AOC AG352UCG

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a small tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to compare the AG352UCG’s latency with a range of screens of known latency. To help maximise accuracy, over 30 repeat readings were taken. Using the method, we measured 5.93ms (over 1/2 a frame @100Hz) of input lag. This value is influenced by the element of input lag you ‘feel’ (signal delay) and that which you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness). It indicates a fairly low signal delay which shouldn’t bother even fairly sensitive users. We can’t accurately measure input lag with G-SYNC active and doing its thing, unfortunately, but we did feel that input lag was very low with G-SYNC active in the variable refresh rate environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In this article we take a detailed look at the factors which affect monitor responsiveness. One of the key concepts explored here is the idea of perceived blur, something that is contributed to not only by the monitor’s pixel responsiveness, but the movement of our eyes as we track motion on the screen. A method of capturing both elements called pursuit photography is also introduced. This uses a moving camera to simulate eye movement and capture pixel responsiveness, giving a much more accurate representation of motion on a monitor than static photographs or videos which reflect pixel responsiveness alone.

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. The test was set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a good practical speed for taking such photographs. All three rows of the test are looked at (dark background, medium background and light background) to help highlight how different shades affect the pixel response behaviour on this monitor. The monitor was tested at both 60Hz and 100Hz, using all of its ‘Overdrive’ (OD) settings. Note that the monitor can also be set to 85Hz, with results some way between those for 60Hz and 100Hz as below. We’ve also included some reference shots to show how things should look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor. This is a Dell S2417DG, a fast TN model that offers very well-tuned pixel responsiveness at all refresh rates you can set it at.

At 60Hz there was significant blur on the object itself. It appeared relatively wide and soft. This reflects perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement and is the same as the reference 60Hz reference in that respect. With ‘OD’ set to ‘Off’ there was also a significant amount of bold trailing behind the object for the dark background and to a lesser extent the medium background. This reflects perceived blur due to slower than optimal pixel responses. The light background was unproblematic, however. Using the ‘Weak’ setting decreased this trailing, whilst ‘Light’ decreased it further. Using the ‘Medium’ setting provided a further reduction, although some overshoot (inverse ghosting) was introduced for the black background – visible as a dark trail behind the UFO cockpit. The ‘Strong’ setting introduced significant overshoot for the dark background with a colourful-looking inverted trail behind the object. Moderate overshoot was also introduced for the medium and light backgrounds using this setting.

At 100Hz the object appeared more sharply focused and thinner, indicating a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement. The trailing due to pixel responsiveness followed a similar pattern to at 60Hz. With ‘OD’ set to ‘Off’ there was obvious bold trailing behind the UFO for the dark background in particular, but still a fair bit elsewhere. The ‘Weak’ setting reduced this whilst ‘Light’ reduced it further – although even there, a fairly bold trail was visible even for the medium cyan background. The ‘Medium’ setting reduced the trailing further, particularly for the medium background. There was a slightly ‘dirty’ look behind the UFO cockpit for the dark background – this is overshoot. The ‘Strong’ setting introduced obvious overshoot, this time most eye-catching for the medium background but still quite obvious elsewhere as well.

From this analysis and considering pixel responses over a broader range of transitions than analysed here, we felt that ‘Medium’ offered the best balance between conventional trailing reduction and overshoot. The ‘Light’ setting did cut down on overshoot, but it also introduced some more obvious trailing in places and some instances of fairly obvious smeary trailing that was avoided using the ‘Medium’ setting. It’s nice that AOC provides this sort of flexibility with their overdrive control, as some users may particularly dislike overshoot whilst others will prefer the reduction in conventional trailing. We think it’s really between the ‘Light’ and ‘Medium’ settings that most users will find themselves deciding between.

Interlace pattern artifacts

Some monitors, particularly with high refresh rates, suffer from certain artifacts when viewing motion on the screen. These may appear as an interference pattern or 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. There were no such issues on this monitor, however. There were some extremely faint static interlacing patterns visible on some shades, whereby they were shown as very faint bands of a slightly darker and slightly lighter variant of the intended shade. This could only be seen if the monitor was observed closely and the shade itself was static. This was far too faint for most users to notice during normal use or indeed from a normal viewing distance and is just something we have noted for completeness.

