LG UltraGear 24GQ50F-B

Author: Adam Simmons
Date published: December 21st 2022



Many of the arguably more exciting releases in the gaming monitor market focus on high resolutions and refresh rates alongside enhanced HDR (High Dynamic Range) capability. The LG 24GQ50F (24GQ50F-B owing to the mainly black rear) of the UltraGear series is at the other end of the market, as a simpler and smaller budget offering. With its 165Hz refresh rate and VA panel, it still aims to provide a rich experience in its own way. We put this model through its paces in our usual range of tests, including desktop usage, movie watching and gaming.


The monitor is based on a 23.8” VA (Vertical Alignment) panel from AUO. This supports a 165Hz refresh rate, 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) resolution and 8-bit colour. A 1ms MPRT response time is specified using the included strobe backlight setting, without a grey to grey response time given. As usual, pay little attention to specified response times. Some of the key ‘talking points’ for this monitor have been highlighted in blue below, for your reading convenience.

Screen size: 23.8 inches

Panel: AUO M238HVN02 VA (Vertical Alignment) LCD

Native resolution: 1920 x 1080

Typical maximum brightness: 250 cd/m²

Colour support: 16.7 million (8-bits per subpixel)

Response time (G2G): Not specified (1ms MPRT)

Refresh rate: 165Hz (variable, with Adaptive-Sync)

Weight: 2.97kg

Contrast ratio: 3000:1

Viewing angle: 178º horizontal, 178º vertical

Power consumption: 24W (typical)

Backlight: WLED (White Light Emitting Diode)

Typical price as reviewed: $160 USD (£160)

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.

LG 24GQ50F

Features and aesthetics

The monitor offers simple styling, with extensive use of dark grey and black matte plastics. A light grey LG logo provides a lick of visual contrast towards the bottom left of the ‘penguin foot’ stand base. The top and side bezels are dual-stage, with a very slim panel border flush with the rest of the screen plus a thin hard plastic outer part. Including both components the bezels are ~5.5 mm (0.22 inches) at the top and sides. The bottom bezel is ~17mm (0.67 inches) thick and includes a glossy black UltraGear logo in the centre. The main point of note from the front is the screen itself, with a light matte anti-glare finish that’s explored later.

The front

Switched on

In-game (Cyberpunk 2077)

The OSD (On Screen Display) is controlled by a joystick which faces down beneath the bottom bezel, in the central region. This is amongst a slim number of models that has no LED to indicate power status. Instead a short ‘beep’ is emitted when you turn the monitor on, although this can be disabled in the OSD where it’s referred to as ‘buzzer’. The video below explores the menu system including the ‘FPS Counter’ and ‘Crosshair’ feature, alongside the ‘OnScreen Control’ software that can be used to control the menu.

From the side the screen is quite slim; ~18mm (0.71 inches) at thinnest point with a hexagonal ‘lump’ in the middle towards which the screen thickens out. The monitor uses glossy rather than matte plastic at the side, in a wide band extending all around the screen. The included stand is tilt-only (5° forwards, 15° backwards), without further ergonomic freedom provided. The tilt was a bit stiff but moved smoothly once it got going – our unit was very new and this could loosen off slightly over time. Despite the plasticky construction of the screen, common for budget offerings, the screen is held quite firmly by its stand without excessive wobble. The bottom of the screen sits ~93mm (3.66 inches) above the desk with the top of the screen ~413mm (16.26 inches) above the desk. The total depth of the monitor including stand is ~196mm (7.72 inches), with the screen sitting ~56mm (2.20 inches) back from the frontmost point of the stand. So it’s a very conservative design in terms of depth desk, which will be welcomed by those without a particularly deep desk.

The side

The rear of the monitor is black plastic with various textures. A plain matte texture centrally and lower down, with a ’honeycomb’ texture for the top half, surrounding the central hexagon. This ‘honeycomb’ texture has a glossy quality to it, but because it’s textured rather than smooth it doesn’t show fingerprints and dust in the same way as some glossy plastics. The stand screws in towards the bottom and can be removed if required, with 75 x 75mm VESA holes included centrally for alternative mounting. The ports are located in a recessed area above and to the right (as viewed from the rear) of the stand attachment point and include; 2 HDMI 1.4 ports, DP 1.2a, a 3.5mm headphone jack and DC power input (external ‘power brick’). A K-slot faces downwards near the OSD joystick, but there are no integrated speakers included on this model.

