AOC AG251FG

Responsiveness

Input lag

A sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to measure input lag on the AG251FG, by comparing to a number of monitors of known latency. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 4.68ms (a little over 1 frame at 240Hz) of input lag. This figure is influenced both by the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a low signal delay which shouldn’t bother most users, including many competitive gamers. Note that we have no way to accurately measure input lag when G-SYNC is actively doing its thing.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness analyses the key factors which affect monitor responsiveness, including the concept of ‘perceived blur’. This is something that is contributed to in part by the pixel responsiveness of the monitor, but often more significantly by the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. A photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’ is also explored, which allows motion on a monitor to be captured in a way that accurately reflects both of these elements. A moving camera rather than a static camera is key to this, otherwise you are only capturing the pixel response element of perceived blur and not the influence of eye (camera) movement.

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, highlighting both elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. Four sets of photos are included. The first three sets show the monitor set to 60Hz, 144Hz and 240Hz, respectively. The final set shows the monitor set to 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz with ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) active – an Nvidia-specific strobe backlight mode explored shortly. All three rows of the test (dark, medium and light background) are used to showcase a range of different pixel transitions. All of the ‘Overdrive’ settings of the monitor are tested. Where applicable, shots are provided for reference from a Dell S2417DG. This gives an indication of what things look like where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor and it’s only really eye movement that contributes to perceived blur. This same reference screen is used with ULMB active for comparison, although as you can see there are pixel responsiveness related issues here in the form of fairly strong overshoot (inverse ghosting).

The images above were captured with the monitor set to 60Hz. The image itself (UFO) is soft and blurry, indicating a moderate degree of perceived blur related to camera (eye) movement. You can also see some trailing behind the object to varying degrees, depending on the ‘Overdrive’ setting used and the transitions being performed (background colour’). The ‘Off’ setting gives the most obvious conventional trailing, with the ‘Weak’ setting dampening this a fair bit. The ‘Light’ setting offers further improvement, with just a faint ‘powdery’ trail remaining. The ‘Medium’ setting yields further improvement at 60Hz, with the trailing as good as eliminated really. The ‘Strong’ setting introduces an obvious colourful trailing – overshoot or inverse ghosting, caused by excessive levels of grey to grey acceleration.

With the refresh rate increased to 144Hz, as above, the perceived blur is significantly reduced. The UFO appears sharper and less blurry, with better distinction on some of its bodywork details. The ‘Off’ setting has a fair amount of trailing behind the object, particularly for the dark (top row) and medium (middle row) backgrounds. The ‘Weak’ setting cuts back on this significantly, with just a slight powdery trail remaining. The ‘Light’ setting cuts back on this just a little bit, whilst the ‘Medium’ setting yields slight further improvement. For the dark background there is no real visible trailing now, although the medium background and to a lesser extent light background shows a little bit of overshoot. The ‘Strong’ setting again introduces obnoxious levels of overshoot, with obvious bright and colourful trailing behind the UFO.

Increasing the refresh rate again to 240Hz, with the test now running at 240fps, yields further improvement. The details on the UFO are now more sharply defined, with the white dots and segments of the body being more distinct. With the ’Off’ setting there is a fair bit of trailing behind the UFO, particularly for the medium background, which adds to the perceived blur. The ‘Weak’ setting offers significant improvement, with the conventional trailing reduced massively. There is some conventional trailing for the medium background in particular and a little bit of overshoot for the medium and light backgrounds. The overshoot is visible as a faint silhouette behind the object. The ‘Light’ setting gets rid of any remaining conventional trailing but slightly increases the overshoot (it remains very weak, however). The ‘Medium’ setting provides stronger overshoot, particularly for the medium background where there is a dark blue fringe behind the object. The ‘Strong’ setting provides very colourful and eye-catching overshoot whilst yielding no particular advantage in terms of perceived blur.

