AOC AG352UCG6

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 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. 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 dynamic interlace pattern artifacts, although we did observe fairly faint static interlace patterns on some shades. These shades appeared with faint horizontal bands of an alternating slightly lighter and slightly darker variant of the intended shade. This was only noticeable if the monitor was observed quite closely and easiest to spot on medium-light shades (smoke or fog in a game, for example). Sensitivity varies, but these shouldn’t really catch the attention of most users from a normal viewing distance. We also observed some ‘flickering’ inversion artifacts when certain patterns were displayed. These aren’t all that uncommon, particularly on high refresh rate monitors. We occasionally noticed this when browsing certain websites that displayed certain patterns. We didn’t notice it when gaming except in a specific isolated example on BF1. The material texture on the top of the airship caused the monitor to flicker, as shown in the video below.

Responsiveness

Input lag

We used a small tool called SMTT 2.0 and a sensitive camera to compare the AG352UCG6’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 5.51ms (over 1/2 a frame @120Hz) 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 low signal delay which shouldn’t bother even 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 explore the factors affecting PC monitor responsiveness. One of the key concepts explored is perceived blur, something that is contributed to not only by the monitor’s pixel responsiveness, but also the movement of our eyes as we track motion on the screen. Eye movement is generally the dominant cause of perceived blur on modern monitors, but pixel responsiveness also plays an important role. We also explore a method of capturing both elements of perceived blur, 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. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are 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 60Hz (directly below), 100Hz and 144Hz using all of its ‘Overdrive’ (OD) settings. We’ve also included some reference shots from the AG352UCG (this models predecessor), running its ‘Medium’ response time setting.

At 60Hz (above) the object itself appears relatively blurred and unfocused, indicating significant perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement. There is also varying degrees of trailing behind the object, due to pixel response behaviour. With ‘OD’ set to ‘Off’ there is a bold and extended trail behind the object, particularly for the dark and to a fair extent medium background. The ‘Weak’ setting’ reduces this trail a fair bit, whilst the ‘Light’ setting makes little further improvement. The ‘Medium’ setting further reduces the extent of the trailing, but it is replaced with a bit of overshoot (inverse ghosting) This is most noticeable behind the yellow cockpit area of the UFO, with the trailing appearing fairly dark and shadowy. The behaviour here is quite similar to the older model used as a reference here. The ‘Strong’ setting ramps up the pixel overdrive significantly and creates a huge amount of overshoot, giving obvious bright and colourful inverse ghosting behind the object for all transitions but most noticeable for the dark and medium backgrounds. The image below shows the results at 100Hz.

At 100Hz (above) the UFO is significantly narrower and more sharply focused, indicating a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are again varying degrees of trailing behind the object. For the ‘Off’, ‘Weak’ and ‘Light’ settings behaviour is quite similar to at 60Hz. For the ‘Medium’ setting, fairly strong pixel overdrive is used. The overshoot behind the UFO is more pronounced. It’s somewhat stronger in comparison than on the reference shot, although conventional trailing is also reduced. The reference shot with the older model shows trailing that extends further back from the object (it appears as more of a ‘smear’ in motion), particularly for the dark and medium backgrounds. The ‘Strong’ setting gives obvious bright and colourful inverse ghosting, a bit less extensive than at 60Hz but still very obvious.