The rear

The ports

The full capability of the monitor including 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) @165Hz can be leveraged via DisplayPort, whilst HDMI is limited to a maximum of 144Hz on this model. AMD FreeSync Premium and Nvidia’s ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’ is supported on compatible GPUs and systems via suitable versions of DP and HDMI. Compatible Intel graphics hardware can also leverage Adaptive-Sync via DP. Standard accessories include a power cable and adaptor plus DP cable, but may vary regionally.

The images below show the refresh rates supported for the native 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) resolution. The first and second images show some of the refresh rates supported via DP and HDMI, respectively. These are categorised in the EDID of the monitor as ‘TV’ resolutions and listed here under ‘Ultra HD, HD, SD’. The third and fourth images show the remaining refresh rates supported via DP and HDMI, respectively – categorised in the EDID of the monitor and listed here as ‘PC’ resolutions. Note that a ‘4k x 2k, 3840 x 2160’ downsampling mode is not included, so the monitor will not accept a 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) signal.

Refresh rates Full HD (DP, 'TV' list)

Refresh rates Full HD (HDMI, 'TV' list)

Refresh rates Full HD (DP, 'PC' list)

Refresh rates Full HD (HDMI, 'PC' list)

If you’re intending to use the monitor with the PS5 or Xbox Series X/S, be aware that a small settings tweak may be required to ensure 120Hz is selectable. Details can be found in this article.


Subpixel layout and screen surface

The image below is a macro photograph taken on Notepad with ClearType disabled. The letters ‘PCM’ are typed out to help highlight any potential text rendering issues related to unusual subpixel structure, whilst the white space more clearly shows the actual subpixel layout alongside a rough indication of screen surface. This model uses a light or more specifically ‘relatively light’ (some way between what we’d usually classify as ‘medium’ and as ‘light’) matte anti-glare screen surface. This offers good glare handling, with moderate diffusion of light emitted from the monitor and indeed ambient light striking the screen. In a bright room and particularly with light striking the screen directly, there’s more of a tendency towards heavy diffusion (and potential hazing) than on screen surfaces we’d typically refer to as ‘light’ or ‘very light’, but less than for ‘medium’ or stronger matte surfaces. It doesn’t show as much of a layered appearance in front of the image as some matte screen surfaces, but a touch more than others. There’s just a light misty graininess to the image rather than a heavy or ‘smeary’ graininess, with a smoother appearance to brighter shades than many Full HD models we’ve tested.

Subpixel layout

As shown above the standard RGB (Red, Green and Blue) stripe subpixel layout is used. This is the default expected by modern operating systems such as Microsoft Windows. Apple’s MacOS no longer uses subpixel rendering and therefore doesn’t optimise text for one particular subpixel layout to the detriment of another. You needn’t worry about text fringing from non-standard subpixel layouts and won’t need to change the defaults in the ‘ClearType Text Tuner’ as a Windows user. You may still wish to run through the ClearType wizard and adjust according to preferences, however. Unlike some VA models, this model avoids the use of partial subpixel illumination (split subpixel rendering), which negatively affects text and fine edge clarity on models which use it. We had no subpixel-related concerns related to sharpness or text clarity on this model.

