with exceptionally slender bezels), but overall consistency was strong. It was free from the obvious ‘pink flashes’ and shifts observed on TN or VA models.
  • The red block appeared quite a vibrant red throughout. It was slightly dimmer towards the side edges but again didn’t shift as readily as non IPS-type panels where faded reds and pinks creep in.
  • The green block appeared a moderately saturated green chartreuse throughout.
  • The blue block appeared a good consistent deep blue throughout.
  • The Lagom text appeared a blended grey throughout without strong green or red tints to the striping. There was a slight red striping at the bottom of the screen and a slight green tint to the striping further up. The background showed some shifts in colour temperature and brightness, but these were exacerbated by uniformity imperfections on our unit rather than being strictly viewing angle related. They’re also exaggerated quite a bit in the photo. This indicates a relatively low viewing angle dependency to the gamma curve of the monitor, characteristic of an IPS-type panel. The photo below gives a rough idea of how the Lagom text test appeared.

Lagom Text Test

The video below shows the Lagom text test, a mixed desktop background and dark desktop background from a variety of viewing angles. For the mixed image you can see a bit of a contrast loss and brightness shift particularly from sharper angles. There are saturation, contrast and brightness shifts that are more noticeable on this model compared to what you’d typically see on an IPS model. A sort of ‘sheen’ or hazing which develops on the screen off-angle more quickly than you might expect for the panel type. But the colour shifts are less pronounced overall than on VA or TN models. There is no colour inversion as you’d see on TN models vertically or the level of horizontal gamma shifting you’d see on a VA model. The final section of the video shows a dark desktop background and highlights ‘IPS glow’ mentioned earlier. Note how it blooms out noticeably from sharper viewing angles, with a clear silver or golden red sheen depending on angle.



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 bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did not observe any static interlace patterns, although we did observe some dynamic ‘interlace pattern artifacts’. Upon close inspection, some medium-light shades appeared to break up into a very faint and fine mesh of tiny polygons. This effect was extremely subtle and most users will not notice it or find it bothersome if they do. It’s something we had to actively look for and even then it was difficult to notice.

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a small tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to compare the 24G2U (24G2)’s latency with a screen of known latency. To help maximise accuracy, over 30 repeat readings were taken. Using the method, we measured 3.79ms (a bit over 1/2 a frame @144Hz) of input lag. The status of the ‘FreeSync’ (‘Adaptive Sync’) setting in the OSD made no measurable difference to this result and neither did activating the MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) feature. This value is influenced both by the element of input lag you ‘feel’ (signal delay) and the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness). It indicates a low signal delay which shouldn’t bother even sensitive users. We don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a variable refresh rate environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores some of the key concepts surrounding monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is the concept of perceived blur, which is contributed to by both the pixel responsiveness of the monitor and the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. This second factor is dominant on modern monitors, although slower than optimal pixel responses are still an important contributor. We also look at ‘pursuit photography’, an image capture technique which uses a moving camera to capture motion on a screen in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the UFO moving across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The test is set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a practical speed for such photographs whilst highlighting key weaknesses well. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 100Hz and 144Hz with all of the ‘Overdrive’ settings tested; ‘Off’, ‘Weak’, ‘Medium’ and ‘Strong’. Although not documented here, 120Hz behaved some way between the tested refresh rates (100Hz and 144Hz), as you might expect. All rows of the UFO Motion Test were used, to show a range of pixel transitions between various shades. The final columns show some reference screens for comparison. The first reference screen is the AOC C24G1, the curved VA version of this model, set to what we consider its optimal overdrive setting. The second reference screen is the ViewSonic XG240R set up optimally, a fast and well-tuned TN model (particularly at high refresh rates) that shows how things look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor.