Although this testing with TestUFO is fairly comprehensive and there’s a lot to absorb from the testing, it’s by no means a complete test. There are many more transitions between many different shade levels that are not assessed here, but which will crop up when gaming on the monitor. From this assessment, though, it seems that at 60Hz and 144Hz the ‘Medium’ setting is optimal with ‘Light’ a close second. At 240Hz, though, the ‘Medium’ setting introduces overshoot that’s just a bit too strong and therefore ‘Light’ is the preferred option. There is no real benefit to ‘Medium’ over ‘Light’ for these particular transitions. In practice we felt that the overshoot of ‘Medium’ outweighed any perceived benefits from slightly faster pixel responses over ‘Light’ at very high refresh rates. And indeed the ‘Light’ setting provided a decent performance regardless of refresh rate. The ‘Weak’ setting was not suitable for the highest refresh rates in our view due to some transitions appearing noticeably slower and a fair bit of additional trailing being introduced as a result. Last but not least, we take a look at the results with ULMB active.

With ULMB active, you can see that the object itself is exceptionally crisp and detailed, getting progressively more so as refresh rate is increased. At 120Hz the details are very distinct. A good thing to focus on to get an idea of the clarity increase as refresh rate is increased is the triplet of white blobs on each segment of the UFO. At 100Hz they blend together and are not distinct (they are on the reference – possibly due to slight lower brightness or different exposure levels). At 120Hz they are distinct but still slightly broader and blended in than is ideal. At 144Hz they are sharp and distinct – compare this to the monitor running without ULMB active, even at 240Hz, and you’ll see the edge in motion clarity that ULMB offers even at a lower refresh rate. There is no conventional trailing, but there is a fair amount of overshoot visible. Due to the backlight strobing at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display, the overshoot is sometimes visible as two discrete trails rather than a continuous blur as well. The overshoot is most noticeable with the medium background, perhaps marginally weaker at 144Hz if you look at the initial trail. The reference (Dell S2417DG, ULMB active) has a little less overshoot when compared to the medium background at the same refresh rate. But it isn’t a massive difference. As we explore later, the overshoot is certainly a feature when ULMB is active – not just on this model but all that use the technology. However; the reduction in perceived blur is still an advantage.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1) the experience was very fluid indeed, where the frame rate kept up with the 240Hz refresh rate. The monitor is pumping out up to 4 times as much information every second as a 60Hz monitor, twice as much as a 120Hz monitor and ~1.67 times as much as a 144Hz monitor. This gives a superior ‘connected feel’ as you interact with the game world; your character movement on this game translates to movement or other changes within the game world rather seamlessly. The other key advantage of the monitor pumping out so much information every second is that it significantly decreases the time that the eye spends moving whilst tracking motion on the screen. This in turn massively reduces perceived blur. In both respects we did feel a difference compared to a fast 144Hz model (or indeed running this model at 240Hz), although the difference was not as pronounced as when stepping up from 60Hz to 144Hz. We wouldn’t say this provided a competitive edge and for most users, and they’d find it preferable to maintain a relatively low frame rate (i.e. closer to 144fps) with superior graphics settings vs. ~240fps with lower settings. For competitive gamers, though, the edge in terms of connected feel and lower perceived blur will be welcome.

The other aspect to consider when it comes to perceived blur, pixel responsiveness, was also very pleasing overall on this monitor. The vast majority of pixel transitions were snappy enough to provide an optimal 240Hz experience, without noticeable trailing or indeed overshoot (using our preferred ‘Overdrive’ setting). There were some very minor weaknesses, but nothing that significantly impacted perceived blur levels. There was a small amount of faint ‘powdery’ trailing in places, such as during some high contrast transitions between very light and very dark shades. This was a very short, sharp and faint trailing that would escape the notice of most users and do little to impede their gaming enjoyment. This was preferable to the more noticeable overshoot that crept in using the ‘Medium’ overdrive setting, in our opinion. That isn’t to say there was no overshoot at all using our preferred ‘Light’ setting, but it was really very faint indeed. There was a slight semi-transparent ‘snail slime’ type trail behind some medium-dark objects such as dark grey buildings cast against a lighter sky. We didn’t find this at all eye-catching and it’s not something the vast majority of users are even likely to notice.