Testing the presets

The LG 24GQ50F includes a range of ‘Game Mode’ presets; ‘Gamer 1’, ‘Gamer 2’, ‘FPS’, ‘RTS’, ‘Vivid’ and ‘Reader’. These make various changes to the OSD, with ‘Gamer 1’ and ‘Gamer 2’ being the most flexible and the remaining presets locking off various settings. We briefly look at these presets in the OSD video and will be focusing mainly on manual adjustment in this section. The table below shows white point and gamma readings taken using a Datacolor SpyderX Elite colorimeter, alongside general observations made by eye. Our test system uses Windows 11 with an Nvidia RTX 3090 connected using the supplied DP cable. Additional testing was performed using an AMD Radeon RX 580 and using HDMI, although observations for this table didn’t vary significantly between GPUs or inputs. We left the monitor to run for over 2 hours before data was collected and no additional monitor drivers or ICC profiles were specifically loaded. Aside from for our ‘Test Settings’, where various adjustments were made, assume factory defaults were used. For consistency and to maximise image performance we disabled ‘Smart Energy Saving’. This is a relatively gentle Dynamic Contrast style feature which is designed to reduce power consumption by dimming the screen if a sufficient amount of dark content is detected. The refresh rate was set to 165Hz in Windows, although this didn’t affect the readings or observations in this table. When viewing the figures in this table, note that for most PC users ‘6500K’ for white point and ‘2.2’ for gamma are good targets to aim for. Individual targets depend on individual uses, tastes and the lighting environment, however.

Monitor SettingsGamma (central average)White point (kelvins)Notes
Gamma = Mode 2 (Factory defaults) 2.2 6721K Quite a rich and natural look overall, a bit muted in places. A slightly cool and marginally purple tint owing to relatively weak green channel and relatively strong blue channel. As usual for VA technology there are some perceived gamma and saturation shifts comparing the centre to edges of the screen.
Gamma = Mode 1 2.1 6722K As above but less depth due to lower gamma.
Gamma = Mode 3 2.5 6721K As default but extra depth and quite a ‘contrasty’ look due to high gamma.
Gamma = Mode 4 2.2 6721K Very similar to ‘factory defaults’ on our unit.
Color Temp = Warm2.2 6730K Also very similar to ‘factory defaults’ on our unit.
Reader1.9 5790K An obviously flooded look to the image. A slightly warm tint, but this is only a mild Low Blue Light (LBL) setting.
Relaxing evening viewing (see below)2.2 4813K This is a highly effective LBL setting, with significantly reduced blue channel (and hence reduction in blue light) and slightly reduced green channel. The image appears warm without an obvious green tint.
Test Settings (see below) 2.2 6481K Improved balance compared to defaults, a reasonably rich and natural look overall.
WordPress Tables Plugin

Out of the box the monitor produced a reasonably rich and natural image, a bit muted in places and with a slight cool (and slightly purple) tint. Gamma was slightly too low for dark shades and very bright shades, lightening them up a touch and a bit high for medium-light shades adding just a bit of extra depth. But averaged ‘2.2’, without deviations that should be concerning for general purpose use. The image below shows the gamma curve under our ‘Test Settings’, very similar in this respect to the factory defaults.

Gamma 'Test Settings'

Gamma 'Test Settings'

Given the intended uses for the monitor, inter-unit variation and performance on our unit with OSD tweaking alone we won’t be using any ICC profiles in this review or including any measurements or graphs using them. We wouldn’t recommend using them unless created for your specific unit using your own calibration device. But we appreciate some users still like to use profiles and some aspects such as gamut mapping for colour-aware applications can be useful. You can download our ICC profile for this model, which was created using our ‘Test Settings’ as a base. Note again that this ICC profile isn’t used in the review.

The monitor includes a ‘Warm’ colour temperature setting and ‘Reading’ preset, but the former was very similar to factory defaults on our unit and the latter only had a mild Low Blue Light (LBL) effect. It also purposefully minimised contrast, which can improve viewing comfort for some by reducing the amount of time your eye spends adjusting to changing light levels from the monitor. Reducing exposure to blue light can aid viewing comfort, whilst the resulting warmer look to the image can be useful for relaxing viewing. Something that could be particularly beneficial in the hours leading up to sleep. With this in mind, we would’ve preferred for a more effective Low Blue Light (LBL) setting to be included on the monitor as we find on various models from other manufacturers. But it was easy enough to create our own setting of this nature by using our ‘Test Settings’ as a base but changing the colour channels to R = 50, G = 42, B = 35. We refer to this as our ‘Relaxing Evening Viewing’ settings, but these are just a suggestion and you should feel free to make your own adjustments. This was saved to ‘Gamer 2’, so it was easy to access and switch between this and our regular ‘Test Settings’ saved to ‘Gamer 1’. This was used for our own viewing pleasure in the evenings, but not for specific testing beyond that involving this particular setting.

