AOC’s latest 35″ ultrawide serves up FreeSync on a VA platter

If you've just picked up a brand-new Radeon RX 480, you may want to take a look at AOC's new monitor, too. The C3583FQ is a gently-curved 2560×1080 LED-backlit monitor with a 35" diagonal. It features a vertical-alignment (VA) panel with a 4ms response time, and it supports 144 Hz operation at its native resolution. FreeSync is supported too, but there's no word on the sync range, so we've asked AOC for clarification on that point.

Thanks to the VA panel, AOC says the C3583FQ can be viewed at angles up to 178 degrees in either direction, and it should have great contrast. Unfortunately, the company's press release only lists dynamic contrast figures for the monitor, but we know it can produce brightness up to 300 cd/m². Twin five-watt stereo speakers are included, as well as a 3.5mm jack to pass-through HDMI audio.

Like most curved monitors, AOC's latest doesn't support VESA mounting. The stand is non-removable anyhow, as AOC placed all of the monitor's ports on the back of the its base. That design does avoid a dangling cable mess, so it should give the monitor a slightly cleaner look when in operation. Two DisplayPorts, two HDMI inputs (both with MHL support), a DVI connection, and even a VGA connection are included. AOC has the C3583FQ up on Amazon right now for $599.

Comments closed
    • Sammael
    • 3 years ago

    All I ask for, is a 40-43″ 4k HDR display with dp 1.4, freesync, and if possible, a refresh rate of up to 120Hz.

    96Hz with HDR.

    16:9 is fine, I do not want or need widescreen displays, that is nothing but a copout for cheap display makers to offer a higher diagonal number for less actual screen area.

    A 35″ display @ 16:9 ratio has over 20% more screen area compared to a 35″ display @21:9

    Tv makers are making 50″ HDR 4k displays starting at a thousand dollars via companies like Vizio, and monitor makers keep throwing these peasant scraps our way. Be happy with these low resolutions, or higher resolutions on tiny ass screens

    I want a 40+ inch monitor to look at by the time Mass Effect Andromeda comes out, I want to be more immersed into the world, not look at some midget screen. And yes, 27″ 4k screens are too damn small. The main PERK of higher resolutions is being able to go LARGER and get a more expanded field of view without stretching the pixels out so much they become visible and distracting and ugly.

    • NeoForever
    • 3 years ago

    2560×1080? Pfft.. Who needs that resolution? All the benchmarks are done on QHD and 4k.

    Amirite?

      • f0d
      • 3 years ago

      diddnt you know? 99% of people have a 4k monitor nowdays…………….
      ………….oh wait

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        I won’t be happy until I have more pixels than there are grains of sand on the planet earth.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 3 years ago

    5120 × 2160 please!!!

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    Also, kudos to AOC for producing a professional-looking gaming monitor without needless red/green accents, lights, or branding.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 3 years ago

    The pixel density isn’t impressing me. Even if I love the size of such a monitor. I’d go more for a 40″ personally, 5120 × 2160 please.

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    Still no OLED?

      • mesyn191
      • 3 years ago

      2018 for sorta affordable OLED if we’re lucky.

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        I can’t wait to play HL3 on my OLED in the year of the linux desktop.

          • Pwnstar
          • 3 years ago

          Hahaha

      • Pwnstar
      • 3 years ago

      There’s a new Dell OLED.

        • mesyn191
        • 3 years ago

        $5000 = nope.

    • Hsldn
    • 3 years ago

    it is said that this panel has serious ghosting issues. is it true?

    Also never used a AOC monitor. Do they have premium monitors , or mostly a cheap brand?

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      No there are not serious ghosting issues, it is not true. This is the panel in the Predator Z35 which is one of the most desirable gaming panels on the market.

      I had an AOC CRT monitor 20 years ago. They are not a premium brand but since they don’t make the panels (AUO do) AOC’s responsibility is limited to the external appearance and design choices. Image quality is the same as the far more expensive Predator Z35 for obvious reasons.

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    why can’t it just be flat? 3D projection on a 2D plane that is then curved into an arbitrary 3D curve is not how 3D computer graphics are supposed to work

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    I almost bought the 160Hz variant of this.
    Until I saw that there’s no VESA mount and all the connections go into the base.

    I have an awesome gas-lift arm I want to use with my screen, but this design is 100% incompatible.

    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    How bad would this curve be if viewed from 7-8 feet? I’m currently using a MG279Q as my TV/monitor, and the size on this display is tempting…

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      I’ll buy your MG279Q if you decide to upgrade. PM me.

    • tootercomputer
    • 3 years ago

    I started to read this story and suddenly heard a loud commercial about car oil.: the racing car, the gruff voice, very loud. That’s the first time I’ve experienced this type of ad on TR. Have I just missed these, or is this something new? I find these incredibly intrusive and annoying.

      • Convert
      • 3 years ago

      Not that new.

      I do agree though. Incredibly stupid static ads as well, the last one I saw said something like “Black head removal leads to surprise” or something. All I pictured was a bot fly haha.

      The video ads often will cause Chrome to drag, scrolling is choppy and it even has a hard time keeping up with typing. Eventually the tab will crash.

        • sweatshopking
        • 3 years ago

        Try a decent browser.

          • PrincipalSkinner
          • 3 years ago

          Try a decent extension.

        • DrCR
        • 3 years ago

        Impossible. Chrome is the bestest.

    • EndlessWaves
    • 3 years ago

    Hasn’t this been out some months now? I see reviews from back in April and I was looking at it in store a few weeks ago.

    Is it just new to the US market?

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      Come now. Paper launches are all the rage these days.

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    [url=http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/aoc-c3583fq-is-a-35-inch-160hz-va-panel-with-freesync.html<]FreeSync Range = 48-146Hz?[/url<]

      • Airmantharp
      • 3 years ago

      If you want to know why *anyone* would still support Nvidia’s G-Sync efforts, look no further.

      • Kretschmer
      • 3 years ago

      I was half tempted until I read this. Would much rather have 25-90Hz, to be honest.

        • jensend
        • 3 years ago

        Though I agree that a 24-96Hz range would be better, Low Framerate Compensation should make a monitor like this one work quite well too.

        And LFC is the same thing G-Sync does for low frame rates, so Airmantharp’s comment about this being a reason to prefer G-Sync is off base.

          • DPete27
          • 3 years ago

          Good point. I actually wonder if this higher minimum frequency would actually be better in terms of reducing backlight flicker and improving response times.

            • RAGEPRO
            • 3 years ago

            What, in this scenario, is causing the backlight to flicker?

            • DPete27
            • 3 years ago

            At a 30Hz refresh you’re more likely to see backlight flicker since the refresh rate of the screen is low (think movie speed framerates). This is the reason for the minimum frequency cutoffs (typically 30Hz) on adaptive sync (GSync/FreeSync) monitors in the first place. LCD pixels fade over time, so the slower you refresh your pixels the more you get a flicker effect.

            • EndlessWaves
            • 3 years ago

            Variable refresh rate screens don’t work with strobing backlights as you can’t predict when the next frame is coming in. The only backlight flicker would be a PWM for brightness level and that’s independant of frame rate and typically several hundred hertz.

            Pixels do have to have the voltage reversed to keep them from fading, but I wasn’t aware that was linked to framerate either.

            • Voldenuit
            • 3 years ago

            Yep, this is why Lightboost and ULMB, which work by strobing the backlight, don’t work with VRR.

            Some monitors (including the vast majority of G-sync monitors, afaik) can do either VRR or backlight strobing, but not both at once.

            • DPete27
            • 3 years ago

            I wasn’t implying that the backlight was strobing. The slower you refresh your pixels, the more time they have to fade in between refreshes.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 3 years ago

            Yes, because you’re doubling the refresh rate of frames under the freesync range. When freesync first came out the lower range was necessary, but LFC changed it to making higher the preferred setting. Only real issue might be 144hz kicking your memory into max clock state for whatever goofy reason that is.

            [url<]https://www.amd.com/Documents/freesync-lfc.pdf[/url<]

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        If your graphics card can’t put out 25fps at only 1080p, perhaps an expensive monitor shouldn’t be your first priority.

          • Kretschmer
          • 3 years ago

          $600 is pretty cheap for a monitor, while spending more over midrange GPUs hits rapidly diminishing returns. This guy is 33% more pixels than 1080P.

          Given monitor and GPU upgrade cycles, it’s quite likely that some title at some point will take you down to 25 fps. Especially in multiplayer games with tons of units or ports with efficiency quirks (or both).

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            I did you a disservice, I should have said “If your graphics card can’t push 48fps at 1080p…”

            Even so, if you’re a serious gamer prepared to buy a serious gaming screen, you should probably be aiming for 48fps at the very least. A $250 GPU (RX480 or GTX1060) should be getting 100+fps at 2560×1080, since my stock-clocked 970 gets close at 2560x1440p which is another 33% more pixels still.

            Buy the $250 graphics card before you buy the $600 screen is the point I’m making. 😉

            • Kretschmer
            • 3 years ago

            My R290X (a GTX 970 in red trousers) experiences dips in 1440P that fall below 48 FPS at times, even though the games that I play tend towards the older. I haven’t benched or quantified my experiences but do remember choppiness in GW2 and other titles.

    • meerkt
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]"can be viewed at angles up to 178 degrees in either direction, and it should have great contrast"[/quote<]It's a VA. [s<]Decent[/s<] Not-as-horrible contrast [i<]for an LCD[/i<], but only if viewed straight on.

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      Good thing it curves around you then.

        • meerkt
        • 3 years ago

        Only if you sit right at the focal point.

          • travbrad
          • 3 years ago

          I sit 2 feet below and 4 feet to the side of my computer monitor. I don’t know why everyone is sitting directly in front of their computer monitors. Weirdos.

          • EndlessWaves
          • 3 years ago

          These monitors tend to be so gently curved that the focal point is 2-4m away. Even with the lower DPI, I doubt this monitor would be very usable at 2m.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            They’re not aimed to put you at the focal point.

            For a start you’d get barrel-distortion on the geometry if they were that curved, without special compensation.

            The main thing the curve does is reduce the viewing angle at the edges, which actually matters on a 21:9 ultrawide. At regular sitting distance for a 35″ monitor you’d be viewing the edge of the screen at about 35-40° which would definitely have some gamma and contrast shift, even on IPS (not that this VA screen has the problem of IPS glow, but a gentle curve also helps with this on IPS screens)

    • DrCR
    • 3 years ago

    It’s [url=https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-c3583fq/<]purportedly[/url<] an [url=http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm<]AMVA3[/url<] panel, fyi. So it's 'real' VA, not IPS-esque AHVA, but I'm surprised it would be AMVA3 instead of AMVA5.

      • meerkt
      • 3 years ago

      It’s just poor naming from AUO. The VA in AHVA (“Advanced Hyper-Viewing Angle”) is not related to the VA in VA (“Vertical Alignment”).

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        They have to use a stupid name because IPS is a trademark. When people say “IPS” they probably mean plane-switching panel type, of which LG.Philips trademarked the acronym IPS for “In-Plane Switching” and Samsung trademarked PLS for “PLane Switching”.

        “Advanced Hyper-Viewing Angle” is of the more “marketing department” levels of craptastic, I’ll admit, but perhaps that was to cause confusion intentionally because it’s so close to AMVA which is the Vertical Alignment type. That seems to be the plan with marketing departments, where making the customer confused leads to them throwing money at you, according to the deluded mind of a marketeer.

        For what it’s worth, AMVA is the superior tech. It was developed after IPS with the aim to improve contrast and viewing angles over IPS. It’s clearly superior to IPS for contrast levels, but going on test numbers along, most people would think that IPS has less colour shift across a wider viewing angle than VA.

        But tests don’t take into account IPS corner glow because they only measure purely horizontal angles, or purely vertical angles. The “plane” part of “in-plane switching” is to blame here and it’s a problem that can make IPS worse than TN if you’re playing dark games or watching dark movies.

          • meerkt
          • 3 years ago

          If the plan was specifically to mislead, I don’t see the point. VA doesn’t have more mindshare than IPS, quite the contrary. And I don’t think you can say VA is all around superior to IPS, whichever of their current types you compare. It depends on your priorities.

          IPS has better viewing angles than any VA. Maybe IPS glow on black can ruin the day in some cases, but a few select IPS monitors have little/no IPS glow. I also think IPS’s pixel response times are generally not as bad as VA, but I don’t have definitive data.

          I have a rather modern Sony TV that uses an AUO VA panel, most likely AMVA. The blacks are nothing to write home about, the viewing angles on black/dark are atrocious, and pixels response times fro/to some darkish colors suck. Maybe this is compounded by an unusually bad overdrive/RTC implementation, but I recall seeing in reviews that VAs in general have trouble with these transitions.

          When you move in darkish areas in games it looks like some sort of aliasing in motion. It also negatively affect movies, but much less often than games (which like more dark?).

          • fyo
          • 3 years ago

          [quote<]tests don't take into account IPS corner glow[/quote<] IPS glow is not the same as backlight bleeding, which is the issue you see in the corners. IPS glow only occurs with H-IPS-type panels (which, to be fair, is most of them these days) and refers to a whitish glow when viewing blacks AT AN ANGLE (and all over the screen, not just in the corners). Yes, I realize that 90% of "IPS Glow" usage on the internet refers to backlight bleeding, but it isn't the same. Backlight bleeding is common on a lot of displays -- I have two TNs right here with pretty bad bleeding, an IPS and an MVA (of some kind) at home with no bleeding. Every single usage of IPS Glow that I've seen in the comments here on TR in the last several monitor reviews has been flat out wrong, so sorry if I come off a little nit-picky. The cause(s) of backlight bleeding are complex, unlike IPS Glow, which is caused by the pixel structure. Old IPS panels often had a purplish glow at angles, but it wasn't nearly as noticeable and never got a fancy name. IPS Glow can be rectified by using an ATW polarizer. Some very telling pictures of (real) IPS Glow (and the effect of an ATW polarizer) can be seen with a simple google image search for "atw polarizer ips". Note how the glow is not limited to corners and is only seen at wide angles (wide being relative). Backlight bleeding can be caused by poor light source placement, poor handling of light at the edges, magnetic field disturbance (e.g. from a power supply, which might even be included in the monitor). Monitors with the exact same panel from different manufacturers can exhibit wildly different amounts of backlight bleeding, since the panel itself is usually not the main culprit. Heck, even different monitors of the exact same make and model can exhibit significant differences in backlight bleeding.

            • DrCR
            • 3 years ago

            This is why some of us are willing to pay more for better QC.
            [quote<]even different monitors of the exact same make and model can exhibit significant differences in backlight bleeding.[/quote<] This surprises me, a I would have expected everyone here to know the difference. [quote<]Every single usage of IPS Glow that I've seen in the comments here on TR in the last several monitor reviews has been flat out wrong[/quote<]

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            It’s really not that hard;

            IPS glow is caused by looking off-angle in two planes at once; If you move your head around, the IPS glow follows your head position because it’s determined by viewing angle.

            Backlight bleeding is static, wherever you look from, and is caused by the plastic polarizer layer getting crimped/squashed/damaged during assembly. I’ve fixed backlight bleeding myself by just removing the panel from it’s housing (laptop) and gently massaging the point where it was pinched with a cloth. Reassembling it more carefully than the manufacturer did and moving some of the foam pads around solved it.

            I take objection to this statement, too:

            [quote<]Every single usage of IPS Glow that I've seen in the comments here on TR in the last several monitor reviews has been flat out wrong, so sorry if I come off a little nit-picky.[/quote<] Not only do you claim superior judgement of a problem that can often only be visually confirmed, yet is described to you using words, you also make a sweeping accusation that all TR commenters are flat-out wrong. It doesn't come across as a little nit-picky, it comes across as condescending and reeking of the misplaced bravado of arrogance.

            • fyo
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]condescending and reeking of the misplaced bravado of arrogance[/quote<] I like it! Not entirely sure it makes sense, but I like it! It is a tad hostile, though, which certainly isn't something I was going for. I guess that's just my arrogance blinding me, though. [quote<]IPS glow is caused by looking off-angle in two planes at once; If you move your head around, the IPS glow follows your head position because it's determined by viewing angle.[/quote<] No, that is incorrect. IPS Glow is dependent almost entirely on horizontal position. If you are seeing a strong vertical effect, it is not IPS Glow (but can be backlight bleeding, see the last bits of this post). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "follows you around". If you mean that it "spreads" out across the screen as you move horizontally, then yes, but it's not a fixed thing that follows you; it gets progressively worse the further off-axis you get. You can get IPS Glow if you stick your nose right up to the monitor, but it will be both SIDES, not a "corner effect", which your "off-angle in two planes at once" comment seems to refer to. [quote<]Backlight bleeding is static, wherever you look from, and is caused by the plastic polarizer layer getting crimped/squashed/damaged during assembly. I've fixed backlight bleeding myself by just removing the panel from it's housing (laptop) and gently massaging the point where it was pinched with a cloth. Reassembling it more carefully than the manufacturer did and moving some of the foam pads around solved it.[/quote<] If only backlight bleeding had a single cause. Sadly, that's not the case, hence my description of it as "complex". In some cheap monitors, the plastic can act as a waveguide directing light to the sides, making the edges of the monitor brighter unless the plastic as capped exceptionally well. Placement of light source is also a common culprit (and much harder to do anything about). Edge lit displays with a cheap (or no) waveguide suffer from this. Backlight bleeding is also not entirely static, as you state. LCDs exhibit angle-dependent transmission coefficients, so it is quite normal to get more or less backlight bleeding depending on the exact viewing angle. THIS effect can depend quite strongly on deviations from either axis. The effect on a bad TN display, though, can be swamped by the general poor vertical viewing angles.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            +1 for clarification.

            IPS glow position and severity depends on the exact type of IPS panel. AH-IPS, H-IPS, P-IPS, S-IPS, eIPS, E-IPS AS-IPS, IPS-Pro, AHVA or PLS. Polarisers can reduce IPS glow but few screens have one. In the case of H-IPS or AH-IPS, the glow will be apparent when you’re looking at an angle directly alighned with the individual subdomains in the subpixel (you can see they’re about 25° off horizontal [url=http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/h-ips_structure.jpg<]here[/url<]) Most AH-IPS subpixels are dual-domain, where the top domain is angled the opposite way to the bottom domain. In the instance I just linked, the top domain would be responsible for IPS glow in the bottom-left and top-right corners, whilst the bottom domain would produce off-angle glow in the top-left and bottom-right corners. The glow is because you get backlight leakage when looking along the axis of the aligned crystals. By "follows you around" what I mean is that if you move your head from looking square-on at the center of the screen to looking square-on at the bottom-left corner of the screen, the glow in that bottom-left corner will disappear and the glow in the top right corner will increase in severity because you are now looking at it from an even greater angle off the perpendicular. This is where curved screens help, but sadly IPS screens don't seem to be curved more than R4000 or so, which is almost flat and does little to help. Only AMVA screens seems to have tighter curves to them at the moment.

    • sweatshopking
    • 3 years ago

    34 inch 1080p?!?! Wtf?

      • f0d
      • 3 years ago

      i have a 34″ ultrawide 1080 and its awesome

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      1440p is preferred at that size.

      34″ ultrawide @ 2560×1080 is equivalent to the dpi on a 27″ 16:9 @ 1920×1080.

      Make it 1440p and they would’ve ticked the majority of checkboxes on most people’s wish lists. (aside from HDR/Rec2020)

        • EndlessWaves
        • 3 years ago

        [b<]You[/b<] may prefer it for your desk setup, but it won't suit everyone's. I'd go for 2560x1080 myself. (Until I can have 5120x2160 running at 200% sizing of course)

        • RdVi
        • 3 years ago

        AMVA panels for ultra wide curved or flat 3440 x 1440 do not exist yet, same with 27″ 1440p. There are only 32″ 1440p ones out there and many 1080p panels. They are being made though and may arrive by the end of the year. They also have very high refresh rates.

        [url<]http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/35.htm#auo_panels_june[/url<] I'm looking forward to these myself as I currently have a 27" 1440p IPS. Aside from no variable sync (which is the main reason for an upgrade), moving away from IPS is the other reason I desire an upgrade at home as I hate IPS glow. My TV and work monitors are AMVA and I prefer them.

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        [quote<]Make it 1440p and they would've ticked the majority of checkboxes on most people's wish lists. (aside from HDR/Rec2020)[/quote<] They would have unchecked a couple things from my wish list though (good gaming performance and high refresh rate)

      • Airmantharp
      • 3 years ago

      Certainly more feasible to drive; 1440p 21:9 is even more pixels than my 1600p setup, and dual 970s isn’t quite enough to keep that maxed out at 60Hz.

        • ChicagoDave
        • 3 years ago

        Just wanted to say that I use a single 970 to drive my 3440×1440 display. I only play either old (4-5+ year) games, or low strain ones like Diablo 3. If you’re not trying to play Witcher 3 on ultra, you don’t need a top end card. GTA V is probably the newest game I’ve run on it, I believe most settings were on high except for grass and one or two other things. Draw distance was still maxed from what I remember.

        With that said, I can’t wait to get a 1060/1070 once big pascal comes out and drops the price so I can try out some newer games.

          • Airmantharp
          • 3 years ago

          Definitely need GP102, or a pair of 1070/1080 (slightly overkill) if you want to max out that display.

          And I am playing Witcher 3, among others, thus I find use for the second card- but if I didn’t, one would certainly be enough.

          • brucethemoose
          • 3 years ago

          I run 2560×1440/110hz on a 7950, and it’s fine.

          Granted, I don’t play cutting edge games, but I play newish ones…Planetside 2, Tomb Raider, GTA and so on, and theyre fine.

          The key is not using MSAA. Just inject SMAA with Reshape instead.

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        Yep it makes gaming a lot more feasible for people who can’t spend $1000 on graphics cards, plus I don’t even think you can buy a 1440p ultrawide that does 144hz (same with 4K monitors). The graphics card performance and refresh rates just aren’t there to make them great gaming monitors IMO, although I can certainly see the appeal for productivity/multi-tasking/etc.

          • Airmantharp
          • 3 years ago

          Aside from the price of the monitor which makes the graphics cards look cheap, but what stayed my hand from 21:9 was reports of problems trying to get games to cooperate.

          A sizeable investment (likely approaching US$2,000) just to dig through config files trying to make game engines do things that developers don’t have the presence of mind to properly support on the outset.

            • f0d
            • 3 years ago

            the games with the most problems are the older ones (not even all of them – there are a lot that support ultrawide) most new games pretty much work out of the box without issue

            fixing them isnt really that hard either, i use flawlesswidescreen [url<]https://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/[/url<] which fixes pretty much everything i have come across so far with just a few clicks

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      It’s AOC, not NEC.

      • Jigar
      • 3 years ago

      42″ inch 1080p LED user here, its amazing.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 3 years ago

    Just have to work a few extra overtime shifts…

      • DrCR
      • 3 years ago

      To save up for a better, 1440p monitor, I’m sure. 😉

      • Neutronbeam
      • 3 years ago

      Nah, just start a GoFundMe for an underprivileged tech enthusiast and ask the gerbs here to contribute. SSK is good for at least half that amount–AMIRITE GUIZE?!

        • anotherengineer
        • 3 years ago

        That’s a good idea!! Thanks!! But I would ask the whole world though 😀

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This