Given the depth of analysis on BF1 above, we don’t have a lot to add about the experience on Dirt Rally. Whilst hardened race fans who use a proper controller (particularly a steering wheel) would appreciate the increase in ‘connected feel’ brought about by 240Hz at suitably high frame rates, this didn’t really translate for us whilst using the keyboard. Nonetheless, the decrease in perceived blur was a nice addition. We again felt that the increase from 60Hz to 144Hz (at corresponding frame rates) was more noticeable and beneficial than from 144Hz to 240Hz. Indeed, it was very difficult to maintain anywhere near 240fps on our system without killing the graphics so much that the game was barely recognisable. Looking more like an old console title than the Dirt Rally we know. There were no obvious weaknesses in pixel responsiveness nor any obvious overshoot. The same sort of very minor weaknesses we have already explored were there, perhaps most noticeable but still entirely unobtrusive at night where some of the more high-contrast transitions came into play. It’s very important to realise, though, that they were so minor that we had to concentrate to find them and would usually crash the car in the process. In other words; they’re unlikely to even be noticed by users just playing the game normally and we’re just mentioning them for completeness.

We also tested our Blu-ray test title, which run at around 24fps and are therefore inherently limited in their fluidity. Nonetheless, the monitor did not impose any limitations in terms of pixel responsiveness as there was no noticeable trailing or overshoot related to imperfections there. The fact that 24 divides nicely into 240Hz was also beneficial in terms of reducing juddering when compared to 60Hz monitors running the same 24fps content.

Interlace pattern artifacts

Some models exhibit what we refer to as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’, which are reasonably common on models with high refresh rates. These artifacts can also be referred to as ‘inversion artifacts’ or ‘scan lines’. Sometimes static interlacing patterns are visible, whereby shades are broken up into thin (often vertical) lines that alternate between a slightly lighter and slightly darker variant of the intended shade. Dynamic interlacing patterns may also be observed, sometimes appearing as a grid or mesh or an ‘interference pattern’ when motion is observed on the monitor.

Whilst the AG251FG was free from obvious static interlace pattern artifacts, it did suffer from dynamic interlace patterns. When movement was observed on the screen, the image sometimes appeared to break up into an interference pattern composed of vertical pinstripes. We found it quite noticeable, but at the same time didn’t find it overly distracting and soon forgot about it when simply focusing on gaming. At 60Hz these patterns become more obtrusive, seeming to move on their own as a sort of shimmering interference mesh. It’s worth remembering that how obvious a user finds these patterns depends on the viewing distance, their eyesight and sensitivity to such things.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

Nvidia G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology that can be activated when specific compatible Nvidia GPUs are connected to compatible monitors (such as the AOC AG251FG). Our article on the technology explores how it works and the sort of benefits it can bring, so we won’t be repeating too much of that. Essentially the technology allows the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate to match, where possible, the frame rate outputted by the GPU. When the two are in sync it gets rid of the tearing (VSync off) and stuttering (VSync on) that occurs when the two are desynchronised. An additional benefit for those who hate tearing and usually like to use VSync is a reduction in latency compared to ‘VSync on’ in the variable frame rate environment. As noted in the responsiveness section, though, we don’t have a way to accurately measure this.

This monitor supports G-SYNC via DP 1.2 (DisplayPort), once connected to a compatible Nvidia GPU such as the GTX 1070 on our test system. Once connected up everything should, in theory, be automatically configured for you so G-SYNC is ready to use. There’s usually even a little notification icon in the system tray telling you that a G-SYNC compatible display is detected. To check everything is configured correctly, open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Set Up G-SYNC’. Ensure that the checkbox for ‘Enable G-SYNC’ is checked, then select your preferred operating mode. As the image below shows, this technology works in both ‘Full Screen’ and ‘Window’ modes, provided the correct option is selected for this. If the G-SYNC options seem to be missing from Nvidia Control Panel, this may be remedied by reconnecting the GPU or possibly connecting the monitor to a different DP output if there’s one available. If the options are still missing, reinstalling the GPU driver or updating this is recommended.

Enable G-SYNC

Next you should navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’. Here there are a few settings of interest, the first of which is ‘Monitor Technology’. This should be set to ‘G-SYNC’ as shown below. Assuming this is all set up correctly, you should also see ‘G-SYNC’ written beside the resolution and refresh rate at the bottom of the OSD.