Perceived blur, 60Hz

At 60Hz, shown above, the UFO appears fairly broad and softly focused, without clear internal detailing. This reflects a significant degree of perceived blur due to eye movement and is something that the reference shots also share. Note that the relatively high saturation of the UFO colours caused the segments to appear slightly more blended in the photos for the G2 than they do in reality – the segmentation appears a little more distinct (like the reference shots) in person. There are also various amounts of trailing behind the UFOs, caused by weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. With the ‘Off’ setting there’s a fair amount of ‘powdery’ trailing. This is particularly true for the dark background (top row), a bit lower for the medium background (middle row) and not really apparent for the light background (bottom row). The ‘Weak’ setting slightly reduces this, whilst the ‘Medium’ setting offers a further reduction. There is really only a faint whiff of this sort of trailing remaining using this setting. In fact it compares favourably to the reference shots in some respects. The C24G1 shows some fairly bold trailing for the dark background and overshoot elsewhere, whilst the XG240R shows some more extended ‘powdery’ trailing for the medium background at 60Hz. The ‘Strong’ overdrive setting introduces a fair bit of overshoot (inverse ghosting) some bright ‘halo’ trails with a bit of an inky appearance in places. The ‘Medium’ setting is clearly optimal here and actually very nicely balanced for 60Hz. The following image set shows how things look with the refresh rate bumped up to 100Hz.

Perceived blur, 100Hz

At 100Hz, shown above, the UFO now appears somewhat narrower with sharper focus. This reflects a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. You can again see varying degrees of trailing behind the object. As at 60Hz, the ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’ setting did not provide a sufficient level of acceleration, leaving some weaknesses that were most apparent for the dark background and a lesser extent the medium background. The ‘Medium’ setting reduces this significantly, although a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing still remains. The ‘Strong’ setting gets rid of this powdery trailing, replacing it with a bit of overshoot. This overshoot is not as strong or eye-catching as at 60Hz and has a rather blended appearance overall. We’d consider the ‘Strong’ setting optimal at 100Hz, although the ‘Medium’ setting may be preferred by some if they want to minimise overshoot instead of maximising pixel response times. The image below shows what things look like with a further bump up in refresh rate to 144Hz.

Perceived blur, 144Hz

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears more sharply focused and slightly narrower, indicating a further decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance are stepped up quite a bit now, so the trailing behind the UFOs appears a bit different – extending further back in places an existing where it didn’t before. The ‘Off’ and ‘Weak’ settings suffer from this most noticeably, particularly for the dark background. The ‘Medium’ setting offers fair improvement and is actually quite well-balanced, but there is a further reduction using the ‘Strong’ setting without any clear overshoot being introduced. There’s a faint ‘powdery’ trail behind the object for the dark and medium backgrounds, but this is slight and a clear improvement compared to the C24G1 reference. The XG240R really sets the standard for 144Hz pixel responsiveness and provides a pretty much flawless performance in this test – but the G2 using its ‘Strong’ setting isn’t too bad in comparison. We’re comfortable saying that the ‘Strong’ setting is optimal at 144Hz. We’d say the same following a broader comparison of pixel responses – there’s just a little bit of overshoot for some transitions, but a reasonable reduction in conventional trailing compared to the ‘Medium’ setting.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, the monitor offers an alternative with its ‘MBR’ (Motion Blur Reduction) feature. This is a strobe backlight setting that causes the backlight to pulse at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – either 100Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz. By its very nature, this mode causes the backlight to flicker at a rate matching the refresh rate of the display – individual sensitivity to this flickering varies. Some users may notice accelerated eye fatigue when using this setting even if they aren’t actively noticing any flickering. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 100Hz using MBR. A few reference screens are also shown for comparison, using their respective strobe backlight settings at 100Hz. 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. However; ‘Strong’ is the only usable setting. The others are simply too slow and increase trailing and strobe crosstalk significantly without providing any benefits – we just focus on the ‘Strong’ setting here. Also be aware that setting the ‘Overdrive’ to ‘Boost’ is equivalent to using the ‘Strong’ setting and setting ‘MBR’ to ‘20’. We test MBR ‘15’ here as well, as we consider it to give a good mixture of brightness and clarity. The brightness was ~160 cd/m² at 144Hz, which is similar to what we target for our ‘Test Settings’ with MBR disabled.