Stepping up to 120Hz (above) narrows the UFO further and gives a bit of an edge in detail (note the segments of the UFO body, for example). This difference is less pronounced than at 60Hz, but you’re talking about a step up of 20Hz rather than 40Hz here so that’s not surprising. This reflects a further decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The trailing behind the object is largely similar to at 100Hz. It’s somewhat bolder in some cases and extends a bit further back. This is due to the faster frame rate and increased refresh rate, which demands faster pixel responsiveness and as mentioned reduces perceived blur so trailing is masked less. Focusing on the ‘Medium’ setting, there is a good reduction in the extent and boldness of trailing compared to weaker settings. The difference between 100Hz is slight and actually the overshoot looks to be somewhat lighter for the medium background. Looking at a broader range of transitions by testing games, we certainly favoured ‘Medium’ due to the snappier pixel response times. There were some more obvious examples of overshoot than captured for the transitions tested above, however. We also found the boost in refresh rate from 100Hz to 120Hz beneficial, as we explore in the proceeding section.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1) the monitor provided a very fluid experience, where the frame rate kept up with the 120Hz refresh rate. The ‘connected feel’ was greatly aided by the combination of low input lag and fact that the monitor has half the frame delay of a 60Hz monitor at 60fps. In other words, it outputs potentially twice the visual information every second. As you interacted with the game world with your character, there was a certain connectedness between your movements of the mouse and movement of your character. A certain precision that is simply lacking on a 60Hz monitor regardless of input lag which we felt gave a real competitive edge to gameplay. The combination of increased refresh rate and frame rate also significantly reduced eye movement and hence greatly decreased perceived blur. As we explained earlier, pixel responses are also important, and we’ll come onto that in a little more detail shortly. But the monitor certainly looked and felt like it took very good advantage of the 120Hz refresh rate. Compared to its predecessor or indeed with this model set to 100Hz, that extra 20Hz did make a positive difference to both the ‘connected feel’ and reduced perceived blur.

In most cases the pixel responses were able to keep up with the 120Hz refresh rate and provide a pretty much optimal experience. There were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, though, which is expected to a degree on any VA panel. There were some transitions that were a bit slower than optimal, giving a thin ‘powdery trail’ in places. This generally occurred between lighter and medium shades and was akin to the slight weaknesses you might see on high refresh rate IPS-type panels. Using our preferred ‘Medium’ response time setting, there was no extensive ‘smeary’ trailing nor any heavy powdery trailing. In that sense this model was improved over the predecessor, where transitions involving darker shades tended to highlight these sorts of weaknesses quite readily. There was some ‘break-up’ trailing whereby some very dark shades appeared to separate out into some of the constituent hues (for example dark red or purple), which leached out in a somewhat colourful way. This was not particularly eye-catching or extensive and was clearly reduced compared to the older model or this model using a lower response time setting than ‘Medium’.

The conventional VA weaknesses such as more noticeable trailing, smearing and ‘break-up’ trailing were not significantly reduced by pixie dust, however. Quite strong pixel overdrive was used, resulting in a moderate amount of overshoot (inverse ghosting). There were some ‘snail-slime’ semi-transparent trails in places that were like a brighter blend of the background and object shades. There were some brighter ‘halo’ trails in places which appeared as a brighter shade than either the object and background colour. And some dark trails in places, appearing darker than either the object or background colour. These were readily observed with brighter objects moving against a foggy or smoky background, for example. Although we found this overshoot noticeable, particularly when we were looking for it, we did not find it obnoxious enough to distract us from gameplay. By way of comparison, the overshoot was fairly similar to what you might see on your typical BenQ XL series model with ‘AMA’ set to ‘High’ and to the ‘Normal’ response time setting on the Dell S2716DG (which we use as one of our reference monitors for responsiveness). Sensitivity to overshoot varies, but in general we feel most users will find this moderate overshoot preferable to the alternative of more obvious ‘smeary’ and heavy powdery trailing. It allows the monitor to maintain strong 120Hz performance, giving an overall level of perceived blur that’s lower than you’d typically see on a 120Hz VA model. The section of the video review below highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses in the monitor’s response performance.

