Samsung C24FG70

Responsiveness

Input lag

Using a sensitive camera and small tool called SMTT 2.0, we compared the latency of the C24FG70 with a range of monitors of known latency. By taking over 30 repeat readings to enhance accuracy, we measured 4.14ms (over 1/2 of a frame @144Hz) of input lag. This was with ‘Low Input Lag’ enabled, which had no noticeable negative side-effects. No significant difference was recorded when setting the ‘Response Time’ to ‘Faster’ or ‘Fastest’ and therefore activating the strobe backlight feature. This value is influenced both by the element of input lag that you ‘feel’ (signal delay) and the element that you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness). It indicates a very low signal delay that even sensitive users should find absolutely fine. However; we have received reports from multiple users that they do find that the monitor ‘feels laggy’. It’s possible that whilst tweaking the overdrive control of different revisions Samsung also introduced a higher signal delay with some revisions, introducing something of an input lag lottery. We don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag whilst FreeSync is active, but as explored the felt responsiveness with this enabled was excellent.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In this article we explore monitor responsiveness and various key concepts surrounding this. One of the most relevant of these, for this particular section of the review, is the idea of perceived blur. This is contributed to not only by the pixel responsiveness of the monitor, but also the movement of your eyes as you track movement on this screen. It’s actually this eye movement that’s often the key cause of perceived blur on modern monitors. We also introduce a photography technique called ‘pursuit photography’. This involves using a moving camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both the pixel responsiveness and eye (camera) movement and hence gives a realistic idea of perceived blur.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. The test is set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a practical speed for such photographs and sufficient to help highlight key weaknesses. The monitor was tested at 60Hz, 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz with all three ‘Response Time’ settings. The middle row of the test (medium cyan background) was used. Various reference shots are also included for the sake of comparison. The 60Hz reference screen is a Samsung S27A750D (set to 60Hz, 100% brightness to avoid PWM) which shows how things should look at 60Hz with little or no response time weaknesses in play. The 144Hz ‘normal’ (non-strobe), 100Hz strobe (ULMB) and 120Hz strobe (ULMB) references show the test performed on a Dell S2716DG, which offers very rapid pixel responses. Note that any interlacing lines are moiré from the camera and were not visible on the monitor itself.



At 60Hz, with ‘Response Time’ set to ‘Standard’, the UFO appears soft and blurry. This is due to perceived blur from eye movement. There is just a slight fringe of inverse ghosting (overshoot) – a bright trail behind the object, to the left on the image – which isn’t visible on the reference screen. Overall this is very close to the reference shot for these pixel transitions, though. With the ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’ setting the strobe backlight mode activates, something which is explored a little later. Unfortunately, the strobe is poorly synchronised with the 60Hz refresh rate and therefore the monitor is essentially unusable with this feature at 60Hz. You can see that the object is displayed multiple times, which is really not a pleasant or practical viewing experience and not an attractive alternative to the ‘Standard’ setting.

At 100Hz, with the ‘Standard’ setting, you can see that the pixel responses are rapid enough to prevent noticeable conventional trailing behind the object. There is noticeable and fairly strong overshoot, though, with a bright inverted trail behind all sections of the UFO. With the ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’ setting the strobe backlight mode is active, and unlikely at 60Hz it actually has the desired effect. The main object appears significantly sharper and better-defined, with perceived blur due to eye movement massively reduced by the backlight strobing. There is a fair bit of overshoot behind the object, slightly stronger with the ‘Fastest’ setting but not too much stronger than the ULMB reference screen really.

At 120Hz, with the ‘Standard setting’, the overshoot is weakened quite a bit but is still there. There is no noticeable conventional trailing, though, so the tuning of the pixel overdrive is actually better at this refresh rate compared to 100Hz. The object is marginally thinner and better defined, indicating a slight decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. With the ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’ settings the clarity of the object is excellent with some good well-defined details. There is a bit of overshoot visible, slightly stronger with the ‘Fastest’ setting. This is actually reduced somewhat compared to at 100Hz – and again isn’t too dissimilar to the reference display.

At 144Hz, with the ‘Standard’ setting, the overshoot is perhaps marginally reduced again. The clarity is actually quite similar to the reference display for these transitions. With the ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’ setting the strobe backlight mode is activated. The clarity of the main object is excellent, but there is again a little overshoot that is reduced slightly compared to lower refresh rates. The ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’ modes are fairly similar, although the overshoot is more noticeable with a more obvious woven texture with the ‘Fastest’ setting. With the ‘Faster’ setting you can see a slight trail in front of the object, which indicates that the pixel responses weren’t quite able to keep up with the requirements for ‘clean’ 144Hz strobing. This is quite faint and also visible to some extent at 120Hz.

Overall, we feel that the monitor performed quite well both with and without the strobe backlight mode in these tests at 120Hz and 144Hz, but the overshoot introduced at 100Hz was quite strong and noticeable. It’s also worth bearing in mind that pixel transition behaviour changes depending on the shades involved in the transition, especially on VA models such as this. We will be analysing the pixel response behaviour over a more complete range of pixel transitions and discussing the implications for overshoot of a dynamic refresh environment (i.e. FreeSync active) in the proceeding sections.

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, generally high refresh rate models, there are artifacts that can be seen when observing moving content on the screen. These may appear as a sort of mesh or interference, with woven or interlaced lines of alternating shade that’s slightly lighter or darker than that which is intended. No such artifacts were visible on this monitor during motion. We did observe some static interlacing patterns, though, which were much less obvious. This occurred in the bottom left region of the screen, whereby a given shade had very thin horizontal bands of a marginally lighter than intended shade running through it. They were visible regardless of FreeSync status or refresh rate, but really rather faint and not something most users would notice in normal use unless sitting particularly close to the screen (<50cm).

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1), where the frame rate kept pace with the 144Hz refresh rate (i.e. 144fps), things felt very much as we’d hope from a 144Hz monitor. The ‘connected feel’ upon interacting with the game world was excellent, with controller input translating to fluid movement on the screen very rapidly. This is not only due to the low input lag of the display, but also due to the fact it’s pumping out 2.4 times as much visual information every second as on a 60Hz display. This also massively reduced eye movement and hence decreased perceived blur through the mechanisms described in our responsiveness article. But to really make good use of the 144Hz refresh rate, pixel responsiveness also has to be strong. And in this respect the C24FG70 impressed, looking decidedly unlike any VA panel monitor we’ve seen. Other high refresh rate VA models we’ve tested, like the Acer Z35, are let down by the fact many pixel responses are very slow and provide obvious ‘smeary’ trailing. This is something we’ve also seen from 60 – 75Hz models including the Samsung C27F591FD. The 23.5” CFG70 instead performed the majority of pixel transitions in such a way that there was very little if any trailing visible at 144fps – looking quite comparable to the S2716DG sitting next to it. A very fast 144Hz TN model.

There were some slight weaknesses, however. Whereas most transitions either provided no visible trailing or just a very fine, short-lived and barely visible mist of additional trailing, there were some that provided more obvious trailing. This was particularly true for transitions between darker and somewhat lighter (medium) shades. Shadows cast on vegetation and other objects and fine objects such as cracks in rocks, for example, were generally a fair bit darker than the object itself or the rest of the object. You can see a slightly more pronounced trail in such instances, which increases perceived blur. This is particularly the case if you move the character around rapidly or drive a vehicle. The trailing here is not the sort of smeary (and sometimes ‘smoke-like’) trailing you’d typically get on VA models, though, and is actually more like the slightly slower than optimal transitions you might see on a 144Hz AHVA (IPS-type) model like the AOC AG271QG or ViewSonic XG2703-GS.

It was quite clear that the Samsung used highly effective grey to grey acceleration, which is required to speed up some of these natively rather sluggish pixel transitions. There were some side-effects in the form of overshoot (inverse ghosting), something we have already pointed out using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. For most transitions where overshoot was present, it appeared as a very faint ‘snail-slime’ type trail, which was very short and barely visible – not something that really catches the eye. Some transitions produced slightly more visible overshoot which included some slight hints of purple, blue or green. This was most visible where dark objects moved against a significantly lighter background – for example dark gunmetal greys against a grey, foggy sky. Even then, it’s not something most users would find bothersome. Some users have referred to this overshoot as ‘purple trailing’ or ‘purple ghosting’ and it’s something that was far more prominent on early revisions. It has actually been reduced on more recent revisions, such as our review sample which was manufactured in November 2016, to far more tolerable levels at 144Hz. Whether or not you’re actually interested in using FreeSync, we’d urge you to take a look at the video in the FreeSync section which captures this overshoot and explains how it’s actually relatively faint at 144Hz compared to some other refresh rates (particularly 100Hz).

Speaking of other refresh rates, we also also analysed performance at 60Hz. This should give an idea of what to expect on systems (such as games consoles) that are limited to lower refresh rates such as 60Hz. There was significantly more perceived blur and a loss of connected feel, as you’d expect given the drop in frame rate. However; even the dark-medium transitions which are relatively slow on this monitor were performed fast enough for pretty much optimal 60Hz performance. There were no stand-out sluggish response times imparting obvious trailing on top of the perceived blur due to eye movement. The overshoot was again present and somewhat more pronounced than at 144Hz, particularly the ‘snail-slime’ trails which were now somewhat brighter. This was far less distracting than the overshoot at 100Hz, though, and for most users shouldn’t be particularly bothersome. It isn’t usual that we would tell users to consider 144Hz monitors like this for console gaming, as they are limited to 60Hz, but in this case it’s certainly a viable option for users. Particularly for console gamers who can stomach a bit of overshoot but in return benefit from the strong contrast and colour performance of the monitor without the usual VA side-effect of ‘smeary’ trailing.

Given the depth of analysis above, we don’t have much to add from observations in Dirt Rally. Still, it’s nice to talk about the experience on this game just for a bit of variety. Again, the connected feel and levels of perceived blur was excellent where the frame rate kept up with the 144Hz refresh rate. The racing environments, track itself and other cars remained much clearer than at lower frame rates with better-defined details. There was some overshoot here and there, but nothing particularly eye-catching at 144Hz. The monitor also performed well at 60Hz on this title with observations similar to BF1. We also tested some Blu-ray film titles on the monitor – it performed well without any noticeable trailing or overshoot. The fluidity and pixel response demands were limited by the 24fps or so at which these titles ran. Setting the monitor to a multiple of the refresh rate (such as 144Hz) decreased juddering due to the even division of frame rate into refresh rate, although the 24fps was still the main limiting factor in terms of smoothness here.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology supported by certain AMD GPUs (such as these and future models). Unlike Nvidia G-SYNC, which uses a proprietary board integrated into the monitor, AMD FreeSync uses VESA Adaptive-Sync. This is a capability integrated into some DP 1.2a and HDMI 1.4a port controllers, such as those found on the DP and HDMI ports of the C24FG70. The premise of this technology, like G-SYNC, is to allow the GPU to communicate the current frame rate of the content to the monitor. In turn, the monitor can dynamically alter its refresh rate to match. The advantages this brings to the table are explored in the G-SYNC article linked to previously, but on a basic level this eliminates stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off) associated with frame rate and refresh rate misalignment. There is also a reduction in input lag compared to running with VSync on – although we aren’t able to accurately measure this.

Our test system uses a Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce, which is compatible with AMD FreeSync. AMD drivers currently include Radeon Software Crimson, which makes activation of the technology rather straightforward. It should be automatically activated when you connect up the monitor, provided you have the ‘FreeSync’ option enabled in the ‘Game’ section of the monitor’s OSD set appropriately. There are two settings which will enable the technology; ‘Standard Engine’ and ‘Ultimate Engine’. We’ll come onto these in a little bit. To check that the graphics driver is using FreeSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and click ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. Note that the image below is for a different monitor and is just used here for reference.

Coming back to the two ‘FreeSync’ settings in the monitor OSD, they differ in the variable refresh rate range that they support. ‘Standard Engine’ supports 90 – 144Hz (90 – 119Hz via HDMI) whilst ‘Ultimate Engine’ gives a broader variable refresh rate range of 70 – 144Hz (62 – 119Hz via HDMI). We didn’t notice any adverse effects when using ‘Ultimate Engine’, so we’d suggest users simply stick to that option. According to user feedback on early CFG70s, this option was initially missing and the FreeSync range was somewhat limited by default. We tested a November 2016 build and can confirm that everything was working correctly as far as FreeSync goes. The only issue we did have was some intermittent flashes at the very bottom of the screen, on the desktop, near the taskbar icons. This is captured in the video below. This occurred regardless of whether FreeSync was enabled in the AMD driver, but did not occur if FreeSync was set to ‘Off’ in the OSD. We did not observe such flashes whilst gaming.

Above the refresh rate ceiling for FreeSync (144Hz on this model, corresponding to 144fps in a game), the GPU respects 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 144fps, where VSync automatically activates and imposes the usual latency penalty when it does so. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate can rise above 144fps, deactivating FreeSync and causing tearing and juddering which some users would dislike. Below the floor of operation for FreeSync (e.g. 70Hz if using ‘Ultimate Engine’ and DP) the monitor acts in exactly the same way regardless of the VSync setting, at least when using DP and the ‘Ultimate Engine’. A technology called AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) comes into play, whereby the monitor’s refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate to eliminate the tearing or stuttering that would otherwise occur. If for example the game is running at 50fps, the monitor will set itself to 100Hz rather than simply stay at 70Hz (or whatever the floor is with the connection or settings you’re using). Likewise, if the frame rate drops really low (20fps, for example) the monitor set itself to a multiple of this with its refresh rate, such as 80Hz. As we explore, though, low frame rates are still low frame rates and in this extreme example the playability of the game would likely be very poor indeed. This technology requires that the ceiling is at least twice the floor for FreeSync operation, so only works via DP and with ‘Ultimate Engine’ enabled. With other settings or ports the monitor respects your choice of VSync on or off and you get either stuttering or tearing, respectively.

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This can either be set globally under ‘Global Settings’, or alternatively for each game title on its own. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync is only active if you enable it within the game itself, if such an option exists (it usually does). It might not be called ‘VSync’ but may be referred to as ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines. Most users will likely want to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. One of the final two options in the list, shown in the image below, would therefore be preferable.

Note that the monitor doesn’t provide any indication that FreeSync is active (although, provided everything is set up as above, it should be). Finally, bear in mind that FreeSync can only remove stuttering or juddering from frame and refresh rate mismatches, it can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth gameplay such as network latency or insufficient system memory.

FreeSync – the experience

For this section we will focus on our experiences on BF1. Although we tested a broad range of titles and they all benefited from FreeSync, BF1 provides sufficient flexibility in its graphics settings to fully test this technology. Using the ‘Auto’ settings determined for our system (which includes a Radeon 290 FreeSync-capable GPU), the frame rate fluctuated quite considerable between around 70 – 130fps. With FreeSync disabled and the monitor set to a static 144Hz, there was noticeable tearing and juddering (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). To eliminate the stuttering, the graphics settings had to be lowered so that a consistent 144fps could be achieved.

With FreeSync, the dips were far more palatable due to the lack of tearing or stuttering that would otherwise occur. The ‘flow’ of the game was therefore much better. It is worth remembering, though, that low frame rates remain low frame rates. The level of perceived blur is increased and ‘connected feel’ decreased as the frame rate drops, regardless of whether FreeSync is active. The connected feel and level of perceived blur was good overall with relatively high frame rates (generally triple digits) but was noticeably hampered as the frame rate dropped. If the graphics settings and in particular ‘Resolution Scale’ setting was bumped up, the frame rate dipped further to anywhere between about 20fps and 60fps. This is actually lower than the hardware floor of operation for FreeSync (70fps via DP, as we were using). Fortunately LFC, mentioned earlier, did its thing to keep tearing and stuttering at bay. But the loss of connected feeling and obvious increase in perceived blur still hampered the experience.

If you recall, we observed a greater level of overshoot (inverse ghosting) in the UFO Motion Test with the monitor set to 100Hz that at higher refresh rates or indeed 60Hz. Because FreeSync allows the monitor to dynamically adjust its refresh rate, you do actually enter this ‘zone of more obvious inverse ghosting’ at certain frame rates. The extent of this varies depending on the transitions and it certainly isn’t universal, but generally we found the overshoot most pronounced at around 80 – 110fps (80 – 110Hz). Although in some cases it was more obvious a bit either side of this compared to at 144Hz. This is related to the refresh rate, specifically, so if you are not using FreeSync and the monitor is set to a static 144Hz you will not see this extent of overshoot regardless of frame rate. This is not an issue that everyone will notice, but is highlighted and explained in the video below. Note that even overshoot that appears relatively slight to the eye is often exaggerated in videos and that is the case here with the monitor set to 144Hz. The video is quite representative of how things looked at 100Hz in terms of overshoot, however.

Impulsive Scanning (strobe backlight)

This monitor features a strobe backlight feature called ‘Impulsive Scanning’ that is activated by setting the monitors ‘Response Time’ to either ‘Faster’ or ‘Fastest’. This causes the backlight to strobe on and off at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the monitor, reducing eye movement and hence reducing perceived blur via the mechanisms explained in this article. It can be activated at 60Hz, 100Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz – although as pointed out earlier, it’s as good as useless at 60Hz due to image duplication (crosstalk). As is entirely usual for strobe backlight technologies, it can’t be used in conjunction with FreeSync either. We would also like to stress that the feature works regardless of GPU vendor, it is a Samsung feature that is not associated specifically with Nvidia (like ULMB) nor AMD.

As described earlier, activating this setting induces a mild flickering that is much like running a CRT at the same refresh rate. Not everyone will notice this or find it at all bothersome. As we explored in the ‘Contrast and brightness’ section, the brightness control is locked off. We found that we adjusted to the brightness, but preferred the slightly dimmer ‘Fastest’ setting to ‘Faster’ particularly in the evening where ambient lighting levels were lower. This is the opposite problem that users often face with such settings, which tend to be too dim for some users regardless of settings used. You can actually reduce brightness at the expense of static contrast, if you need to, by lowering the ‘Contrast’ slider which is not locked off. You can also activate ‘Warm2’ which is generally more relaxing on the eyes due to reduced blue light output, even if brightness isn’t really reduced.

We tested the setting on a range of game titles and found that it certainly did its thing to massively reduce perceived blur, in much the same way that was demonstrated with the UFO Motion Test for ghosting earlier. In BF1, for example, the environment and objects within it remained very sharply focused even during the most rapid movement. The caveat here, though, is that you absolutely need to be running the game at a frame rate that matches the refresh rate for this to work. If you don’t, then there is very little motion blur to mask the stuttering or juddering that ensues – things look, quite simply, messy and wrong. This blur reduction was effective at 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz. However; we preferred 144Hz because of the superior ‘connected feel’ (higher frame rate) and lower flickering.

We also found 144Hz preferable due to it having the lowest levels of overshoot. In fact we’d go as far as to say the overall clarity (including overshoot levels) was superior to what we’ve seen with any monitor with ULMB (even fast TN models) and even the likes of the BenQ XL2420Z and XL2730Z with BenQ’s ‘Blur Reduction’. This was the case even in the ‘Fastest’ mode, which we preferred to ‘Faster’ due to the lower brightness. It also had a slight edge in motion clarity due to it lacking the frame repetition (crosstalk) of ‘Faster’ whilst offering quite comparable overshoot in practice. Due to the strobe behaviour this overshoot appeared as very faint repetitions of the original object rather than a smooth trail behind it. This was in places a little more noticeable due to being bright (as observed without the strobe backlight active as well).

At 120Hz this brighter overshoot was a bit brighter still and more eye-catching whilst the faint repetitions were in places slightly bolder. At 100Hz the overshoot was more noticeable again, although not as noticeable as at 100Hz without ‘Impulsive Scanning’ enabled. In summary, ‘Impulsive Scanning’ provided an excellent level of motion clarity at 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz with relatively low overshoot levels, the least flicker and the best ‘connected feel’ at 144Hz. This required that the frame rate consistently matched the refresh rate and also locked control of the brightness. So it’s definitely a nice option to have, but for most users probably won’t replace the usual ‘Standard’ (normal flicker-free backlight) option.

The curve

In our reviews of the Samsung C27F591FD we’ve shared some thoughts on the curve of the monitor and what it brings to the table. The curvature of this model is the same, at 1800R, and despite the difference in screen size (23.5” vs. 27” diagonal) the experience of using the monitor and the effect of the curve is much the same. We’d therefore recommend users refer to ‘The curve’ section towards the end of the C27F591FD review. The key message here is that the curve is not particularly noticeable during normal use of the monitor, it doesn’t make the experience feel weird by distorting things and it is something most users would find very natural. It has the potential to improve viewing comfort by creating a more uniform distance from the eye when comparing the centre to edges of the screen – and we certainly found it comfortable, but also find many flat monitors perfectly comfortable. We felt it added a little bit of extra depth to the gaming and movie-watching experience, but again this was quite subtle. Below there are some pictures showing the monitor in action in a range of different applications. Note any interlacing or interference patterns are moiré from the camera rather than a problem with the monitor. These images are only for illustrative purposes and give a poor (generally exaggerated) view of how things would be when actually sitting in front of the monitor and using it.

Conclusion

Monitors with VA panels are generally the slowest of the three main panel types, with some pixel transitions being performed noticeably slowly. Coupling this panel type with a 144Hz refresh rate is quite ambitious – it’s something we’ve seen done quite half-heartedly in the past with the likes of the Acer Z35 and AOC C3583FQ. It’s certainly nice to see Samsung back in the high refresh rate monitor game and indeed focusing on gaming monitors more generally – these have been noticeably absent from their line-up for some years now. Samsung have also been pushing towards curved monitors recently, starting with a fairly gentle curve and getting gradually steeper. The 1800R curve of this model was certainly noticeable but by no means obtrusive nor particularly revolutionary in what it brought to the table. It added a little bit of extra depth to the experience, but kept things seeming natural rather than weird and distorted.

One of the key strengths of this monitor is contrast, both on paper and in practice. The static contrast ratio remained strong across a broad range of settings, providing a depth to blacks and dark colours that simply isn’t matched by current non-VA LCD panels. Bright elements stood out nicely against darker surroundings, whilst the clarity of such elements was aided by the screen surface which was free from obtrusive graininess. The monitor also provided a rich and vibrant palette of colours, with the Nanosys Quantum Dots aiding the colour gamut. This did give a bit of extra saturation compared to what is technically supposed to be displayed within the sRGB colour space, but this was not as extensive as that seen on models with wide colour gamuts such as Adobe RGB. An excellent ‘sRGB emulation’ mode was also present, which cut down on this saturation without loss of contrast, any real sRGB under-coverage or locked image controls. The panel itself also provided pleasing colour consistency for a VA panel, with some slight loss of saturation towards the extreme edges and bottom of the screen but nothing as pronounced as you’d generally see on a VA model of this size.

It’s fair to say that anybody expecting a 144Hz VA model to perform like a decent 144Hz TN panel would be setting themselves up for disappointment. But in many respects the responsiveness of the C24FG70 was rather impressive. At 144Hz and suitably high frame rates the ‘connected feel’ was excellent, aided by the high frame rate and very low input lag. The levels of perceived blur were also very low. There was a noticeable absence of the sort of ‘smeary’ trailing you’d generally see on VA models, even for the often problematic ‘high contrast’ transitions. There were a few transitions that were a bit slower than optimal, but this was similar to what we’ve seen on 144Hz AHVA (IPS-type) panels and beyond what we’ve seen from VA models thus far. The level of pixel overdrive (grey to grey) acceleration required to achieve this was quite considerable. Unlike earlier revisions (October 2016 and earlier) of the monitor, there wasn’t particularly obtrusive overshoot at 144Hz. There was some here and there and it did include some hints of colours such as purple and green in places, but it isn’t something we feel would bother most users.

The monitor also provided a largely impressive performance at 60Hz, which is good news for games console users who are limited to this refresh rate at maximum. The overshoot was a bit more pronounced, but not to levels most users would find troubling. The overall perceived blur was much as you’d see on the fastest 60Hz LCDs and again much better than we’ve seen on other VA models. There were some weaknesses, though, particularly at around 100Hz. Overshoot was brighter and more obvious, standing out quite readily in places. This was purely dependent on refresh rate rather than frame rate. Unfortunately, FreeSync involves dynamic adjustment of the refresh rate to match the frame rate. If the frame rate matched this ‘zone of obvious overshoot’ (around 80 – 110fps ish and to some extent a bit beyond) then it was more clearly visible than at higher or lower frame rates. That and the slight flickering on the desktop we observed with the feature active put to one side, FreeSync worked as it should on this monitor. It eliminated tearing and stuttering from traditional frame rate and refresh rate mismatches and did this at frame rates much lower than the hardware limited (i.e. LFC was supported).

For users who want the lowest level of perceived blur and can maintain consistently high frame rates, there is also a strobe backlight featured called ‘Impulsive Scanning’. This worked as intended to greatly reduce perceive blur at 100Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz. At 144Hz in particular it did so without inducing annoying or obtrusive overshoot (sensitivity to both aspects varies). The brightness when using this setting was remarkably high but also locked, so you’re left with the opposite problem that usually accompanies strobe backlight modes. They tend to be too dim for some users. The brightness could be adjusted at the expense of contrast, with the strobe backlight mode, and least there was plenty of that to play with. Overall this monitor provided a rich and unique gaming experience, with strong contrast and vibrant colour output. As with all screens on the market, it was not flawless in all areas. We feel that it lends itself best to users who can maintain consistently high frame rates and therefore happily keep the monitor at a static 144Hz. Rather unusually for a high refresh rate monitor, it’s also one that’s worth considering as a console gamer due to a rather strong 60Hz performance, particularly given the panel type. FreeSync is certainly a nice feature and did work as it should, but between the flickering issue and overshoot being particularly noticeable at certain refresh rates made it a less than stellar implementation of the technology. It isn’t a cheap monitor, especially given the resolution, but it does offer a unique experience that will be a refreshing alternative to the 144Hz TN alternatives for PC gamers with either Nvidia or AMD GPUs. It’s also quite a compelling option for console gamers given the combination of strong image quality and 60Hz responsiveness.

The bottom line; a monitor with pleasing image quality and surprisingly good responsiveness for the panel type, despite some quirks here and there.