Agon AG251FG can do 2560×1440 or 240Hz

You will be hard-pressed to find a more aggressive advocate of high-refresh-rate gaming than myself, and yet even I have to pause when looking at AOC's Agon AG251FG. This 24.5" G-Sync gaming display boasts of refresh rates ranging from 48Hz all the way up to 240Hz.

What gives me pause is actually not the high refresh rate, but rather how the monitor gets there. According to AOC's specifications, the AG251FG uses a TN panel with a 2560×1440 native resolution, and it can hit a refresh rate of 144 Hz in that setting. It seems that to achieve the promised 240 Hz rate, you'll have to drop the resolution back to 1920×1080.

There certainly are folks for whom having the fastest possible refresh is crucial. It's handy to have the option of a super-high refresh rate or a nice, crisp 3.6-megapixel image, too. Still, it's likely that most users will leave G-Sync or ULMB enabled at the panel's native resolution. Speaking of ULMB, it's only supported at up to 120 Hz in either 2560×1440 or 1920×1080 resolutions. That's a common limitation for that feature, though.

The rest of the display's specs are in line with what's expected from a modern TN gaming display. AOC specs the display with brightness of up to 400 cd/m², a 1-ms response time, and a static contrast ratio up to 1000:1. The relatively high brightness will be useful for the ULMB mode. Viewing angles are given as 170° horizontal and 160° vertical. Users can hook up to the AG251FG using DisplayPort or HDMI inputs, and it also has a four-port USB 3.0 hub for peripherals.

As the new display is only mentioned on AOC Europe's website so far, so it's not entirely clear whether it'll be coming stateside. AOC says the AG251FG should be available in Europe in August and expects it to go for £519 (or $674) in the UK.

Comments closed
    • Kretschmer
    • 3 years ago

    For $700, you can just buy a GSync 1440P IPS that runs at 165Hz.

    Or a GSync 1080P TN that runs at 240Hz, with money left over.

    Or a Dell 1440P TN that runs at 144+Hz for hundreds less.

    At the end of the day, there is no reason to buy this product at this price point.

    • zdw
    • 3 years ago

    So that antenna thing off the side with the ports – is that a headphone hook or something?

    • dpaus
    • 3 years ago

    So… it does 25 or 6 to 4?

      • RAGEPRO
      • 3 years ago

      Very nice.

      • spiketheaardvark
      • 3 years ago

      Only while you’re waiting for the break of day

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Over £500 for a 24″ TN monitor? I have one of those at work and it’s worth about £80 if anyone was dumb enough to pay for one in 2017.

    G-Sync or not, that is disgusting – for the same money you can get the fabled ROG Swift (144Hz IPS) or for significantly less there are plenty of IPS and VA 144Hz Freesync screens at 2560×1440 or even ultrawide.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      The only downside of TN is the inconsistency top to bottom caused by the narrow viewing angles, the general quality can be just as good as IPS or VA.

      Your £80 work monitor is rubbish because it’s £80, not because it’s TN.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        Yeah, you’re right about my lame Dell P2412H, but even the very nicest TN is below IPS or VA.

        People make statements like “TN can be just as good as IPS or VA” all the time, but in reality the overlap there is between high-end TN and poor quality, cheap IPS or VA is pretty narrow.

        eIPS 6-bit with FRC dithering is pretty bad and the corner glow can make it comparable to the top-to-bottom contrast loss of even a good TN. Cheap or old VA screens suffer with yellowing or other colour shift starting at about the same angles as the best TN screens.

        If you are going to compare IPS to VA to TN, you have to do it fairly; A $500 TN should be compared to a $500 VA and a $500 IPS screen. At these prices, there’s just no contrast. The TN will have the lowest response times, but the gamut and the viewing angles will suck, and the accuracy will be way off to the human eye because gamma shifts significantly even at viewing angle differences as low as 10°. It may not matter to a gamer, but it’s an obvious deterioration of the image quality [i<]long[/i<] before you get to the "inverting dark colours" problem of TN's when viewed from below perperdicular. Even the best TN will be less than half the contrast ratio of an average VA screen and as far as I'm aware they're all 6-bit panels rather than 8-bit panels. As if that wasn't bad enough, the best TN panels have a deltaE value of ~3 when a decent IPS or VA can get below 2 easily and more commonly down to ~1 when calibrated. You really really do give up a lot of image quality with TN, and those that say otherwise are simply in denial of facts. Remember when quoting figures from a review that says otherwise that they are measuring those figures with a colorimiter that is directly attached to the screen for a viewing angle of zero (from perpendicular). With TN, even if it's a small screen and you sit at arms reach, the viewing angle deviation from top to bottom will be 15-20° and the horizontal may be closer to 30°. The panel technology just cannot provide constant gamma, contrast, colour or stable black levels across even those narrow angles. It's a trade-off for response times at the cost of EVERYTHING else 🙁

    • Voldenuit
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]Speaking of ULMB, it's only supported at up to 120 Hz in either 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 resolutions. That's a common limitation for that feature, though.[/quote<] Weird. I'm pretty sure my OG ROG Swift can do ULMB at 144Hz x 1440p. I keep mine at 120 Hz for versatility in gaming and watching movies, though.