Perceived blur, 100Hz 'MBR'

With ‘MBR’ active you can see that the image appears more sharply focused compared to with the setting deactivated, even when comparing to a higher refresh rate. There’s clearer internal detailing, especially with ‘MBR = 20’. The exception to this is ‘MBR = 1’, which really just creates a messy double-image as it isn’t effective enough as a strobe backlight setting. For the more effective settings (‘MBR = 15’ and ‘MBR = 20’), this sharper detailing indicates a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement – exactly what strobe backlights like this set out to tackle. There is also a fair amount of trailing behind the object and in some cases in front of it, however. These repetitions are due primarily to the pixel responses not keeping up with the rigorous demands of the refresh cycle. 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. The reference shots don’t show this, but there is instead some overshoot due to the high levels of acceleration used to speed up the pixel transitions. The image set below shows results with a slight bump up in refresh rate to 120Hz, MBR again active.

Perceived blur, 120Hz 'MBR'

The object itself now appears with clear internal detailing, particularly for ‘MBR = 15’ and ‘MBR = 20’. Note that the white notches on the UFO body were actually a bit clearer in reality with ‘MBR = 15’ than they appear on the photos – the brightness levels caused them to appear a bit more blended than they should. This indicates excellent low perceived blur due to eye movement. There is pronounced strobe crosstalk behind the UFO (and also in front in the case of ‘MBR = 1’ and to a less extent ‘MBR = 15’), however. The reference shots don’t show this to the same degree, particularly for the S2417DG reference where overshoot is present but the shot is otherwise very ‘clean’ indeed with a very distinct main object. The image set below was taken with a further increase in refresh rate, to 144Hz with MBR active.

Perceived Blur, 144Hz 'MBR'

Things appear fairly similar to at 120Hz, although the clarity of the main object at ‘MBR = 20’ is further enhanced. The segmentation is a bit clearer compared to at 120Hz. This is also true at ‘MBR = 15’, although the white notches again appear a bit more blended on the photo than in reality due to brightness and how the image was captured by the camera. There is strong strobe crosstalk in the images, though, which does affect overall motion clarity. The C24G1 reference shot shows this to a fair extent behind the UFO body, but much less so behind the main UFO body. The AG251FG is now used as a ULMB reference and shows a pretty clean 144Hz strobe backlight performance. It’s worth noting 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 144Hz and ‘MBR = 15’. Strobe crosstalk variation at different points was also observed at 120Hz and 100Hz and using ‘MBR = 20’ – but the end result was quite similar and we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations.

Strobe Crosstalk, 144Hz 'MBR = 15'

You can see moderate to strong strobe crosstalk throughout the screen. Further up you can see it in front of the object as well as behind. A bit lower down (just above centre) it only appears behind. In the central region of the screen the strobe crosstalk becomes somewhat stronger and there’s essentially another repetition of the object as you move further down again. This becomes so strong towards the bottom of the screen that it melds into the object itself. Whilst this strobe crosstalk doesn’t make the MBR setting completely useless, it does affect how useful it is and the overall motion clarity. We explore this and some other aspects to consider using in-game examples at the end of this section.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V, where the frame rate kept pace with the 144Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided a good fluid experience and put the refresh rate to good use. With up to 2.4 times as much visual information being pumped out every second as a 60Hz monitor (or this monitor running at 60Hz), there are two key benefits. The first is the enhanced ‘connected feel’ you get when interacting with the game world. There’s a certain precision and fluidity that’s simply lacking at lower refresh rates. The low input lag of the monitor aided this as well, although low input lag alone can’t replicate the level of connected feel you get from a high frame rate and refresh rate. The second benefit is a reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated using Test UFO earlier. There is a significant step up in this respect comparing 60Hz to 144Hz.