Responsiveness in games and movies

The monitor provided a fluid experience on Battlefield 1 (BF1), where the frame rate kept pace with its 100Hz refresh rate. By outputting up to 1.67 times as much visual information every second to the user as a 60Hz monitor, the ‘connected feel’ as we like to call it was very good. As you interact with your character on BF1, there is a certain level of precision and fluidity that’s simply lacking at lower refresh rates. The low input lag also aided this feeling. The increased refresh rate and frame rate output also significantly reduces eye movement, as explored earlier, and therefore reduces perceived blur significantly. The Achilles heel of the VA panel type, though, is pixel responsiveness – which is the other important element of perceived blur. And in that respect the AOC coped surprisingly well. Many of its pixel transitions were performed about as quickly as they needed to be for optimal 100Hz performance, or were only slightly slower than optimal. This meant that there wasn’t generally a significant amount of trailing from slower than optimal pixel responses, just a bit of an extra ‘thin and powdery’ trail in places. Similar to what you’d see on models with high refresh rate IPS-type panels, like the ViewSonic XG2703-GS and ASUS PG348Q. This contrasts with most VA models, including some high refresh rate models like the Acer Z35, whereby there would be obvious and fairly widespread extended or ‘smeary’ trailing.

There were some weaknesses, though, which affected some specific pixel transitions. There was a bit of overshoot in places, particularly noticeable where very light shades were involved in the transition. Moving your character and observing the moon against the night sky, for example, produced a dark silhouette trail behind the moon. Observing in-game markers against a dusty desert background provided a fairly bright halo trail around the marker as well. This overshoot was not particularly obnoxious, although was a bit more noticeable than on the ASUS MX34VQ at 100Hz, for example. There were also some instances of ‘break-up trailing’, whereby trailing could be seen behind certain dark shades that was coloured with certain hues contained within the dark shades. In other words, the object itself might appear pretty much black and you might expect any trailing behind this to appear similar to the perceived object colour – but the object might also contain small traces of red or blue, for example. This appears to ‘bleed out’ of the object, a bit like ink being slightly smudged. As with overshoot, sensitivity to this varies and this was some of the more subdued ‘break-up’ trailing we’ve seen – there were no obvious flashes of colour or extended inky smears, just short sharp trails of different colour to either the object or background. Finally, there were a few transitions that occurred slowly enough to form ‘smeary’ trailing, with an almost smoke-like effect. This was not as widespread or obvious as the smeary trailing on some VA models, even for the small number of transitions where it occurred, but is worth noting. The range of transitions that were affected by this was greater on the likes of the Acer Z35, compared to the AOC. Be cautious of any response time measurements you see where grey levels of ‘0’ and ’50’ are considered, but nothing between, as this makes a big difference in practice to how widespread or obvious this ‘smearing’ is. In reality there are many transitions that occur in dark scenes in games between ‘0’ (black) and ’50’ (a dark grey), so to paint a full picture you have to consider them all. We appreciate it can be difficult to visualise the some of ‘weaknesses’ we’re describing here, so have provided a summary with visual examples in the video below.

Given the depth of analysis on BF1, we don’t have too much to add from our experiences on Dirt Rally. Again, the monitor made good use of the 100Hz refresh rate overall. At high frame rates matching this, the ‘connected feel’ was certainly good. Due to our fairly low skill level and use of a keyboard as the main controller on this game, though, this was not something we appreciated as much as on FPS titles like BF1. For hardcore racing fans, the low latency and high refresh rate combination offered by the AOC can certainly provide a much more enjoyable and competitive experience than at 60Hz. When racing in the daytime there were no obvious weaknesses in pixel responses, save for a little overshoot in places such as where trees were cast against a bright daytime sky. This was not eye-catching and was something we had to actively look out for. Even when racing at night, where the weakest pixel transitions come into play, things were relatively clean without distracting smearing or obvious inky break-up trailing. This was a far nicer racing experience than provided by most VA models, including the likes of the Acer Z35 which are built for speed but fail to really make proper use of the refresh rates supported. There was some overshoot here and there, including a bit of bright trailing and some dark trailing that was distinct from the background and object colour – but nothing we found distracting or even eye-catching when we were just playing the game rather than looking for issues.

