LG UltraGear 24GQ50F-B

Interlace pattern artifacts

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

We observed static interlace patterns on this model, though they were reasonably faint at 165Hz in particular. Some shades (including certain blues, yellows, oranges, dark greens and greys) appeared as alternating horizontal bands of a slightly lighter and darker variant of the intended shade. These occurred regardless of refresh rate and whether Adaptive-Sync was active or not and were slightly stronger further down the screen. They were also stronger at reduced refresh rates, particularly strong although not extreme at 60Hz for example. They’re faint enough to escape the notice of most people, particularly at higher refresh rates and if sitting a reasonable distance from the monitor (>50cm). But for those sensitive to them they might be noticed and potentially bothersome.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A sensitive camera and a utility called SMTT 2.0 was used to analyse the latency of the 24GQ50F. Over 30 repeat readings were taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 4.46ms (slightly above ¾ of a frame at 165Hz) of input lag. Similar values were recorded at lower refresh rates, including 60Hz. This figure is influenced by both the element of input lag you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a reasonably low signal delay which most users should find acceptable. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a VRR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness covers the key factors related to monitor responsiveness. A particularly important concept covered here is ‘perceived blur’, contributed to by both the pixel responses of the monitor and movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. The second factor dominates on modern monitors, but both play an important role. The article also explores a photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’, which uses a moving rather than static camera. This allows motion performance to be captured in a way that reflects both elements of perceived blur, rather than just reflecting the pixel response element.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed to take such photographs at and highlights both elements of perceived blur well. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All three rows of the test are analysed to highlight a range of pixel transitions. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz using all ‘Response Time’ settings on the monitor; ‘Off’, ‘Normal’, ‘Fast’ and ‘Faster’. The two final columns show reference screens, set to what we consider their optimal response time setting for a given refresh rate. For 60Hz and 144Hz we use the AOC C24G1, a VA model with some distinct weaknesses but a better performance than many VA options. To fill in the gaps at 120Hz and 165Hz we use the AOC CQ32G3SU which we consider a slightly above average VA performer that still has some distinct weaknesses. The other reference screen used, at all refresh rates, is the AOC 24G2SP(U). This is a reasonably responsive (but not class-leading) IPS model for responsiveness.

At 60Hz, above, the UFO appears soft and unfocused without clear internal detailing. This reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur due to eye movement. With ‘Response Time’ set to ‘Off’ there is significant bold and ‘smeary’ trailing, most pronounced for the dark background (top row) but also fairly distinct for the medium background (middle row). The bottom row shows a bold initial section to the trail but less of a distinct and far-reaching ‘smear’. The ‘Normal’ setting ramps up acceleration massively and replaces this conventional trailing with strong overshoot (inverse ghosting), with colourful bright ‘halo’ trailing and a bright blue inky look for the dark background in particular. This increases slightly using the ‘Fast’ setting and further using the ‘Faster’ setting, which also introduces a distinct inky look behind the yellow UFO cockpit for the medium background. Tuning is quite poor here using any setting and we feel LG should’ve toned down the ‘Normal’ setting so it offered clear improvement compared to ‘Off’ but was more distinct from ‘Fast’ without as much overshoot as is shown here. The optimal setting here would really depend on overshoot sensitivity as you either have to deal with significant conventional trailing or significant overshoot. Both reference screens show superior performance and tuning for 60Hz. Below you can see how things appear with refresh rate doubled to 120Hz.

At 120Hz, above, the UFO appears significantly narrower with clearer internal detail, which reflects a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. To the eye the red segments of the UFO body are more distinct, with bolder black lines – they appear much more blended in this image than they did to the eye. The camera was setup so that it accurately captured the trailing behaviour behind the UFOs. The monitor performs rather differently to at 60Hz. With the ‘Off’ setting there is again a lot of ‘smeary’ trailing from much slower than optimal pixel responses. The ‘Normal’ setting cuts down on this significantly, although for the dark background there’s still a ‘smeary’ (albeit less bold) appearance to the trailing. For the medium background it’s more of an extended ‘powdery’ trail and for the light background it’s just a short and light trail that remains. Some overshoot is also mixed in, which you can see as ‘halo’ trailing behind the UFO legs. Most of the trailing with this setting has some overshoot mixed in. Overdrive artifacts were also observed with this overshoot. Interlaced horizontal lines of alternating slightly lighter and darker version of the shade, both of which are brighter than the background as expected from bright overshoot trailing. Note that an interlaced pattern can be seen for the background in some shots, but this is just due to the camera capture and wasn’t observed in the same way by eye.