Given the depth of analysis on BF1 above and the fact that these strengths and weaknesses broadly apply to any game title, we don’t have much to add using other game examples. Still, we like to mix things up a little and at least give a passing mention to Dirt Rally, a game from a clearly different genre. The monitor again put its 120Hz refresh rate to good use, delivering a good low level of perceived blur and excellent ‘connected feel’. We wouldn’t say this made us supremely good at the game and it’s no substitute for practice, but we can certainly see that avid racing fans would appreciate this sort of performance. Most of the pixel transitions were performed flawlessly or with only minor weaknesses, such as very light powdery trailing or a little overshoot. Where some darker shades were involved in the transitions, though, the slight ‘break-up’ trailing and moderate overshoot sometimes came into play. These sorts of transitions were more widespread when driving at night, for example, but we didn’t observe anything too extreme or eye-catching. We also analysed responsiveness on our Blu-ray test titles. These were limited to ~24fps, so the fluidity of the action was greatly limited. Nonetheless, there were no obvious weaknesses in terms of pixel responsiveness and juddering was decreased compared to a 60Hz model due to 24fps dividing evenly into 120Hz. There was a small amount of overshoot here in there, but it was effectively masked by the low frame rate and didn’t jump out at all. Higher frame rate film content (for example 60fps) highlighted some of the weaknesses we observed when gaming, such as some more noticeable overshoot in places. But we still found such content perfectly watchable and didn’t find the monitor provided any distracting responsiveness issues there.

G-SYNC – the technology and activating it

Nvidia G-SYNC is a variable refresh rate technology that can be activated when a compatible Nvidia GPU is connected to a compatible monitor (such as the AOC AG352UCG6). Our article on the technology explores the principles behind the technology and its benefits, 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 unsynchronised. 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, G-SYNC should be automatically configured and 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. Note that the refresh rate listed there indicates the static refresh rate you’ve selected and does not dynamically change according to frame rate (and hence the current refresh rate of the monitor).

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). The AOC supports a variable refresh rate range of 30 – 120Hz, with the maximum value (ceiling) corresponding to the refresh rate you’ve selected for the monitor in Windows. That means that if the game is running between 30fps and 120fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 120fps, the monitor will stay at 120Hz and the GPU will respect your VSync setting in the graphics driver. If you select ‘On’, VSync activates if the frame rate exceeds the static refresh rate that you’ve selected (e.g. 120Hz / 120fps) and the usual VSync latency penalty applies. 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 120Hz – tearing and juddering will ensue if the frame rate rises above this. The ‘Use the 3D application setting’ largely works as you’d expect, but the general recommendation is to set VSync in the graphics driver if you wish to use it as in-game implementations can interfere with the smooth operation of G-SYNC. Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set several frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 116fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate.

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 (>120Hz / 120fps). 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. This occurs regardless of VSync setting. If for example the game ran at 20fps, the monitor would set itself to 40Hz. This keeps stuttering and tearing from the usual frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. 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 played various game titles with G-SYNC active and found the experience much the same across all of them. Because of this and because it has tremendous flexibility in its graphics options, we’ll simply be focusing on Battlefield 1 (BF1). With the graphics options set to fairly modest settings, which we feel give a good mixture of image quality and performance on our GTX 1070, things rarely stayed at 120fps. There were frequent dips below this, sometimes into the high double-digits. Without G-SYNC active this would result in obvious (to us – sensitivity varies amongst individuals) tearing if VSync was off or stuttering if VSync was on. The technology worked its magic to smooth things out, making the experience far more pleasant. We still preferred the edge in ‘connected feel’ and decreased perceived blur provided by frame rates being on the upper end of this range, ideally at or close to 120fps. But for users such as ourselves who are sensitive to tearing and stuttering, the benefits of variable refresh rate technology can’t be understated.

If we increased the graphics settings further, frame rate dipped potentially much lower. Using the ‘Ultra’ preset, for example, often saw the frame rate dip to around 50 – 60fps. This felt distinctly different to significantly higher frame rates, with the ‘connected feel’ much worse and perceived blur levels increased significantly. Nonetheless, the lack of tearing or stuttering from frame rate and refresh rate mismatches was very welcome. For users who are sensitive to stuttering or tearing, it really becomes apparent how beneficial G-SYNC is once you disable it. But low frame rates remain low frame rates, so ideally you’d stay as far away from them as you can. This became increasingly apparent as frame rate dropped further. If we increased the ‘Resolution scale’ slider, we could easily cause frame rate to drop much lower and potentially below the 30fps (30Hz on the monitor) floor of operation. As covered in the previous section, the monitor sticks to a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate under such conditions. This kept tearing and stuttering at bay. Unlike on many FreeSync models, overshoot didn’t become more of an issue as frame rate dropped and seemed to be ‘re-tuned’ to various refresh rates quite effectively. We did not observe any flickering outside of points we’d normally see some on models with variable refresh rate models, for example where frame rate drops to extremely low values such as in some cutscenes or menus.