Overall, we feel that the imperfections in this monitors responsiveness were too slight to really impede our enjoyment when gaming. Sensitivity to this does vary, as we’ve mentioned previously, but this is certainly one of the stronger VA models we’ve seen in terms of pixel responsiveness. We didn’t find things quite as well balanced as on the ASUS MX34VQ, but the experience was not far off that really and fortunately far superior to the older high refresh rate VA models we’ve tested. We also analysed responsiveness on our Blu-ray test titles. The monitor’s surprisingly good fluidity and generally good pixel responsiveness didn’t really come into play here. After all, you don’t interact with the content and it’s limited to around 24fps. Nonetheless, there were no obvious weaknesses caused by the monitor itself.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

Nvidia G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology that can be activated when certain compatible Nvidia GPUs are connected to compatible monitors (such as the AOC AG352UCG). We look at the technology and the benefits it brings in this article, so don’t intend to repeat too much of what is already said there. At a basic level, G-SYNC allows the monitor to adjust its refresh rate based on the frame rate outputted by the GPU. This perfect synchronisation between refresh rate and frame rate gets rid of the stuttering (VSync on) or tearing (VSync off) that would come where the refresh rate and frame rate are misaligned. You also get a reduction in latency compared to running with VSync on in this variable frame rate environment, although as mentioned earlier we don’t have the means to accurately measure this.

This monitor supports G-SYNC via DP 1.2a (DisplayPort) when connected to a compatible Nvidia GPU. Having done so, everything should be configured automatically with G-SYNC ready to go. If that isn’t the case or you want to double check, 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 it to a different DP output if you can. If the options are still missing, reinstalling the GPU driver or updating this would be recommended.

Enable G-SYNC

The next step is to 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’, then VSync kicks in if the frame rate exceeds the maximum refresh rate supported by the monitor (i.e. the G-SYNC ceiling of 100Hz / 100fps). If you select ‘Off’ then the frame rate will climb as high as it can whilst the monitor will only go as high as 100Hz, causing tearing and juddering as the frame rate rises above 100fps. Nvidia used to recommend you select either ‘On’ or ‘Off’ rather than ‘Use the 3D application setting’ as some in-game VSync implementations could potentially interfere with the smooth operation of G-SYNC. In practice it’s likely to work just fine if enforced in-game instead, however.

The ‘Fast’ option will be 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 (>100Hz / 100fps). 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 will set its refresh rate to a multiple of the frame rate. This keeps stuttering or tearing from uneven frame and refresh rate divisions in check – and it works in this way regardless of the VSync setting used. As explored in the proceeding section, though, low frame rates remain low frame rates regardless of the technology. At such low frame rates the experience is far from fluid even if tearing and stuttering are absent. Also note that G-SYNC can’t eliminate stuttering caused by other issues in the system or game environment such as insufficient RAM or network latency.

G-SYNC – the experience

We played a broad range of game titles on this monitor and found G-SYNC to work just as we’d hoped in all of them. Rather than repeating our experiences over a range of game titles, which would be both tedious and pointless, we will instead focus on a single game title. In this case Battlefield 1 (BF1), as G-SYNC certainly enhances the playability there and there are appropriate graphics options available to test the full range of frame rates and refresh rates supported. Using settings we were happy to use (fairly modest ones), the frame rate was generally high but not always laser-locked to 100fps. It was common for the frame rate to dip a bit, spending much of its time fluctuating between about 75fps and 100fps. Without G-SYNC active and simply keeping the monitor at a static 100Hz, obvious (to us) tearing and juddering would ensure with VSync disabled. Enabling VSync got rid of this tearing and associated juddering, but in its place was obvious stuttering. With G-SYNC active there were no such nuisances and the game simply ‘flowed’ in a smooth manner, making it more enjoyable to play.