The ‘Fast’ setting cuts down on the conventional trailing slightly whilst increasing overshoot levels a bit, whilst ‘Faster’ takes things further by reducing conventional trailing a bit more and increasing overshoot levels. There’s now some ‘dirty’ trailing behind the UFO cockpit for the medium background, for example. When observing a broader range of pixel transitions, we noticed some more eye-catching examples of overshoot than shown here that were particularly extreme using the ‘Faster’ setting. ‘Fast’ and ‘Normal’ were fairly similar in this respect, with ‘Fast’ pushing things towards a little more overshoot and ‘Normal’ toning that down just slightly but introducing more conventional trailing. In practice we consider ‘Fast’ optimal at 120Hz and don’t feel any reduced setting is worth using here – ‘Off’ is too slow whilst ‘Normal’ produces largely comparable overshoot to ‘Fast’ with difference in increased conventional trailing being easier to notice in our view. The VA reference screen showed less extensive trailing for the dark and medium background, but also had a more condensed (bolder) look to the trail. Note for example the section of trailing immediately behind the UFO for the medium background on the reference screen, which isn’t as distinct on the LG. For a broader range of transitions not shown here some are performed more quickly on one screen and others on the other with both screens showing some distinct weaknesses, so they’re tricky to separate really. The IPS reference screen again offers superior performance – albeit with more overshoot for the light background. Below you can see things bumped up slightly, to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower with slightly better definition. This reflects a slight reduction in perceived blur to eye movement, but it’s only an extra 24Hz so this difference is minor compared to the initial doubling from 60Hz to 120Hz. Again, note the more distinct segmentation of the UFO body by eye than is shown in the photos. The pixel response requirements are increased by the raised refresh rate, with the already noticeable weaknesses at 120Hz becoming more distinct. The response time settings behave in a similar way and we consider ‘Fast’ optimal in terms of the balance between pixel response times and overshoot. The VA reference screen offers less extended trailing for the dark and medium backgrounds but has a bolder initial segment to the trailing for the dark background. The IPS reference screen again offers a superior performance here, with a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing that’s not as bold or extended as the VA trailing. Below you can see things bumped up just a touch more, to 165Hz.

At 165Hz, above, the UFO appears very slightly narrower with slightly better definition which reflects a further reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. Note again that the segments of the red UFO body are more distinct by eye – and the black lines that separate the segments are sharper to the eye now than at 144Hz. As it’s only a boost of 21Hz it’s a pretty subtle difference, especially compared with that initial jump from 60Hz to 120Hz. The pixel response requirements have increased again so some of the weaknesses are again just a bit more distinct. The overall pixel response behaviour of the respective ‘Response Time’ settings is again similar – we consider this subjectively, over a much broader range of transitions, shortly. We again consider ‘Fast’ the optimal setting here. The VA reference screen performs better here, really, as both screens now show a similarly bold initial ‘tail’ directly behind the UFO, whilst the overall trail extends out further on the LG. The VA reference appears slightly slower (more of a ‘powdery’ trail) behind the UFO body for the light background, however. The IPS reference again offers the superior performance.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, the monitor offers an alternative in the form of ‘1ms Motion Blur Reduction’. This is a strobe backlight setting that causes the backlight to pulse at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – 120Hz, 144Hz or 165Hz. Sensitivity to this flickering varies and some may find it bothersome whilst others will notice accelerated eye fatigue when using the setting, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. The pursuit photographs below show the screen running this setting at 120Hz, 144Hz and 165Hz. The ‘Response Time’ setting can be changed, but we set this to ‘Fast’ for the same reason we did with the setting deactivated. The relative change with each ‘Response Time’ setting is similar with and without ‘1ms Motion Blur Reduction’ active.

Unfortunately the monitor really struggles to make good use of this setting. If you focus on just the main object, you can see more distinct internal detailing and a much narrower appearance to it. The white notches are countable, particularly sharp at 165Hz and the black lines separating the UFO segments are very clearly visible now. There is however a lot of trailing surrounding the object, too. There is a bold trail in front of the object for the dark background and a somewhat fainter trail in front for the medium background. This duplication of the main object is strobe crosstalk and it appears in different positions depending on how far up or down the screen you’re observing. All UFOs shown here are broadly in the central region of the screen (the middle row or ‘medium background’ is right in the centre) which is where your eyes spend most of their time focusing in the sort of competitive titles this setting is primarily designed for.