Set Monitor Technology to G-SYNC

The second setting of interest is VSync, which can be set to one of the following; ‘On’, ‘Use the 3D application setting’, ‘Off’ or ‘Fast’ (GPU dependent). If you select ‘On’, VSync activates if the frame rate exceeds the maximum refresh rate supported by the monitor (i.e. the G-SYNC ceiling of 240Hz / 240fps). If you select ‘Off’ then the frame rate is free to rise in an unrestricted way, but the monitor will only go as high as 240Hz – tearing and juddering will ensue if the frame rate rises above this. In our experience there are some titles that actually seem to work incorrectly if a graphics driver-enforced VSync option is selected. Battlefield 1 is one such example, although this may have been some sort of bug with the graphics driver or current game version we were running. We found ‘Use the 3D application setting’ and selecting the option in-game works exactly as it should.

The ‘Fast’ option is available on some newer GPUs, such as the GTX 1070 used in our test system. This enables a technology called ‘Fast Sync’, which only applies above the refresh rate and frame rate ceiling (>240Hz / 240fps). Below this G-SYNC operates as normal, whereas above this a special version of VSync called ‘Fast Sync’ is activated. This is a GPU rather than monitor feature so isn’t something we will explain in detail, but it is designed to reduce tearing at frame rates well above the refresh rate of the monitor. If you’re interested in this technology, which may be the case if you play older or less graphically demanding games at very high frame rates, you should watch this section of a video by Tom Petersen.

Set VSync according to preferences

If the frame rate drops below the lowest refresh rate supported by the monitor (i.e. the G-SYNC floor of 30Hz / 30fps) then the monitor sets its refresh rate to a multiple of the frame rate. If for example the game ran at 20fps, the monitor would set itself to 40Hz. This keeps stuttering and tearing from mismatches in frame and refresh rate at bay and is something that happens regardless of what you set VSync to. As we explore shortly, though, low frame rates are low frame rates regardless of the technology. So whilst it is always beneficial to have stuttering and tearing removed, it’s also beneficial to have an elevated frame rate where possible. It’s also worth remembering that G-SYNC can’t eliminate stuttering caused by other issues on the system or game environment such as insufficient RAM or network latency.

G-SYNC – the experience

We ran a broad range of game titles on the monitor and found G-SYNC working as intended on all of them. Rather than sharing our experience on each individual title, which would be rather tedious, we’ll instead focus on a single title; Battlefield 1 (BF1). This has a good range of graphical options and can be graphically rather taxing depending on the settings used. As such it allowed us to test the full spectrum of frame rates and refresh rates supported by G-SYNC on the AG251FG. Regardless of the graphics settings used, it was difficult to maintain a constant 240fps with our GTX 1070 – in fact sometimes the game was quite CPU limited, so even a more powerful GPU on our system wouldn’t have helped. With rather low settings, though, it was possible to get a fairly consistent 200fps+. Without G-SYNC, tearing and stuttering was not too pronounced at such high frame rates; but it was still there. It was certainly noticeable when we activated the technology. And indeed, we could detect that the technology wasn’t active when we thought it was (our fault, not the monitor). It was nice to have the niggling stuttering and tearing ironed out, certainly.

If we opted for higher graphics settings or found ourselves in scenarios in the game that strained the whole system, there were times when frame rate dropped below this – sometimes closer to 100fps than 200fps. At these sorts of frame rates we found the stuttering and tearing without G-SYNC more pronounced and therefore found the technology even more beneficial. It just kept things flowing and was nice to have. Regardless of this, the drop in frame rate took its toll by noticeably increasing perceived blur and decreasing the ‘connected feel’. Granted, both elements remained relatively good – 100 – 200fps is hardly a low frame rate. If we pushed the graphics settings further and found the frame rate dipping below 100fps, sometimes closer to 50fps, the increase in perceived blur and decreased ‘connected feel’ became significant drawbacks regardless of G-SYNC. Then again, the removal of tearing and stuttering was of considerable benefit as well. Tearing and stuttering are things that that many users would find quite obnoxious at such low frame rates. At times the frame rate even dropped below 30fps, at which point the monitor set its refresh rate to multiples of the frame rate. This did indeed prevent tearing or stuttering from mismatches in the two, but the experience was quite painful to endure due to obvious lack of fluidity. We’d also like to add that the monitor was free from obvious overshoot even as the frame rate dropped, which is something we often see on G-SYNC models but not necessarily FreeSync models.