Test Settings

For our ‘Test Settings’ we used the default ‘Gamer 1’ preset with reduced brightness colour channel adjustments, but left ‘Gamma’ at the default ‘Mode 2’. ‘Gamer 2’ could be used, but remember that various settings are different by default there such as ‘Black Stabilizer’ and ‘Sharpness’ being set differently to the correct neutral point (and default under ‘Gamer 1’) of ‘50’. Note that individual units and preferences vary, so these settings are simply a suggestion and won’t be optimal for all users or units. We’ve also included the refresh rate used in Windows and our preferred ‘Response Time’ setting used for most of the review, just for reference.

Monitor Setup (defaults used for remaining settings)

Game Mode = Gamer 1

FreeSync Premium = On

Response Time = Fast

Brightness = 53 (according to preferences and lighting)

Color Temp = Custom

R = 46

G = 50

B = 44

Refresh rate (Windows setting) = 165Hz

Contrast and brightness

Contrast ratios

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

Some values in the table are approximate, designated with relevant symbols. This is due to a lack of precision from the measurement instrument for black luminance readings, which significantly affects the measured contrast if the black point is low. Measurements using ‘1ms Motion Blur Reduction’ were taken at 165Hz – brightness levels were similar at lower refresh rates, so we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations on the table.

WordPress Tables Plugin
The average static contrast with only brightness adjusted was 2899:1 (excluding values affected too heavily by rounding precision) and the maximum was 3100:1, both figures close to the specified 3000:1. This dropped only slightly to 2800:1 following the adjustments made to our ‘Test Settings’, which is good. The clear outlier when it came to contrast was the ‘Reader’ setting, which purposefully minimises contrast as explained earlier – with 88:1 recorded. The highest white luminance recorded was 284 cd/m², whilst the minimum white luminance recorded was 48 cd/m² (or 29 cd/m² with ‘1ms Motion Blur Reduction’ enabled). This provides a luminance adjustment range of 236 cd/m² for the normal flicker-free operation of the monitor with a reasonable maximum and minimum value that most will be comfortable with. Some particularly light sensitive users may prefer a lower minimum, whilst some would prefer higher brightness – though the value measured here slightly exceeds the specified 250 cd/m².

PWM (Pulse Width Modulation)

The LG 24GQ50F does not use PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) to regulate backlight brightness at any level. Instead, DC (Direct Current) is used to moderate brightness. The backlight is therefore considered ‘flicker-free’, which will come as welcome news to those sensitive to flickering or worried about side-effects from PWM usage. The exception to this is with ‘1ms Motion Blur Reduction’ active, a strobe backlight setting which causes the backlight to flicker in sync with the refresh rate of the display.

Luminance uniformity

Whilst observing a black background in a dark room, using our ‘Test Settings’, we noticed slight backlight bleed and minor clouding, mainly lower down the screen. It’s important to remember that individual units vary when it comes to all aspects of uniformity, including backlight bleed and clouding. The following image was taken a few metres back to eliminate ‘VA glow’. This is a lightening up towards the edges, particularly towards the bottom of the screen from a normal viewing position. This ‘VA glow’ blooms out more noticeably from sharper angles, as demonstrated in the viewing angles video later on.

Monitor displaying black in a dark room

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

Luminance uniformity table

Luminance uniformity table

The luminance uniformity was good. The maximum luminance was recorded at ‘quadrant 5’ in the centre of the screen (166.1 cd/m²). The greatest deviation from the brightest point occurred at ‘quadrant 2’ above centre (150.5 cd/m², which is 9% dimmer). The average deviation between each quadrant and the brightest point was 7.13%, which is respectable. Note that individual units vary when it comes to uniformity and you can expect further deviation beyond the points measured. The contour map below shows these deviations graphically, with darker greys representing lower luminance (greater deviation from brightest point) than lighter greys. The percentage deviation between each quadrant and the brightest point recorded is also given.