There is also a lot of trailing behind the screen, with a bit of overshoot mixed in. This trailing is fragmented due to the strobe nature of the backlight. For some transitions there is more overshoot and for others more conventional trailing (bolder with more repetitions) than shown here. Overall, we found the strobe crosstalk levels too strong, even centrally. And the general trailing levels simply too high. This was the case even at 120Hz, where the strobe crosstalk and trailing fragments are fainter than at higher refresh rates. The weaknesses were sufficient to be both distracting and uncomfortable and really detracted from the purpose of this setting for us when gaming. We don’t feel this setting will appeal to most users, even if they usually like to use this sort of setting. For these reasons we won’t be performing further assessment of this setting.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On various Battlefield titles, at a frame rate keeping up with the 165Hz refresh rate, the monitor provided a reasonably fluid experience. Compared to a 60Hz monitor or this one running at 60Hz (or 60fps), up to 2.75 times as much visual information is presented every second. This significantly improves the ‘connected feel’, which describes the precision and fluidity when interacting with the game world. The fairly low input lag helped in this respect as well. The combination of high frame and refresh rate also significantly decreases perceived blur due to eye movement, much as we demonstrated visually using Test UFO earlier. It was also shown that the initial bump from 60Hz to 120Hz was the most dramatic in that respect, with slight further improvement up to 144Hz and slightly more up to 165Hz.

The pursuit photographs also highlighted some weaknesses in terms of pixel responsiveness, but it’s always important to consider a broader range of pixel transitions than shown there. For most transitions involving brighter to medium shades there’s not really much to complain about. A bit of light ‘powdery’ trailing that’s generally quite faint and not too obtrusive and also a touch of overshoot or ‘halo’ trailing in places that’s slightly lighter than the background. Where medium-dark shades are involved there’s a fair bit of ‘powdery’ trailing which is sometimes quite bold in appearance. Some transitions produced more extensive trailing which we’d classify as ‘smeary’ as it extends some way behind the object during motion. This ‘smeary’ trailing was readily observed for transitions involving dark shades, but could also be observed where very bright or heavily saturated shades were set against medium-dark backgrounds. For example a bright red painted object against a grey and cloudy sky. Some transitions show this more clearly than even the ‘dark’ background for Test UFO earlier. The ‘smeary’ trailing is less severe (not as bold) nor as widespread as on most VA models, particularly budget offerings. A bit of an edge is taken off it at slightly lower refresh rates (such as 120Hz), as we explore in the context of VRR shortly – but it doesn’t completely disappear. Slightly colourful tints can also be observed with some of trailing such as a bit of yellow, green, cyan or even brownish red in places. This wasn’t as colourful as the trailing some VA models provide in similar situations but is still worth noting.

Where there are intricate mixtures of dark and somewhat lighter shade, such as dry desert grass which alternates between the grass itself and shaded (shadowy) areas, a mild ‘flickering’ effect can sometimes be observed. The lighter areas become somewhat darker during movement so they blend into the darker shades more readily and then brighten up again when the movement ceases. This is commonly observed on VA models and is usually stronger and more noticeable than it was in this case, with a more pronounced brightness change. The video below highlights some of the weaknesses in pixel responsiveness at a range of refresh rates as well as some of the relative strengths of this model, including some in-game and desktop examples.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider and don’t really have much to add given the extensive analysis above. This title has a lot of ‘high contrast’ scenes with relatively small areas of bright shade surrounded by much darker content of mixed shade depth. Small openings in a cave letting in light, dark passageways illuminated by a few candles and that sort of thing. As such, it highlighted many of the more distinct pixel response time weaknesses. Overall, considering our experiences on various games and using the monitor more broadly, this when was of the more competent VA models we’ve tested in terms of pixel responsiveness. It is significantly better than most ‘budget’ (and even many more expensive) offerings. But it does still have some distinct weaknesses that will bother some people and which go beyond those you’d see on competing IPS models such as the AOC 24G2SP(U).

We also observed movie content at a range of frame rates, including ~24 – 30fps content on platforms such as Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon Prime Video as well as 60fps YouTube content. The pixel response requirements for good performance here are significantly reduced compared to the higher frame rate gameplay we described above. This is particularly true for the ~24 – 30fps content, where there weren’t really any distinct weaknesses of note. For the 60fps content certain darker shades being involved in the transitions produced an extra mask of perceived blur, but there wasn’t really an eye-catching ‘smeary’ quality to the trailing here. Isolated examples of overshoot were also observed, but nothing particularly bright and eye-catching. The frame rate of the content itself rather than weaknesses in pixel responsiveness of the monitor are really the main barrier to visual fluidity for this video content.

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.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. Where possible, the monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Radeon RX 580 used in our test system. The monitor itself must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The 24GQ50F supports FreeSync Premium via DP and HDMI on compatible GPUs and systems. You need to make sure ‘FreeSync Premium’ is enabled in the ‘Game Adjust’ section of the OSD. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP and the second with the monitor connected using HDMI, with the setting referred to as ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in both cases. Note that the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The LG supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 165Hz (48 – 144Hz via HDMI). That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 165fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 165fps, the monitor will stay at 165Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 165fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >165fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 34fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 68Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. LFC usually activated at a slightly higher refresh rate of 55Hz or just slightly below – this slightly different floor of operation makes little difference in practice. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

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



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 162fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. If you go to the ‘Game Adjust’ section of the OSD and enable the ‘FPS Counter’ feature, it will display the refresh rate of the display. This will reflect the frame rate if it’s within the main VRR window. Finally, it’s worth noting that FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

FreeSync – the experience

As usual, various titles were tested with AMD FreeSync enabled and the experience was similar in all cases. Any issues affecting one title points towards a game or GPU driver issue rather than a monitor issue. For simplicity we’ll just focus on Battlefield titles here which allow the full VRR range to be analysed on our Radeon RX 580. As this isn’t a particularly powerful GPU, there were some dips below 165fps without significant compromises in the graphics settings, particularly on the latest Battlefield title (BF 2042). Without a VRR technology like FreeSync doing its thing, you’d observe tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). If you’re sensitive to tearing and stuttering, having these distractions removed is very welcome. Regardless of this appropriate synchronisation between refresh rate and frame rate, there’s still a loss of ‘connected feel’ as well as an increase in perceived blur corresponding with a drop in frame rate.

The monitor doesn’t use variable overdrive, so the pixel overdrive isn’t re-tuned as refresh rate decreases. Using our preferred ‘Fast’ setting, the monitor was reasonably well-tuned in our view down to ~120Hz. The overshoot strengthened and overdrive artifacts were also visible, with some bright ‘halo’ trailing that had an interlaced appearance in places. This overshoot wasn’t extreme or too widespread, but we’d still describe it as ‘moderately strong’ overall. The overshoot persists in an only marginally toned down way using the ‘Normal’ setting, whilst conventional trailing increases slightly as well. The pixel response requirements for a good performance here are also reduced, so some of the weaknesses we described earlier at 165Hz were less distinct. Some of the trailing again took on a bit of a colourful appearance in places. And there was certainly still a mask of additional perceived blur in places and also some slightly ‘smeary’-looking trailing, but this was less bold and less widespread than on many VA models at a similar refresh rate.

As the refresh rate fell further, overshoot became more problematic. By about 100Hz and certainly as thing fell much below that, say ~80Hz and below, we found the overshoot rather noticeable with obvious bright ‘halo’ trailing that that caught the eye in places almost like a flashing. We found this distracting and it could only be removed by setting ‘Response Time’ to ‘Off’, which introduced extreme ‘smeary’ trailing all over the place even at relatively low frame rates such as 60fps. If you’re frequently dipping into the double digits or close to that and you’re sensitive to overshoot, you may prefer leaving the monitor at a higher refresh rate without using VRR. The technology worked down to the floor of operation (~55Hz in our testing), below which LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kicked in with the monitor sticking to a multiple of the frame rate with its refresh rate. This helped keep tearing and stuttering at bay, though there was a subtle momentary stuttering when LFC activated or deactivated. This is something we always observe and not specific to this model. It was much less noticeable than traditional stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches, but if you’re sensitive to it and frequently passing the boundary it could be annoying.

An issue which requires some discussion with VRR active on this model is ‘VRR flickering’. Monitors with particularly strong contrast (such as this one) are prone to flickering for some shades during heavy frame rate fluctuations. These are due to slight gamma changes at the lower end of the curve for certain refresh rate changes in a VRR environment and are not visible on models with relatively weak contrast. VA models like this are also particularly sensitive to the voltage changes that occur during heavy refresh rate fluctuation, which can cause flickering not just for darker shades but elsewhere as well. We observed only very mild flickering on this model, during particularly heavy fluctuations in frame rate. This was probably one of the strongest VA performers we’ve observed in this respect and we feel the flickering in this case is low enough that most people won’t notice it – even those who usually find it bothersome. Even when the LFC boundary was crossed, the screen did not produce obvious flickering. It appears LG or the panel used here performed some sort of gamma compensation to help minimise (or largely eliminate) this flickering, without any additional voltage sensitivity that could also cause issues.

Nvidia Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible’)

As noted earlier, AMD FreeSync makes use of Adaptive-Sync technology on a compatible monitor. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 or later can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. Some models are validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass certain quality checks. With the 24GQ50F you must connect the monitor up via DisplayPort to use ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. You need to make sure ‘FreeSync Premium’ is set to ‘On’ in the ‘Game Adjust’ section of the OSD to use the technology, as this is the Adaptive-Sync toggle of the display. When you open up Nvidia Control Panel, you should then see ‘Set up G-SYNC’ listed in the ‘Display’ section. Ensure the ‘Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible’ checkbox and ‘Enable settings for the selected display model’ is checked as shown below and press ‘OK’. If you’ve enabled ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ and it was previously disabled, the monitor should re-establish its connection with the system and the technology should now be active.



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 won’t work. On our RTX 3090 the experience was very similar to what we described with FreeSync, with the technology getting rid of tearing and stuttering from what would otherwise be frame and refresh rate mismatches within the VRR range. The floor of operation was also similar (~55Hz), with an LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication technology employed below that to keep tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. There was again a subtle momentary stuttering as the boundary was crossed, just as we observed with our AMD GPU. Our suggestions regarding use of VSync also apply, but you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than AMD Software to control this. The setting is found in ‘Manage 3D settings’ under ‘Vertical sync’, where the final option (‘Fast’) is equivalent to AMD’s ‘Enhanced Sync’ setting. You’ll also notice ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ listed under ‘Monitor Technology’ in this section, as shown below. Make sure this is selected (it should be if you’ve set everything up correctly in ‘Set up G-SYNC’).



Note again that you can use the ‘FPS Counter’ feature in the ‘Game Adjust’ section of the OSD to display the current refresh rate of the monitor. This will reflect the frame rate if it’s within the main VRR window of the monitor.

Video review

The video below shows the monitor in action. The camera, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see when viewing the monitor in person. It still provides useful visual demonstrations and explanations which help reinforce some of the key points raised in the written piece.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (VRR)

Conclusion

The Full HD (1920 x 1080 or 1080p) resolution is common to ~24” screens and represents an affordable entry into the world of 144Hz+ refresh rates. The pixel density is reasonable though not particularly high and it’s a relatively untaxing resolution for gaming and graphically intensive applications. The LG UltraGear 24GQ50F offers this experience, with a simple and relatively compact design and a flat rather than curved screen. This simplicity extends to the stand, which offers tilt as the only ergonomic flexibility – although the screen is held by it quite firmly to avoid that wobbly feeling that plagues even some much more expensive options. The OSD includes a range of gaming-oriented features such as on-screen crosshairs and an ‘FPS counter’ (refresh rate display) alongside flexibilities not all models provide such as 6-axis colour saturation and hue adjustment.

The VA panel’s strong contrast was the main selling point here, with our readings largely in-line with the specifications for the panel. The experience wasn’t marred by excessive ‘black crush’ or ‘VA glow’ (just a little of both) or an excessively grainy screen surface. The depth and atmosphere for darker scenes was certainly elevated compared to competing models using other LCD panel types. As usual for a VA panel there were some colour consistency weaknesses, including gamma and saturation losses peripherally. Mainly lower down and to the sides from a normal viewing position. These shifts were by no means extreme, but added to a far from generous colour gamut gave a bit of a muted look to the image in places. Though one we’d describe as largely ‘rich and natural’ rather than ‘washed out’. Gamma tracking on our unit was respectable but not perfect with the ‘2.2’ curve in mind, whilst the colour channels took a bit of rebalancing for our preferred target of 6500K plus neutral green channel.

The main weakness with VA models, seemingly only circumvented by a selection of higher priced Odyssey G7 (and above) offerings from Samsung, is pixel responsiveness. That was the case here with some distinct ‘smeary’ trailing in places as well as a bit of overshoot. The monitor performed somewhat above average for the panel type at 120Hz and above, but still has weaknesses some will find bothersome for gaming or even on the desktop. The overshoot became rather strong at lower refresh rates, quite eye catching in places even at 120Hz and very clear much below that. Whilst VRR otherwise works as we’d hope, including with pleasingly low levels of ‘VRR flicker’, the monitor certainly didn’t provide a single overdrive mode experience. Nor did it provide any overdrive setting we were particularly happy with for these ‘lower’ refresh rates (~100Hz and below). Input lag was fairly low, so that shouldn’t impede the experience at least. Overall, we find this model difficult to outright recommend over what we feel are better-rounded IPS alternatives like the AOC 24G2SP(U). If responsiveness or the vibrancy and consistency of colours are key considerations, then that is really the superior option. Whilst the contrast is relatively strong for its panel type, the AOC still doesn’t come close to the LG in that department. If contrast is your primary focus and you still want reasonable responsiveness for the panel type, the LG could still be worth considering.

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.