To wrap up this section, we certainly enjoyed the addition of G-SYNC of this monitor and found it beneficial regardless of frame rate. We found the benefits most pronounced at frame rates that were a fair bit lower than the 240fps maximum supported by the monitor, however. At these very high frame rates we found tearing and stuttering noticeable but not overly bothersome, at least compared to lower frame rates. AMD users, who can’t use G-SYNC but can still benefit from the low input lag 240Hz screen, would likely find the experience quite decent at these nice high frame rates. We also found that, as frame rate dropped, particularly into the double digits, the increase in perceived blur and decreased ‘connected feel’ was a bitter pill to swallow. The lack of tearing and stuttering was still a nice addition, though. It’s worth remembering that sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, so some users will find the addition of G-SYNC to be essential, others will find it ‘nice to have’ and some will not really see or feel the benefit.

ULMB – the technology and activating it

ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) is another proprietary Nvidia technology which can be enabled instead of G-SYNC on compatible models. This is a strobe backlight technology specifically designed to reduce motion blur using the mechanism described here. Essentially the backlight rapidly pulses on (‘on phase’) and off’ (‘on phase’), with the ‘on’ phases being much briefer than the ‘off’ phases. This strobing behaviour greatly reduces the amount of time that your eyes spend tracking motion on the screen. As it is eye movement that is the most significant contributor to perceived blur on a modern monitor, the perceived blur is greatly reduced. ULMB requires a compatible Nvidia GPU and we would again like to stress that this option can’t be activated at the same time as G-SYNC.

ULMB can be enabled by first setting the monitor to 100Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz via Windows or the Nvidia Control Panel. The next step is to navigate to ‘Manage 3D settings’ in the Nvidia Control Panel and select ‘ULMB’ for ‘Monitor Technology’ as below. There is also a ‘ULMB’ setting in the ‘Extra’ section of the OSD of the monitor, which should be enabled – this generally happens automatically if the monitor is set to an appropriate refresh rate and driver option anyway. An additional setting called ‘Pulse Width’ can be configured in the OSD, which adjusts the length of the ‘on phase’. A lower setting reduces the length of the ‘on phase’, resulting in a dimmer image but potentially offering further improvement in motion clarity. Most users will find the clarity to be excellent even with the default setting of ‘100’, but given the fairly high brightness potential even with ULMB on this monitor, you may like to experiment with lower settings.

Set Monitor Technology to ULMB

The first sign that ULMB has activated successfully is that the screen will begin to flicker at a frequency matching the refresh rate, just like an old CRT. The image may appear a bit dimmer as explained earlier in the review, but it depends on the brightness setting you were using prior to activating it. If you open up the main OSD menu of the monitor you will also see ‘ULMB’ at the bottom, next to the current resolution and refresh rate.

ULMB – the experience

As soon as ULMB is active, the aforementioned flickering sets in. This is most noticeable at 100Hz, but still noticeable at higher refresh rates (sensitivity varies). In terms of brightness we felt the monitor did better than many models with strobe backlight technology enabled as we found it more than bright enough at ‘100’ brightness, even at 144Hz. In fact we settled for a lower brightness. It was clear (pun intended) from the UFO Motion Test pursuit photographs earlier on in the review that perceived blur was dramatically reduced with ULMB active. This was the case even at 100Hz but more so as refresh rate was increased. Because it provided the best ‘connected feel’ and lowest levels of perceived blur, plus the least flickering, we will focus our in-game testing for this section on 144Hz ULMB. We found the benefits shared amongst all of the game titles we tested, really, so will simply be focusing on Battlefield 1 (BF1).

At 240Hz, without ULMB active, and provided the frame rate was suitably high, levels of perceived blur were already very low. Activating ULMB at 144Hz (with a matching frame rate) gave significant further improvement in this area, however. The level of detail that was sharply visible on the game, even when manoeuvring rapidly in a vehicle, was quite something. At the level we play at we found the clarity and perceived blur levels absolutely fine at 144Hz without ULMB (more so at 240Hz without ULMB), but we still noticed the significant step up with the technology active. It’s also interesting to see that the monitor supports 144Hz ULMB, as 120Hz was the limit for most monitors we’ve tested this technology on previously. This gave a slight potential improvement in both ‘connected feel’ and decreased perceived blur. It also marginally decreased flickering. So a nice but not exactly huge benefit there.