For minimal perceived blur, it’s also important that the pixel responses are performed sufficiently rapidly. On the AOC the vast majority of pixel transitions were performed fast enough for a good solid 144Hz experience. There was a small amount of faint ‘powdery trailing’ for some transitions, which slightly increased perceived blur. There were some slightly more pronounced weaknesses for some pixel transitions, involving very light shades (such as white) with certain darker shades in the background. White in-game text inside a dimly lit building, for example. The ‘powdery trailing’ here was somewhat heavier and more extended and provided some isolated cases of greater perceived blur. However; these weaknesses were nowhere near as pronounced nor as widespread as the sort of weaknesses you’d observe on VA models. Even well-tuned ones like the AOC C24G1, where some ‘smeary’ trailing and stronger overshoot can be found. There was no real overshoot to speak of on this model. Some faint traces of ‘halo’ trailing during a slim number of transitions, but this was only marginally brighter than the object or background colour so didn’t really stand out in an obvious way.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The monitor again provided a solid 144Hz experience without obvious weaknesses. The vast majority of pixel transitions were snappy, without obvious overshoot being introduced. It was clear that the 24G2U (24G2) had very well-tuned pixel responsiveness for high refresh rates, using our preferred ‘Strong’ overdrive setting. It provided a very competent 144Hz performance, overall, which should keep casual gamers and some competitive gamers happy. For most users (and this includes some competitive gamers), the tighter pixel responsiveness of a well-tuned TN model like the ViewSonic XG240R probably wouldn’t be worth the sacrifice in terms of image quality. We also observed a range of movie content, including 24-30fps Netflix content and 60fps YouTube videos. There were no clear weaknesses in any of the content, with the framerate itself being the key barrier to visual fluidity.

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.

AOC 24G2


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. There is a list of GPUs which support the technology here, with the expectation that future AMD GPUs will support the feature too. 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 24G2U (24G2) supports FreeSync via DP 1.2a and HDMI 1.4 on compatible GPUs and systems. If fully installed, AMD drivers feature Radeon Settings, which makes activation of the technology very simple and something that usually occurs automatically. First make sure that you have ‘FreeSync’ (‘Adaptive Sync’) set to ‘On’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD. You should then make sure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and click 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.

Enable FreeSync

The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 144Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 144fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 144fps, the monitor will stay at 144Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 144fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >144fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 32fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 64Hz 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.

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 fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. The final option, ‘Enhanced Sync’, is a relatively new addition to the driver. 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 than a monitor feature.

VSync options

Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 141fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. If you activate the ‘Frame Counter’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD, this will display the refresh rate of the display and therefore indicate the frame rate if ‘FreeSync’ is active and the frame rate is within the variable refresh rate range of the display. The final point to note is 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

We used this monitor whilst playing a variety of game titles, with FreeSync active. As usual we found the experience homogeneous across the different game titles and indeed any issues identified with FreeSync in one title but not another would indicate an issue with the game or GPU driver rather than the monitor. We’ll therefore just focus on one title for this section; Battlefield V. This game offers excellent flexibility with its graphics options, allowing the full variable refresh rate range of the model to be tested. The Radeon RX 580 in our test system maintained close to 144fps with fairly modest graphics settings, but even then some dips below that were commonplace. Even if these dips were slight (only a few fps), without FreeSync enabled they lead to obvious tearing (VSync disabled) or obvious stuttering (VSync on). Sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, so when we say obvious we mean to us and other sensitive users, but having FreeSync get rid of such imperfections was very pleasant for us. With graphics settings increased somewhat, the average framerate fell closer to 100fps. The monitor runs at ~100Hz (matching the frame rate) with Adaptive-Sync active, removing the tearing and stuttering from the mismatches that otherwise occur. Again, a very nice thing to have. Compared to frame rates up at the top end supported by the monitor, there was both a decrease in ‘connected feel’ and an increase in overall perceived blur as the frame rate dipped. This is not something FreeSync can help with as a reduction in frame rate is still a reduction in frame rate.

One area where FreeSync models often fall down compared to G-SYNC models (with dedicated G-SYNC module) is that the pixel overdrive is only tuned appropriately for higher refresh rates. As the frame rate of the content drops (and so does the refresh rate of the monitor), G-SYNC models with the module re-tune the pixel overdrive impulse appropriately – something referred to as Variable Overdrive. FreeSync models lack this and it’s common to see increasingly obvious overshoot if you just stick to using your response time setting that worked best at the much higher refresh rates. The 24G2U (24G2)’s ‘Strong’ overdrive setting, which we prefer for refresh rates at the top end, still worked well at ~100Hz. There were some instances of more noticeable overshoot – bright ‘halo’ trailing becoming a bit brighter for example. But it was still fairly subdued and nowhere near as eye-catching as it would be on some models.