The 35” 3440 x 1440 curved ‘UltraWide’ experience

We’ve got a dedicated article looking at the 3440 x 1440 resolution and 21:9 aspect ratio using a 34” screen as an example. The 35” screen here is only marginally larger so changes very little about this experience. We therefore won’t be repeating a lot of what was said in the article. The AG352UCG6 does throw in an extra consideration, and that is the 1800-2000R curve. This is a moderate curve and can appear exaggerated in photos and videos. Once you’re sitting in front of the screen and use it for a bit, though, the experience is very natural and one you quickly adapt to. There is some evidence that curved screens offer benefits in terms of viewing comfort – we certainly found this screen comfortable to use but couldn’t directly attribute that to the curved screen. For us it was the increase in immersion and subtle increase in depth that we found attractive. It is difficult to describe and something you really need to experience first hand to appreciate, but it just seems to draw you into the content a bit better without feeling in any way unnatural. On the desktop we didn’t find anything out of place of unnatural, either, and enjoyed the real-estate benefits of the large 3440 x 1440 screen. The images below demonstrate this real-estate and again exaggerate the curve. Whilst for general purpose use and entertainment use we see the curve as a benefit rather than a hindrance, we appreciate some users who require geometric perfection (CAD/CAM work etc.) could find it troublesome.

As per the previous paragraph, the screen size and curvature added some immersion to the experience. It simply ‘drew us in’ to the game environment a bit better without making the experience feel uncomfortable or alien. This effect is more pronounced with a curve of this sort of steepness (or more so if steeper) but also on a screen that’s this wide. The 21:9 aspect ratio also offers a good Field of View advantage in most titles, as explored in our article on the topic linked to previously. The images below, which again tend to exaggerate the curve, in no way indicate the image quality when observing the screen in person. They’re simply there to fire up your imagination and also demonstrate the screen in action with its 21:9 aspect ratio. The titles shown are, respectively; BF1, Dirt Rally and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus.

Interpolation and upscaling

This monitor does not provide any scaling capability via DP, which is usual for G-SYNC models. PC users can instead use the scaling functionality of the GPU. It does provide basic scaling capability via HDMI, however. You can therefore connect AV devices such as games consoles (or a PC, if you need to) and run the monitor at a non-native resolution such as 1920 x 1080 (‘1080p’ Full HD). If you run the monitor at 1920 x 1080, it uses ratio scaling to maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio. More specifically, a 27” diagonal screen space is used along with 2560 x 1440 of its pixels – the remaining horizontal pixels are simply blacked out. An interpolation process is then used to map the source resolution onto those 2560 x 1440 active pixels. As a PC user, if you would want to ensure that the GPU is handling this scaling rather than the GPU, via HDMI, you need to configure the graphics driver correctly. For AMD GPU users this is automatically handled by the monitor when gaming, by default. Nvidia users should open the Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. They should ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown below.

Because interpolation is used to display 1920 x 1080 onto 2560 x 1440 pixels, there is a degree of softening compared to a native 27” Full HD display. This isn’t extreme and does allow the monitor to be used for console gaming as a secondary use. Note that the scaling functionality is fairly basic and you can’t set the monitor itself to run at custom resolutions like 2560 x 1440 or 2560 x 1080. You would need to use GPU scaling if you wish to use such resolutions, which works over both HDMI and DP. If you use GPU scaling for a 2560 x 1440 resolution with appropriate settings, the image will appear as a crisp and undistorted 27” WQHD (2560 x 1440). 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.