    • SlappedSilly
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]Speaking of ULMB, it's only supported at up to 120 Hz[/quote<] Unfortunately this is the reason I haven't purchased any of the other 240 Hz displays.

      • Firestarter
      • 3 years ago

      yeah, ULMB is a lot more beneficial for competitive play than an even higher refresh rate without strobing

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        However, it’s equally unforgiving. My experience with ULMB is that you absolutely MUST hit every frame with V-Sync on.

        Running a game at 120fps constantly is demanding on the GPU. Running a game at 60-240Hz with G-Sync (or even just plain vsync) is a piece of cake, and the quantisation at 240 is great because it’ll handle 80Hz which still feels smooth, unlike the rather jarring drop from 120Hz to 60Hz which is very obvious when you see it happening.

          • Firestarter
          • 3 years ago

          definitely, the extra clarity cuts both ways. Unless your PC is easily capable of sustaining the target refresh rate, it’s not worth it. From what I hear that’s one of the reasons many people who use ULMB modes often use 100Hz instead of 120 or 144Hz

      • Kretschmer
      • 3 years ago

      Pleasing ULMB requires perfect frame delivery at a given refresh rate, so it makes sense that no one is prioritizing 200+Hz ULMB. It’s almost certainly a difficult challenge, and the market for people who want to play at 240FPS is…a fringe of CSGO and Overwatch players?

        • mdrejhon
        • 3 years ago

        Actually, 200+Hz ULMB isn’t very easy to do, because of strobe crosstalk problems:.

        There’s a big explanation about double-images during ULMB/Blur Reduction (strobe crosstalk) here — [url<]http://www.blurbusters.com/strobe-crosstalk[/url<] .... As a rule of thumb, the higher the Hz, the worse the double-image effect during blur reduction becomes -- due to LCD GtG response limits. However, BenQ XL2540 and XL2546 lets you enable Blur Reduction up to 240Hz. That said, for every 1Hz higher, the worse the strobe crosstalk becomes. It also has slightly less input lag than ULMB because of this ability, and also the ability to adjust strobe timing phase in a crosstalk/clarity tradeoff.

    • Waco
    • 3 years ago

    Wow. I can’t imagine running an interposer to scale to 1080p on a 1440p panel is what people actually want, is it?

    Besides the ugliness of a non-integer scale factor…don’t all scalers add some level of delay from input -> display? Isn’t that exactly what a 240 Hz display is intended to combat?

      • RAGEPRO
      • 3 years ago

      Most monitor scalers do, for no real reason. You can instead have the graphics card’s output hardware do it on all GeForces and Radeons by enabling GPU scaling. That in theory shouldn’t add any additional latency, although it still looks ugly.

        • tay
        • 3 years ago

        Yeah even if you’re doing 720->1440 ideal scaling, some scalers add filtering after scaling. So it’s a bit of a crapshoot. I wish this was all configurable.

        • Waco
        • 3 years ago

        That’s also fairly hit and miss in my experience. Getting my Nvidia drivers to actually output everything scaled to 4K (to preserve color settings, my monitor has settings for EVERY input resolution and refresh rate) was a huge pain in the butt. It still reverts to 1080p/60 from 4K/60 randomly when firing up a game; I have to go revert the setting and reapply “always scale on GPU” whenever it does that.

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          That’s the terrible Nvidia drivers for you. I’m suffering the same issue on my HTPC and it has persisted through three monitors (a G-Sync screen and two HDTVs) and two different Nvidia cards.

          AMD all the way when it comes to drivers not sucking. I can’t believe the tables have turned quite so dramatically but I really can’t trust Nvidia drivers to stay put any more; They’re constantly removing my preferences and screwing up calibration, resolution, scaling, custom res/frequency settings and more – and that’s just if they’re not screwing up in games too! My Radeons may not be quite as fast or power efficient, but they just keep on trucking with the added bonus of an excellent tuning and monitoring utility right there in the drivers.

        • cygnus1
        • 3 years ago

        I don’t think that will work in this case. When the GPU does the scaling, isn’t the signal going to the monitor still the native resolution, just upscaled or downscaled from whatever resolution you’re actually setting the GPU to render? Wouldn’t that be the only way to fill the screen with a lower resolution and avoid the panel’s scaler?

        For this resolution/refresh rate trade off, I’m betting they’re banking on the equal-ish connection bandwidth/bitrate requirement of 1080p @ 240Hz vs 1440p @ 144hz. I would imagine if you use GPU scaling, you’ll still be limited to 144Hz.

          • Waco
          • 3 years ago

          Yep, you’d be limited to the native panel refresh rate.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 3 years ago

      It does seem odd that they didn’t opt for a 3840×2160 panel and nearest neighbour scaler.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This