AOC’s Q3279VWF offers an affordable route to 2560×1440 gaming

While "4K" is sure to be the buzzword of the season, the fact remains that most gamers still play at 1920×1080 and probably don't have the available scratch for the type of hardware needed for silky-smooth gameplay at 3840×2160. The jump to 4K is a big one, and AOC's 31.5" Q3279VWF is designed for gamers that want to pause at an intermediate step between console-plebian 1920×1080 and full-bore 4K. AOC's latest consonant-soup-monikered display couples a reasonably-high resolution of 2560×1440 with FreeSync adaptive-refresh-rate technology.

The Q3279VWF's MVA panel has a maximum refresh rate of 75 Hz at its native resolution and a 5-ms respose time. AOC lists the contrast ratio at 3000:1 and maximum brightness at 250 cd/m², and says that users will get a clear picture when positioned within a 178° arc of the screen. The company didn't provide details about the FreeSync implementation, so we don't know if the display offers the coveted Low Framerate Compensation feature.

Buyers will be able to connect just about anything to the Q3279VWF thanks to its DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI, and VGA inputs. The monitor has a pair of integrated speakers but no built-in USB hub or headphone hanger like a lot of AOC's gamer-focused displays. The included stand offers pivot and tilt adjustments.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of AOC's Q3279VWF is the price, which Windows Central says will be 249€ (about $240 without VAT) when the display goes on sale next month. The company also mentioned that the I1601FWUX 15.6" USB-C portable display that it showed off back in January is now available for sale on Amazon for $190.

Comments closed
    • Jigar
    • 2 years ago

    Get this thing to 42″ and i’ll buy it in a heartbeat. My current Panasonic 42 LED TV is doing great @120HZ, but i am miss higher resolution.

    • jdevers
    • 2 years ago

    Their website has the size listed wrong, twice. I don’t know what the actual size is but it is physically impossible for a 31.5” 16:9 display to only be 468.4 mm (about 18.4 inches) wide.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      My 31½” diagonal 16:9 display is about 28-3/8″ wide, including the bezel.

    • DPete27
    • 2 years ago

    [quote=”Source”<]The panel is 60Hz, whilst Adaptive-Sync is supported and hence so is AMD FreeSync (48 – 75Hz variable refresh rate range).[/quote<]

    • strangerguy
    • 2 years ago

    These new monitors are getting too huge/wide/curvy, I wouldn’t be complaining except the vendors don’t give us real choices when none of the new bells and whistles seem to make it down to their smaller flat brethen.

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      30-32″ is a great size range when you are leaving 1080p behind. The level of detail will make you forget you ever used a 24″ junko monitor. Using a 24″ or less monitor to run 2k or 4k is just a waste of the higher resolution.

    • moose17145
    • 2 years ago

    Not bad… but that Nixeus monitor is still at the top of my list for “most desirable FreeSync monitor” that is currently on the market.

    And I remember when 1600×1200 was the holy grail resolution that murdered all graphics cards… ah those were the days…

      • morphine
      • 2 years ago

      I’m too old for this shit.

      — Detective Murtaugh

      • UberGerbil
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]And I remember when 1600x1200 was the holy grail resolution that murdered all graphics cards... ah those were the days...[/quote<]Indeed. My first Pentium (90MHz, with the FDIV bug) was mated with a Matrox Millennium that had 1600x1200 as its max resolution, and I paired that with a [i<]massive[/i<] MultiSync 20" CRT that could (just barely) handle it. That thing was a beast (I dreaded moving that CRT, and I dread thinking about what it all cost in 1994 dollars) but boy did it elicit some nerdenvy among my friends and coworkers. Of course, I can also remember thinking [i<]If I could just have 1024x768 at 24bit, that would be enough[/i<] at a time when that was only available on exotic hardware -- PCs offered that res with a lower bit depth or true color at a lower res. I shake my head thinking about all the time I spent on the Apple ][ with its 280x192 (effective 140x192) "hi res graphics" .... which would be a decent icon now.

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      I remember using a 17″ monitor at that resolution. By then I already saw a 22″ monitor running 2048×1536 and it made me feel sad. Those 22″ CRTs were all heavy as shit too.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Holy Moly; AMVA, 75Hz, Freesync, WQHD? That would normally carry a $400+ price tag.

    It is taking all my willpower to resist replacing my 60Hz non-Freesync WQHD monitor right now….

      • cegras
      • 2 years ago

      Agreed, this monitor sounds great. I’ve been holding out for a flat VA panel for the black levels.

      • kmm
      • 2 years ago

      The HP Omen 32 (AMVA, 75 Hz, FreeSync, WQHD) has gone under $300 many times. But yes, good price here.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      It would be a real winner if it included LFC instead of just a 48-75 Hz FreeSync range.

        • mcarson09
        • 2 years ago

        It’s lacking is contrast ratio soo bad that 2006 is calling you up trying to sell a monitor.

    • End User
    • 2 years ago

    I game on a 2560×1440 G-SYNC using a GTX 1080. There is no way I would game at 4K at this point. Maybe 4K with a single Volta based card. Or not. 2560×1440 is really great for gaming.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      4K is delicious if you can find a game that really benefits from the extra resolution and have the 1080Ti card(s) to hit decent framerates.

      My experience with 4K gaming was met with disappointment because art assets in games – both texture resolution and geometry detail aren’t usually good enough to make 4K worth it. The only time it really looks very different is when you’re focusing on a very far away object at game settings which permit a high LOD still. I’d wager that most games are LOD-balanced at 1080p with 4x AA, so running 4K typically results in making the distant-object LOD drop more obvious.

      • Spunjji
      • 2 years ago

      I must be the only person in the world who found ways to game at 4K on a GTX 970. Drop a few details and, in the right games, it still looks better than 2560×1440 with higher settings. Granted this is not suitable for twitch FPS games.

        • End User
        • 2 years ago

        Dropping details makes 4K look better than 2560×1440 on ultra? I’d have to see it to believe it.

        On top of that there is FPS to consider:

        [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/destiny_2_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,5.html[/url<] [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1080_review,13.html[/url<] On top of that there is tearing to consider (unless you are using a 4K G-SYNC display).

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 2 years ago

        People aren’t talking about playing 10 year old games. People generally don’t buy 4k displays to then use with old, anemic hardware. There is no way you are getting decent frames on modern AAA games with a GTX 970. The GPU is very slow.

        You are the only one in the world who doesn’t get it, that’s all.

        Hope I could help

        • mcarson09
        • 2 years ago

        You sound like the perfect candidate for a console.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This