There was still benefit to be had from frame rates of the upper end of that scale, though, close to or matching 100fps. The level of perceived blur increased and the ‘connected feel’ decreased somewhat as the frame rate fell lower. If we increased the graphics settings it was possible to see further dips – to as low as about 50fps using the ‘Ultra’ preset. The perceived blur and ‘connected feel’ was further affected by these drops in frame rate, but we certainly found the playability greatly enhanced with G-SYNC active owing to a lack of tearing, stuttering and juddering from mismatches between frame and refresh rate. If the ‘Resolution Scale’ slider was increased, which improves the game’s render resolution, then the frame rate dipped further. Increasing this sufficiently actually brought the frame rate below the 30fps minimum supported by G-SYNC on the hardware side. As explained earlier, though, the monitor sticks to multiples of the frame rate with its refresh rate. This worked correctly to avoid the tearing and stuttering that you’d otherwise expect, but the experience was frankly abhorrent at such low frame rates anyway.

One thing that must be stressed is that sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, so not everybody will find G-SYNC as much of a game changer as others. In general, we find gamers do appreciate the technology – and once they disable it or go back to a monitor without it, they find it quite painful. Whilst it’s the case of ‘the higher the better’ in terms of frame rate and gaining the most fluid gaming experience the monitor can offer, the flexibility that G-SYNC provides is certainly welcome. If you’re sensitive to tearing or stuttering then you might choose to lower your in-game settings sufficiently so that you gain a consistently high frame rate matching the refresh rate of the monitor. With G-SYNC, the slight dips below this are far more palatable and so you can be a little more adventurous with your settings. For users who are sensitive to both tearing and stuttering, such as ourselves, it is quite literally a game-changing technology.

The 35” 3440 x 1440 curved ‘UltraWide’ experience

In this article we explore the 3440 x 1440 resolution on a 34” screen, including a look at what it brings to the table on the desktop, in movies and in games. The benefits of this aspect ratio and resolution apply equally to the AG352UCG, but an additional aspect to consider is the 2000R curve. There’s also an extra inch of diagonal screen space, but that makes a negligible difference really. Although the curve can look more pronounced in videos and images and the thought of a curved screen doesn’t sit well with all users, those preconceptions are generally blown out of the water once you actually sit down and use one. The curve on the AOC does not make the experience uncomfortable (quite the opposite) or unnatural and in little time at all feels completely natural. We appreciate that users who require geometric perfection on their screen (CAD/CAM work etc.) would prefer a flat screen, but for general usage we feel the curve is quite a nice addition. We don’t find flat screens of this size uncomfortable, so we can’t really verify the manufacturers claims of enhanced viewing comfort, but we certainly did find it comfortable to use for extended periods. The images below exaggerate the curve and it’s certainly not as noticeable in practice, but they are more intended to give an indication of the sort of desktop space you have available on the monitor.

As explained in our article on the topic, the 21:9 aspect ratio provides a nice boost to the Field of View in most modern game titles. Coupled with the curve screen, there was a subtle sense of being ‘drawn into’ the game – a certain extra level of depth that most monitors don’t provide. It was almost a subconscious addition, the curve, as you soon forget it’s even there. It just feels quite natural and as if it was something monitors always had, which we don’t feel is a bad thing. The images below again make the curve appear more prominent than it does when you’re sitting in front of the monitor using it. They also give no indication of the image quality to expect from the monitor – photos and videos are inherently unable to do this. They are just there for illustrative purposes.

Interpolation and upscaling

As is usual for a G-SYNC monitor, no scaling capability is provided by the monitor itself when connected via DP. The G-SYNC board replaces this, amongst other electronics in the monitor. Basic scaling functionality is provided for compatibility purposes via HDMI. The monitor is able to run at lower resolutions that may be used by games consoles and other AV devices – such as 1920 x 1080 (‘1080p’). The monitor uses ratio scaling to ensure that the image does not appear stretched or distorted. It is displayed in the correct 16:9 aspect ratio in a 27” diagonal area of the screen, with black borders either side. Interpolation is used for the vertical element to translate ‘1080’ into ‘1440’ so that the vertical screen space is used completely. This gives a degree of softening compared to a monitor that runs 1920 x 1080 natively. But it isn’t extreme and we feel this does make the monitor it least usable for this sort of thing as a secondary use, even if not ideal.