This overshoot became more noticeable if frame rate dropped significantly lower, below 80fps it became moderately strong in places. But not exactly extreme. If you’re sensitive to overshoot and your frame rate is frequently below 80fps, we’d recommend simply switching to the ‘Medium’ setting for ‘Overdrive’. This gets rid of the overshoot and is well-tuned for such refresh rates. It’s by no means badly tuned at higher refresh rates, either – we’d still consider ‘Strong’ as optimal for the higher refresh rates as we explored with pursuit photos earlier. But ‘Medium’ works quite well, too. For frame rate dips below 48fps, the monitor sticks to a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate – something AMD calls LFC (Low Framerate Compensation). This worked effectively to reduce tearing and stuttering. There was a brief stuttering when this activated, but this isn’t something users should find bothersome unless things are frequently going above or below the LFC boundary.

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 can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. Some models are specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass specific quality checks. With the 24G2U (24G2), you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort and enable ‘FreeSync’ (‘Adaptive Sync’) 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. Press OK, then turn the monitor off then on again so that it re-establishes connection – the technology should now be active.

G-SYNC Compatible settings

You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display is not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display, not that it doesn’t work. This model worked properly using Adaptive-Sync (G-SYNC compatible mode) on our Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti, offering an experience that was very similar to using AMD FreeSync. A slight difference is that the floor of operation appeared to be 60Hz (60fps) rather than 48Hz (48fps). However; an LFC-like technology was supported, with the monitor keeping at a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate. There was again a 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 obviously you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than Radeon Settings 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’).

G-SYNC Compatible settings

Finally, note again that you can activate the ‘Frame Counter’ in the ‘Game Setting’ section of the OSD to see if the technology is working. This will rapidly adjust as frame rate fluctuates, whereas if Adaptive-Sync isn’t being used it will stay at the static refresh rate you’ve selected.

MBR (Motion Blur Reduction)

Earlier in the review, we introduced the ‘MBR (Motion Blur Reduction)’ feature, its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using MBR or any strobe backlight feature, it’s essential that your frame rate exactly lines up with the refresh rate of the display. If that isn’t the case, you’re left with extremely obvious stuttering or juddering, which stands out because there’s very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. We tested various game titles using this setting, but will simply be focusing on Battlefield V at a solid 144fps and the monitor set to 144Hz. Our observations here apply broadly to lower frame rate and refresh rate combinations (120Hz and 100Hz) and were largely independent of the MBR setting itself. We preferred a setting of ‘15’ as this provided what we consider an optimal mixture of brightness and clarity.

There was noticeable strobe crosstalk, clear repetitions of objects during all but the gentlest turns. This significantly affected motion clarity and nullified the key advantage of the MBR setting to a fair extent (lower perceived blur). Some details did remain more sharply visible despite this and there were some benefits from this that some users might appreciate. Competitively speaking, it could arguably make enemies easier to distinguish against backgrounds and track during engagements and rapid turns. But we feel the strobe crosstalk makes the setting too ‘messy’ to really do its job properly. It was by no means the ‘messiest’ strobe crosstalk implementation we’ve experienced, but certainly wasn’t the cleanest either. An additional point to consider is that the backlight flickers at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display, which could bother sensitive users. We found it accelerated visual fatigue and preferred the normal flicker-free operation of the monitor, but sensitivity to flickering varies.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.




Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness

Conclusion

It has been a long time coming, but we’re finally starting to see 144Hz Full HD models with IPS-type panels hit the scene. The AOC 24G2U (24G2) offers this, with a 23.8” screen size. The resolution doesn’t provide the same sort of clarity and detail levels as higher resolutions nor the same ‘desktop real estate’. But it’s a resolution complemented well by the size of the screen and is relatively easy to push at high frame rates – which is really where this monitor’s in its element. The overall design of the monitor has enough subtle hints of dark red to be ‘interesting’, without anything that really screams “gaming screen” too loudly and proudly. It’s largely sensible matte black plastic, with very slender bezels at the top and sides and a stand which affords excellent ergonomic flexibility. The OSD itself uses a design that’s somewhat dated, with a layout that’s similar to that used several years ago. A small joystick rather than set of subtly labelled buttons may have been preferred for intuitive control of the system, too, but the core functionality is good with lots of options and flexibility.

Contrast was the main strength of the older C24G1. Whilst contrast on this model was not as strong, it was very impressive for its panel type. Delivering static contrast that was roughly one and a half times the specified value and delivering slightly less ‘IPS glow’ than average for the screen size and panel type. The ‘IPS glow’ was still a feature, though, and contrast in general is certainly an area in general where VA models are worthy of more praise than IPS-type panels. The colour reproduction in this model was really where this model came into its own. It was quite well set up out of the box, delivering a punchy and vibrant image with excellent shade variety and fairly strong colour consistency. Not up there with the strongest IPS-type performers, but noticeably more consistent than VA or TN models. After some minor tweaking, things were nicely balanced – with the generous colour gamut and consistent output of the IPS-type panel providing a vibrancy and richness throughout the screen than competing TN and VA models simply can’t match. And indeed, the generous colour gamut is something which sets it apart from more expensive IPS-type competitors using the 24.5” AU Optronics panel, including the Acer XV253QP and ASUS VG259Q.

This monitor didn’t let us down when it came to responsiveness, either. It put in a very competent 144Hz performance, with low input lag and good overall pixel responsiveness. The strongest ‘Overdrive’ setting was very usable indeed for triple digit refresh rates (including 144Hz), well-balanced and suitably strong acceleration levels. There were only small amounts of overshoot and some slight weaknesses in places, but even some competitive gamers would find these weaknesses tolerable. Well-tuned TN models still offer an advantage as some of these slight weaknesses aren’t present, but if you compare to even well-tuned high refresh rate VA models (like the C24G1) then this model is a clear winner. The monitor also provided a solid Adaptive-Sync performance, working well with both our AMD (FreeSync) and Nvidia (‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’) GPUs to get rid of tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches. As usual there was no variable overdrive, which is where true G-SYNC models (with G-SYNC module) have an advantage. But the well-tuned and flexible pixel overdrive gave a suitable option for a broad range of refresh rates. ‘Strong’ remained free from obvious overshoot up to the high double-digit frame rates, whilst ‘Medium’ was excellent for lower frame rates and quite competent higher up as well. Added to its convincing performance elsewhere and competitive pricing, this model is one we can wholeheartedly recommend.

The bottom line; an accomplished product with vibrant and varied colour output, pleasing contrast and responsiveness for an IPS-type panel and very attractive pricing.


Recommended badge

PositivesNegatives
Vibrant and varied colour output straight from the box with a generous colour gamut and fairly strong colour consistencyThe sRGB emulation mode lacks brightness adjustment and is locked at moderately high brightness
Pleasing contrast for the panel type and a relatively smooth screen surface finish, delivering a decent atmosphere for darker scenes and fairly smooth-looking lighter shades‘IPS glow’ ate away at some detail peripherally and the minimum luminance is quite high, which could be problematic for sensitive users
Low input lag, well-tuned pixel overdrive at up to 144Hz and Adaptive-Sync doing its thing on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs to reduce stuttering and tearingSlight weaknesses for some pixel responses, optimal pixel overdrive setting for ~60Hz and significantly higher frame rates differs (no variable overdrive) and fairly high strobe crosstalk when using the MBR setting
Quite a feature-rich OSD, good ergonomic flexibility, very slender top and side bezels and competitive pricingThe Full HD resolution is quite limiting in some respects, although a higher resolution would demand a significant price premium and is harder to drive


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.

AOC 24G2

 
Donations are also greatly appreciated.

Donate button