Luminance uniformity map

Luminance uniformity map

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

Colour temperature uniformity map

Colour temperature uniformity map

The colour temperature deviation was good, with no significant deviation recorded. The point closest to 6500K was measured to the left of centre, with a maximum deviation of DeltaE 2.5 recorded towards the bottom right. Note again that individual units vary when it comes to uniformity and that you can expect deviation beyond the measured points. Also be aware that there are some perceived deviations in both brightness and colour temperature that are typical on VA panels and aren’t reflected by these readings. In addition to the quantitative testing above, we performed a subjective assessment of the uniformity of a variety of ‘medium’ shades, including 50% grey. Some monitors exhibit uniformity issues such as splotches or striations when viewing screen fills of such shades, giving an inconsistent appearance that some users refer to as ‘DSE’ (‘Dirty Screen Effect’). VA models are particularly prone to this. We didn’t observe any noteworthy issues in this respect, just fairly minor striations and slight patchiness in places. There were no obvious issues such as strong striations or heavy patchiness.

Contrast in games and movies

The contrast performance was strong on Battlefield 2042. We recorded a static contrast of 2800:1 using our ‘Test Settings’, which is a good level for an LCD without a complex local dimming solution and close to specified for this VA panel. This gives darker scenes a good atmosphere due to the depth of darker shades, with the inkier look helping give a more defined look in places. Some medium-dark shades appeared somewhat inkier and more solid because of this contrast, when compared to models with significantly weaker contrast. When viewing the screen in a dim room things weren’t as deep, atmospheric or contrasty as an OLED model, but still better than what most LCDs provide. These observations were echoed on Shadow of the Tomb Raider, which contains many scenes with small areas of bright shade surrounded by much darker shades. Such as flames or torches lighting up dark caves and passageways. The monitor performed well here, giving a superior atmosphere to typical non-VA LCDs and even some VA LCDs.

On both titles we observed a bit of ‘VA glow’ where some darker shades were lightened up peripherally, mainly towards the bottom of the screen from a normal viewing position. There was a relatively low level of this ‘VA glow’, though, and it was significantly less intense than your typical ‘IPS glow’. This ‘VA glow’ intensifies if you sit closer to the screen or use a higher brightness setting and can also be brought out more strongly on units with significant dark uniformity issues such as backlight bleed and clouding. ‘Black Crush’ was also observed, whereby dark shades (other than black) appear even deeper than intended and blend into a dark mass. So perceived gamma is higher than intended for these dark shades. This occurs in the centre of the screen or wherever your eyes are directly in line with and was not extreme on this model. Towards the far edges of the screen perceived gamma was slightly lower than it should be, revealing a touch of excess detail – this was relatively minor here and usually more noticeable on larger VA models. When observing lighter content we noticed just a light ‘misty’ graininess from the screen surface without obvious layering.

We made further observations using the movie Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. As with Tomb Raider, this title looks its best if the contrast performance is strong, with many scenes showing bright elements surrounded by darkness. Overall representation was good for an LCD without complex dimming solution, with the strong static contrast helping provide good depth and atmosphere overall. We also observed ‘VA glow’ and ‘black crush’ as described earlier, alongside a small amount of extra detail revealed near the extreme edges of the screen. This reduced peripheral perceived gamma (bit of a mouthful) can bring out ‘compression artifacts’ on heavily compressed streamed content and give a slightly ‘blocky’ or banded appearance. In this case the shifts weren’t really extreme enough to do this in an obvious way, from our preferred viewing position and distance (eyes ~70cm from screen). The black bars at the top and bottom of the screen were deeper than they appear on many LCDs, though not OLED-like by any means when observed in a dimmer room. Much of the streamed content you’ll watch on platforms like Netflix, Disney Plus, Amazon Prime Video and certainly YouTube will be presented in 16:9 without these bars.

Lagom contrast tests

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

  • The contrast gradients were displayed well, with distinct brightness steps in most cases. The darkest blue band blended into the background just a little too much.
  • Performance on the black level test was reasonable. The first few blocks blended into the background readily, expected for a monitor tracking the ‘2.2’ gamma curve correctly. The remaining blocks on the first row blended in slightly more than they ideally would. This is due to the ‘black crush’ described previously. The visibility of these blocks improved if viewing the screen from an angle or with the blocks displayed near the bottom or sides of the screen. This is down to the perceived gamma shifts noted earlier. The tone of the grey shifted readily with even slight movement, giving what we refer to as an ‘oil slick’ effect. No obvious dithering was observed.
  • Performance on the white saturation test was strong with all patterns visible against the background. Even the final pattern was more visible than usual, with the reasonably smooth screen surface ensured it wasn’t masked by a clear layer of graininess.
  • The greyscale gradient appeared smooth without obvious banding or dithering. There was some faint horizontal static interlacing visible as explored in the ‘Interlace pattern artifacts’ section.

Colour reproduction

Colour gamut

The colour gamut of the 24GQ50F is shown as a red triangle below. It was compared with the sRGB (green triangle) reference colour space using our ‘Test Settings’, though similar coverage was recorded using factory defaults. The gamut covers 93% sRGB with some extension beyond for the green to red edge, covering yellows and oranges for example. The undercoverage occurs for the green to blue edge but is mainly concentrated in the green region. Although not shown in the graphic, we recorded 75% DCI-P3 and 72% Adobe RGB coverage. This is quite a restrictive gamut, with some slight selective extension beyond sRGB as described. This gives a largely ‘rich and natural’ look, with some shades appearing slightly more muted than intended and others appearing just a touch oversaturated. It certainly doesn’t give the same vibrancy and saturation potential as wide gamut models can provide and a bit less than some standard gamut models.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

The monitor doesn’t include sRGB emulation, though that’s entirely understandable given the gamut. Although it won’t gain you extra coverage, if you wish to clamp the colour gamut to sRGB without any overextension to speak of, AMD users can activate a flexible sRGB emulation setting via the graphics driver. This is done by opening ‘AMD Software’, clicking ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and clicking on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the ‘Custom Color’ slider to the right is set to ‘Enabled’ and ‘Color Temperature Control’ set to ‘Disabled’. It may appear to be set this way by default, but the native rather than restricted gamut is likely in play. If that’s the case, simply switch the ‘Color Temperature Control’ slider to ‘Enabled’ then back to ‘Disabled’ to leverage the sRGB emulation behaviour. This setting is shown in the image below.

AMD Color Temperature Control disabled

The gamut below shows results using our ‘Test Settings’ with this driver tweak applied. The colour still covers 93% sRGB, but there’s next to no extension beyond sRGB. This setting therefore offers reasonable though incomplete tracking of sRGB and helps to remove overextension in the gamut without profiling, including in applications that aren’t colour managed.

Colour gamut AMD 'CTC disabled' setting

Colour gamut AMD 'CTC disabled' setting

Whilst Nvidia doesn’t have a similar option in their graphics driver, a third party tool called ‘novideo_srgb’ can be used. This provides a similarly effective GPU-side gamut clamp to the AMD driver option. The resulting gamut was very similar to that shown above with the AMD tweak – this is expected given it uses the same data from the EDID of the monitor. The tool and its usage is covered in our sRGB emulation article.

Colour in games and movies

The monitor provided a reasonably rich and natural but in places somewhat muted look on Battlefield 2042. The colour gamut roughly covers sRGB, which is the colour space most content you’ll consume (including games, movie content or simply browsing the internet) is designed around. Because there’s only limited extension beyond this in some regions (green to red edge), the monitor doesn’t impart significant extra vibrancy and saturation. Some orange and red shades were just a touch livelier than intended, but this wasn’t the clear oversaturation you’d see on a wide gamut display. There’s also some undersaturation for certain green and blue shades, as demonstrated in the gamut representation earlier. Some vegetation didn’t look as lush or deep as we’ve seen even within the constraints of the sRGB colour space, for example. The VA panel doesn’t offer the same strength of colour consistency that an IPS-type panel provides, due to the perceived gamma shifts when comparing the central region to edges. Because of this, there’s some dulling and saturation lost peripherally – particularly the bottom edge and side edges from our normal viewing position. These saturation shifts were not extreme for a VA model, but still something we noticed. Particularly when combined with the relatively restrictive gamut, some shades appear a bit undersaturated in these regions.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The representation here was reasonably rich, with a bit of a muted look in places due to the gamut and particularly peripherally where perceived gamma was reduced. These shifts and saturation losses are certainly lower than the vertical shifts you’d observe on a TN model and there are still some quite vivid-looking shades in places. Some nice roaring orange flames and bright orange berries, for example. As noted earlier the strong contrast can help with the representation of some darker to medium shades, making them appear a bit more solid and ‘inky’.

Various episodes of the animated TV series Futurama were also used to assess colour performance. This is a particularly effective test of colour consistency, as there are large blocks of single shade which highlight any shifts at different sections of the screen very clearly. In this respect the monitor performed at a reasonable level – better than some VA models and certainly superior vertically than TN models, but not up to IPS models. This title has quite a few neon shades such as bright greens and cyans which certainly didn’t look as vibrant as we’ve seen on some models, particularly with wider gamuts. We wouldn’t describe them as ‘washed out’, though, particularly centrally where gamma is at a good level for a richer look. The strong contrast helped give some extra ‘pop’ in places as well, for example where such neon shades are presented against a dark background. The pastel shades were handled fairly well with a decent variety of individual shades and appropriate saturation for most of the screen. Again, consider some undersaturation and dulling occurs at the extreme side and bottom edges.

Shade representation using SpyderCHECKR 24

The image below shows a printed reference sheet of 24 ‘sRGB’ shades, included as part of the Datacolor SpyderCHECKR 24 package. The screen is displaying reference photographs of this printed sheet, in both the same order as printed (right side) and reverse order (left side). The camera is mounted slightly above centre so that the image is representative of what the eye sees from an ergonomically correct viewing position. This, coupled with the inclusion of a flipped version of the shade sheet, allows both accuracy and colour consistency to be visually assessed. Bracketed numbers in our analysis refer to shades on the printed sheet or right side of the screen if they’re ordered consecutively from top left to bottom right.

Note that there is always some disparity between how emissive objects (monitor) and non-emissive objects (printed sheet) appear. The monitor is set to a very low brightness to help minimise this disparity. The representation of shades in this image depends on the camera and your own screen, it’s not designed to show exactly how the shades appear in person. It still helps demonstrate some of the relative differences between the original intended sRGB shade and what the monitor outputs, however. Full profiling and appropriate colour management on the application would provide a tighter match, our intention here is to show what can be expected in a non colour-managed environment.

SpyderCHECKR 24 'Test Settings'

Interlaced lines in this image are moiré from the camera, not from the monitor itself.

The monitor displays most shades quite faithfully or in a slightly undersaturated way. Medium orange (3), neighbouring aquamarine (4) and lilac (8) are good examples of shades which appear less deep and more muted than intended. Gamboge (23) has stronger than intended brighter yellow appearance without the intended rich orange-yellow undertones. Persian pink (6), ‘Tango Pink’ (11) and peach pink (20) appear more muted than they should as well, but the undersaturation is less extreme by eye than it appears in the photo for these pink shades. Lemon yellow (10) and candy apple red (14), on the other hand, are a touch oversaturated and a bit more intense than intended – but this is less pronounced than on models with a more generous gamut. Most of the remaining shades are represented well or with just a little undersaturation.

The colour consistency is relatively strong for a VA panel, although you can see some saturation losses when shades are displayed lower down rather than closer to the camera position (‘eye line’). Medium orange (3) and Persian pink (6) are perhaps the clearest examples of this. Black (21) is interesting to observe as it also highlights some of the perceived gamma shifts. The photograph shown on the screen is of the actual printed sheet, which has a slight material texture to it. This is well-blended and barely visible when viewed on most of the screen, but it’s more visible lower down the screen (or towards the sides) due to the aforementioned perceived gamma shifts.

