MSI Optix MAG24C gaming monitor offers a lot of color for a little cash

Gaming monitors are a well-defined category. They have high refresh rates, usually some form of variable refresh rate technology, and oftentimes an edgy industrial design. Those criteria do ignore some of the critical qualities that define a display, and as a result things like color saturation and contrast are all too often sub-par on gaming monitors—or at least on models that don't cost four figures. Fortunately, we have the fine folks at MSI to rescue us from this washed-out monitor wasteland with the Optix MAG24C.

First, the basics. The MAG24C is a 24" monitor with a resolution of 1920×1080 and with a tight 1800R curvature. The display refreshes at up to 144 Hz, and it supports VESA Adaptive Sync (aka FreeSync) for some unspecified range below that. Dual-link DVI, HDMI 1.4, and DisplayPort 1.2 inputs comprise the connections on offer.

The fancy part about the MAG24C is that it uses a VA panel with a 3000:1 static contrast ratio. The panel is a true 8-bit-per-color display, and MSI says that it can reproduce 110% of the sRGB space. MSI also rates the display for 178° viewing angles all the way around, and maximum brightness should hit 250 cd/m².

Even more interestingly, MSI gives the panel's response time as "1ms (MPRT)." That specification implies that these displays support motion blur reduction, though that feature isn't listed on MSI's product page. The MPRT term has only appeared one other time that we've seen, and that's on Samsung's gaming monitors.

In fact, this display has extremely similar specifications all the way around when compared to Samsung's CFG70 series. The MSI model lacks those displays' quantum-dot backlights, so its color gamut isn't quite as wide. However, it's possible that MSI's monitors are based on the same panels as Samsung's. If that's the case, I can personally vouch for their amazing color and clear motion.

 If you'd like to find out for yourself, you can already order an Optix MAG24C from Newegg for just $250 before a $10 mail-in rebate.

Comments closed
    • Kretschmer
    • 2 years ago

    Curved at 34″ is questionable.
    Curved at 24″ is stupid.

    • cegras
    • 2 years ago

    1) Curved, no thanks

    2) Didn’t someone in the TR forums document their saga with the samsung VA panels? Purple overshoot, a line of red pixels, backlight bleed ..

      • RAGEPRO
      • 2 years ago

      Yeah, [url=https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=119717<]it was me[/url<]. The author of this newspost. