AOC adds two more monitors to its Agon gaming lineup

Taiwanese monitor manufacturer AOC is eagerly striding into the enthusiast market. The company announced the C3583FQ 35" ultrawide display yesterday, and back at the end of April we saw the first release in the company's Agon gaming brand. Today, the company is announcing two more models under that marque: the AG241QG and AG241QX. The AG241QX supports FreeSync and a 144Hz refresh rate, while AG241QG is equipped with G-Sync and a slightly higher 165 Hz refresh.

Aside from those basic specs, both models are 24-inch 2560×1440 displays with a 1ms response time. Those quick transitions come courtesy of a—yep, you guessed it—TN panel. AOC insists that there are "no compromises regarding color quality," though. Like the majority of AOC's new displays, the monitors are PWM-flicker-free and feature a "low blue light" mode. AOC also includes a number of gaming-oriented features, including a low-input-lag mode and "Shadow Control," which sounds a lot like dynamic contast to our ears. The company expects that the AG241QX will be available in European markets in August for €449, while the AG241QG is set for a September arrival for €599.

Comments closed
    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    I think I’d prefer the AG271QX if the TN panels are decent now. Too bad I can’t find any on retail….

    • kvndoom
    • 3 years ago

    I could never go back to a 24″ screen. I also never thought I’d hear myself say those words.

      • cygnus1
      • 3 years ago

      Agreed. I ended up with a 27″ inch screen this year after a very long time at 24″. It’s only 1080p and I thought I wasn’t going to like it because of the lower PPI and I didn’t think the small size increase would make such a difference, but it’s much better without being too big and the PPI isn’t bad at all for how far away it sits. I’m eyeballing the 21:9 34″ screen market now as that keeps the same vertical height. Not sure if I will hold out for a reasonably priced 1440p version or just go with 1080p though.

        • kvndoom
        • 3 years ago

        I went the same route and it drove me nuts for a year. I had a hard time with losing vertical real estate (in terms of actual glass dimensions the 27 was only 1/2 inch or so taller vertically than the 24). I finally got a 1440p screen earlier this month and all is good with the world again.

        16:10 was my golden ratio. With 1440 vertical pixels I can finally accept 16:9. I couldn’t deal with 1080.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Yep, eyeing up all the 34″ and 35″ ultrawide options at the moment to replace my pair of 27 inchers.

        • f0d
        • 3 years ago

        i am heavily biased because i have a 34″ 21:9 ultrawide but theres no way i can go back to 16:9 anymore

        i only use mine for gaming though – maybe for productivity it might be different

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          I’ve already been testing 21:9 game compatibility by creating a custom 2560×1080 resolution on one of my Korean screens and then playing “letterbox” on a virtual 21:9 screen that’s about 25″ across.

          In terms of productivity, it’s still better than a pair of 1280×1024 19″ monitors, and way better than a single 1920×1080 screen.

            • f0d
            • 3 years ago

            i mentioned it in another news comments thread but flawless widescreen fixes a lot of unsupported games
            [url<]https://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/[/url<]

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 3 years ago

        [url=http://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.CX1AA.001<]Acer XR341CK bmijpphz[/url<], for example? My current desktop looks like 3/4 of this: [url<]http://www.ubergizmo.com/reviews/dell-3007wfp-30-inch-lcd-monitor-review/[/url<] Playing games or videos on the 2560x1600 display with a browser, spreadsheet or other text on the 1200x1600 beside it works well for me.

    • Spunjji
    • 3 years ago

    2560×1440 at 24″ is great, but why-oh-why isn’t TN dead yet? 🙁

      • Voldenuit
      • 3 years ago

      The high quality TN films by AU Optronics that are used on the Dell and Asus G-sync displays are really great, though.

      8-bit color, 10-bit FRC, decent viewing angles, and no IPS glow.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        As someone who absolutely loathes TN, I still have to agree with this.

        VA and IPS screens are fast enough that they can switch all the pixels for the next frame in about 10ms, which is good for 100Hz, but not perfect for 144 or 165Hz. They use aggressive overdrive to get response times down far enough for higher refresh rates but you do get some RTC overshoot which is only slightly better than the ghosting it’s intended to correct for.

        All TN panels are bad, but the high-end ones aren’t so bad that you can’t overlook the problems. For me it’s gamma-shift and colour inversions in the vertical plane. The RoG Swift still has quite severe gamma shift, but at least it doesn’t have colour inversions like many TN panels. Gamma shift alone can be overlooked, especially for gaming.

          • UberGerbil
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah, I hate TN panels but I agree they have their place — and all TN panels are far from equal. The best are much better than the worst, and the best today are far better than the best from 5 or 10 years ago. Opinions formed back then, or formed only from experience with the cheapest end of the spectrum, aren’t necessarily accurate.

          I still wouldn’t buy one for my own use, but I also don’t game or care about high refresh rates.

      • DancinJack
      • 3 years ago

      Man, that’s some tiny, tiny text. I hope you’re prepared to use some sort of scaling. Unless you’re like 18 and have 20:10 vision or something.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        I Installed Windows 7 on a UX305 with the 13″ 3200×1800 screen, and Windows 7 doesn’t really do dpi scaling.

        Needless to say, I had my nose up against the screen until I could find the display settings….

    • cpucrust
    • 3 years ago

    Sorry Nvidia, but that’s a YUGE €150 variable refresh rate tax I won’t pay.
    GTX 760 is when I left the gree(d)n team – sorry.

    I would be willing to come back to the green team with those sweet GTX 1080/1070 models, BUT – it must support DP 1.3 variable refresh rate (yes, yes – I know it is an “optional” spec) before I would do so.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Oh, I hadn’t realised these were identical except for G-Sync.

      So:

      It’s $239 for an RX480 with adaptive sync.
      It’s $399 for a GTX 1060 with adaptive sync. ($449 if you are impatient and want the FE!)

        • Fieryphoenix
        • 3 years ago

        That’s the price for the 1070. 1060 is $249.

          • RAGEPRO
          • 3 years ago

          I think he was including the $150 premium on the G-Sync screen. Or, well, €150, but that usually ends up to about $150.

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          $399 also happens to be the price of the 1070 [i<]without[/i<] adaptive sync, but that's just a coincidence. This car is $25K but if you want wheels, doors and an engine with it, that'll be 40K please. In discussions about the cost of adaptive sync, the GTX 1060 is not the only cost.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 3 years ago

            [quote=”Chrispy_”<] This car is $25K but if you want wheels, doors and an engine with it, that'll be 40K please. [/quote<] Porsche may have their own group of evil marketing geniuses.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This