Viewing angles

Lagom’s viewing angle tests help explore the idea of colour consistency and viewing angle performance. The following observations were made from a normal viewing position, eyes ~70cm from the screen. The shifts observed are more readily apparent if sitting closer and less apparent if sitting further away.

  • The purple block appeared a pinkish purple for most of the screen, with less of a pink hue for a broad section of the screen in line with your eyes and a stronger pink tint surrounding that – particularly further down the screen and towards the extreme side edges. The area that appeared a purer purple rather than pink was broader than on some VA models where a more distinct and narrow ‘cone’ is visible, so the shifts here are gentler and less abrupt. The pink hue shifted readily along with head movement.
  • The red block appeared a pastel red throughout the screen, particularly pale and verging on pink lower down the screen and towards the extreme side edges. The more muted appearance shifted readily alongside head movement.
  • The green block appeared a yellowish green chartreuse shade throughout, with a stronger yellow tint lower down. The yellow tint was stronger near the side edges and further down the screen, but the shifts were not as pronounced as on some VA models. The stronger yellow tint moved readily with head movement.
  • The blue block appeared deep blue throughout the screen.
  • The Lagom text appeared a blended grey for the central mass of the screen, or a large area in line with your eyes. Further down the screen a dark red striping was visible for the text, whilst towards the extreme sides a slight green tint was visible. These shifts are less abrupt than on some VA models where a tighter central ‘cone’ is observed. The more blended grey and more colourful elements to the striping shifted alongside head movement, but there were no obvious bursts of saturated orange or green which shift with head movement (from a normal viewing position) as you’d observe on a TN model. This indicates a moderate viewing angle dependency to the gamma curve of the monitor, characteristic of a VA panel. The photo below gives a rough idea of how the Lagom text test appeared.

Lagom Text Test

The following video shows the Lagom text test, a mixed desktop background, a game scene and dark desktop background from various viewing angles. For the mixed image and game scene you can see significant washout and a distinct bleached look due to gamma shifts when viewed from above or to the sides, particularly as angles get sharper. From below the screen becomes deeper as perceived gamma increases. These shifts are less extreme than on some VA models, but more pronounced than the shifts you’d see on IPS models. The shifts are not as extreme vertically as you’d observe on a TN model – there’s no ‘colour inversion’, for example. The final section of the video shows a dark desktop background and highlights the ‘VA glow’ mentioned earlier. This blooms out more noticeably from sharper viewing angles but is not as strong from centralised viewing angles.

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.


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.

Perceived blur, 60Hz

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.

Perceived blur, 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.

Perceived blur, 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.

Perceived blur, 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.

Perceived blur, 120Hz MBR

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.

LG 24GQ50F

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.

Enable FreeSync (DP)

Enable FreeSync (HDMI)

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.

VSync options

Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 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.

G-SYNC Compatible settings

You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display is not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display, not that it 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’).

G-SYNC Compatible settings

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.

Features & Aesthetics
Colour reproduction
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (VRR)


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.

Decent colour consistency for the panel type and fairly tame gamut prevents strong oversaturation of sRGB content using the native gamut
Some sRGB undercoverage and no wide gamut support – coupled with slight VA colour consistency issues, can make things look a bit muted in places
Good contrast in-line with specifications and screen surface not overly grainy‘VA glow’ and ‘black crush’ (not an extreme amount of either), no HDR support
A 165Hz refresh rate with fairly low input lag provided good ‘connected feel’ and reduced perceived blur – VRR worked on both our AMD and Nvidia GPUs with little ‘VRR flicker’Some significantly slower than optimal pixel responses (‘smeary’ trailing) even if stronger than some VA models, poor overdrive tuning for ~100Hz and below
Competitively priced with good OSD flexibility and decent overall build quality for a budget offeringLimited ergonomics and port selection
The bottom line; a ‘contrast-first’ experience with reasonable responsiveness amongst its VA peers, but not one for lovers of vibrant colours or consistently strong responsiveness.PC Monitors

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.

LG 24GQ50F

Donations are also greatly appreciated.

Donate button