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

For some users, the marriage of a large 21:9 UltraWide screen and strong contrast VA panel is very appealing indeed. Throw in a high refresh rate and support for a variable refresh rate technology such as Nvidia G-SYNC and things become even more attractive. The AOC AG352UCG6, the so-called ‘Black-Edition’ follow-up to the AG352UCG delivers this. Aesthetically it took on a similar form and overall design to its predecessor but replaced glossy black plastics with more subtle matte black plastics. And silver-coloured elements with black elements, including the robust-feeling fully adjustable stand. The RGB LED lighting feature underneath the bottom bezel and on the ‘wings’ at the rear are probably the flashiest most ‘gameresque’ elements on this thing, but they can be dimmed or turned off if preferred. Whilst the aesthetic changes don’t sound like much, we still appreciated the switch away from fingerprint, dirt and dust magnet glossy plastics. The 3440 x 1440 resolution, 35” screen size and 1800-2000R curve were of course all maintained. We found this combination provided a good level of immersion and gave a comfortable experience, with the curve drawing us into the experience just a little bit without feeling unnatural.

The image itself was quite similar to its predecessor. With a few simple tweaks in the OSD, the image had a rich and natural look. Gamma tracking was not quite at the ‘2.2’ target using any practical OSD settings, although was slightly closer than on the older model we tested. Regardless of this, the deviations were not extreme and didn’t significantly upset the image itself. The light matte screen surface didn’t impart heavy graininess onto the image, whilst the slight extension beyond sRGB gave an edge of vibrancy compared to models with less generous sRGB coverage (or over-coverage). There was a sliver of extra gamut measured compared to the older model, but the gamut doesn’t extend as far as on some models. For example, the Samsung C34F791, which extends further past the sRGB boundaries and has an extra dose of vibrancy. The 34” Samsung SVA panel also had slightly better colour consistency, maintaining saturation better towards the extremities of the screen compared to the 35” AMVA panel used here. Nonetheless, from a reasonable viewing distance we didn’t find the saturation losses to be extreme on this model.

The contrast performance was good overall, again similar to the older model. At ~2000:1, though, the static contrast was nothing to write home about for a VA model and is on the lower end of what you’d see from this panel technology. Nonetheless, it gave an edge over non-VA panel types. The ‘VA glow’ was more pronounced than on some models and there was some ‘black crush’ which affected the visibility of dark shades. Still, any detail loss of ‘atmosphere loss’ associated with both of these was much less significant than ‘IPS glow’ on a model of anywhere near this size. And also the vertical gamma shifts associated with TN technology. One area where this model was distinctly different from its predecessor was responsiveness. Input lag was similarly low, but the maximum refresh rate was boosted to 120Hz. There was also a noticeable increase to the level of grey to grey acceleration provided for the ‘Medium’ (optimal) pixel overdrive setting. This did give moderate overshoot, but also cut down on a lot of the ‘smeary’ trailing, heavy powdery trailing and ‘break-up’ trailing. It allowed the monitor to make good use of its 120Hz refresh rate, allowing it to put those extra 20Hz to good use and deliver the sort of reduction in perceived blur you’d hope for from a 120Hz model. Plus the good ‘connected feel’ to go with it, which was a step above 100Hz for sensitive users like ourselves. G-SYNC also worked as we’ve come to expect from our considerable experience with the technology, getting rid of pesky tearing and stuttering from frame rate and refresh rate mismatches.

Whilst we preferred the overall colour reproduction characteristics of the C34F791’s 34” SVA panel compared to the current 35” AMVA panels, we’ve seen the 35” panel put to very good use here. It doesn’t deliver same same level of vibrancy as some other models out there, but still delivers a rich experience with some nice touches of vibrancy here and there. The contrast performance is not astronomical but is still relatively good compared to non-VA LCDs. When you throw responsiveness into the mix plus support for Nvidia G-SYNC, it starts to look like quite a capable all-rounder. It’s also cheaper than competing IPS models, which have their own strengths and weaknesses to consider.

The bottom line; a responsive monitor with decent contrast and colour reproduction, a nice size and resolution and support for Nvidia G-SYNC – just make sure you don’t have an overshoot allergy first.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.