PC users who are playing older titles or those that simply don’t support 21:9 (the same titles that would lack support for Nvidia Surround or Eyefinity) will probably find the best experience is gained by running at 2560 x 1440 and using GPU scaling to ensure 1:1 pixel mapping is used. Unlike for 1920 x 1080, this does not require interpolation – black bars are displayed either side and the vertical component of the monitor (‘1440’) remains the same. Things therefore look just as sharp as a native 2560 x 1440 display, although be aware that GPU scaling can add additional latency. Discussion or testing of this is beyond the scope of this review, though, as it is down to the GPU rather than the monitor.

Conclusion

We’ve experienced quite a few VA models with higher than 60Hz refresh rates now and in general they haven’t really had adequate pixel responsiveness to make a proper go of the refresh rates they support. The ASUS MX34VQ bucked that trend by making a really good go of its 100Hz refresh rate. The AOC AGON AG352UCG features a slightly different panel, an AU Optronics 35” model rather than a Samsung 34” model. But it benefits from G-SYNC (rather than offering support for AMD FreeSync) and the same panel type (VA) with a similar curvature and resolution. We found the overall package to be rather appealing, with the physical width of the screen and the curvature providing an engrossing but natural-feeling experience both on the desktop and when gaming. The ergonomic flexibility (height adjustment in particular) will also be quite welcome on this model, something which the ASUS was notably lacking.

Out of the box the monitor delivered an undeniably bright image, but one that was lacking a bit of depth and ‘punch’. This was easily rectified in the OSD, particularly once the gamma mode was changed and brightness was lowered to more comfortable levels. The static contrast was generally slightly above the 2000:1 specified and although it did not reach the levels of some VA models, did deliver a distinctive ‘VA look’ to the image. Overall depth was pleasing, whilst bright elements stood out nicely against darker surroundings. The screen surface was also smooth and light, meaning that there wasn’t obvious graininess to contend with either. The colour performance was strong overall, with a good range of vivid-looking shades and a generous but not excessive colour gamut that helped deliver the sort of experience a gaming monitor should deliver. As is typical for a VA panel, there was a degree of saturation lost towards the side edges and bottom of the screen. Although performance was weaker in that respect than on models such as the ASUS MX34VQ, it was by no means extreme for a VA model of this size.

Whilst we can’t say it provided a flawless performance in terms of responsiveness, it certainly impressed in many respects. Pixel responses were generally snappy enough to make a good go of the 100Hz refresh rate, which when coupled with the low latency of the monitor aided a very nice ‘connected feel’. There was a bit of extra perceived blur in places over 100Hz models with much stronger pixel responsiveness, but this was far removed from the mess of extensive smeary trailing that VA models are renowned for. Even those that boast high refresh rates, such as the Acer Z35. The monitor did use strong grey to grey acceleration to achieve this, with the side effect being a bit of overshoot. This was a bit more visible than on the ASUS with both running at 100Hz and using their optimal response time setting, but nothing we felt was particularly eye-catching or obtrusive. G-SYNC worked in exactly the way we had come to expect from extensive testing of the technology on other models, too, removing the tearing and stuttering associated with traditional frame and refresh rate mismatches. One notable absence on this model is ULMB, a strobe backlight feature that greatly reduces perceived blur at frame rates matching the refresh rate of the monitor. On this model that would have meant flickering at 100Hz (or 85Hz) which some users would find unpleasant, and perhaps AOC or Nvidia didn’t feel that the model was well-suited to the technology for other reasons as well.

Overall, we found this a worthy companion to our Nvidia GTX 1070 and one with the flexibility to stretch considerably more powerful GPUs as well. The marriage of UltraWide screen, 3440 x 1440 resolution, 100Hz refresh rate and G-SYNC is one which looks nice on paper and in this case worked nicely in practice as well. It’s also difficult to ignore the (at this time projected) retail price of this model, too, which whilst not cheap is certainly more affordable than the competing UltraWide G-SYNC models using overclocked 60Hz IPS panels. Whether the relatively high-contrast VA panel free from ‘IPS glow’ makes for a better experience than the more consistent colours and tighter pixel responsiveness of the IPS alternatives is a matter for debate. But in our view there is a lot to like about the AOC and it certainly warrants careful consideration for Nvidia gamers.

The bottom line; a model with a pleasing mixture of strong contrast, fairly vivid colour reproduction, decent responsiveness and the all-important (to some) addition of G-SYNC.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.