There are several drawbacks to using ULMB, aside from the flickering – which some competitive gamers who gave for hours on end would not abide anyway. Firstly; there is a significant increase in the levels of overshoot compared to the optimal ‘Overdrive’ setting we used for our earlier testing. And indeed this setting is no longer adjustable. This is by no means unique to this monitor, but you can see bright and colourful overshoot in places much as demonstrated earlier on Test UFO. Some dark and dirty looking overshoot is also visible for some transitions. Secondly; the frame rate really has to match the refresh rate exactly for a pleasant experience. Stuttering (or indeed tearing and juddering) is painfully obvious if the frame rate departs at all from this, as the levels of perceived blur are so extremely low that these imperfections aren’t masked. There’s no G-SYNC to fall back with ULMB active. Last but not least; the ‘connected feel’ isn’t as good at 144Hz as it is at 240Hz. We’ve already explored this fact. There is no such thing as 240Hz ULMB on this monitor, so that is another sacrifice that users would have to make if they opt for ULMB. The preference for ULMB over G-SYNC, or the other way around, is quite an individual one. Most will probably prefer G-SYNC, especially given that this is a 240Hz monitor, but it’s nice to have ULMB as an option still.

Conclusion

Having tested a number of monitors with ever-increasing refresh rate, it’s quite interesting to see what exceptional refresh rates like 240Hz really bring to the table. But first, we’ll consider other attributes which we consider important – those related to static image quality. The contrast performance was decent and much as we’ve come to expect from a modern TN panel. The static contrast was quite close to the specified 1000:1 and there was no ‘IPS glow’ or anything of that nature to mar the experience. There were perceived gamma shifts even from a normal viewing position, though, which revealed extra detail in dark areas lower down the screen. And masked some detail in dark areas higher up the screen. The screen surface was also the ‘usual’ medium matte anti-glare, providing a slightly grainy look to the image without harsh and smeary graininess.

Being a TN panel, colour reproduction suffered from the usual viewing angle related pitfalls. Even from a normal viewing position you could see that saturation was weaker lower down the screen, whilst depth was excessive higher up the screen. Overall, though, the monitor was quite well set up out of the box. Unlike some high refresh rate TN models, average central gamma was more or less where it should be – so it avoided the obvious ‘washed out’ look that plagues some models. Although we had no cause to use them in our testing, 3 gamma settings are included as well so users can adjust this to a degree if they’re unsatisfied with the default setting.

This is clearly a monitor built for speed, though, and really it was very impressive in terms of responsiveness. Input lag was very low, lower than on the ViewSonic XG2530 that we tested shortly before this one. Pixel responsiveness was nicely tuned as well, with the vast majority of pixel transitions were performed fast enough for optimal 240Hz performance. There were only a few minor weaknesses, but nothing that hampered our enjoyment of the exceptionally fluid 240Hz experience. G-SYNC also worked much as we hoped it would to rid the experience of tearing and stuttering where frame rate parted ways with refresh rate. The pixel responsiveness remained quite well tuned even as frame rate dropped, too, free from obvious overshoot. This is something that hampers many models that use Adaptive-Sync and hence AMD FreeSync. The alternative operating mode for the very lowest levels of perceived blur, ULMB, also featured. This worked in much the same way we’ve seen previously. There was plenty of brightness, more so than we usually see with ULMB, whilst 144Hz was also supported to give a bit of a boost over 120Hz.

In summary, this monitor delivered on its promise of being exceptionally responsive. It was very capable of delivering a solid 240Hz performance, with little compromise, for users of both AMD and Nvidia GPUs. The green camp can also benefit from G-SYNC or ULMB, which are of course key features of the monitor. The usual TN image quality compromises aside, it delivered quite decent image quality overall as well. As is pretty much expected in a monitor of this class, ergonomic flexibility was also pleasing – with small additions like a retractable headphone hook and sideward facing USB 3.0 ports as well. Some may find the resolution rather restrictive, dislike the TN panel or simply scratch their head over the price. Then again, for competitive gamers or those whom value responsiveness above all else this monitor is certainly a strong contender.

The bottom line; an exceptionally responsive monitor with some nice Nvidia-specific features and decent image quality once you accept it’s ‘still a TN panel’ – the restrictive resolution and price may turn some users away, though.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.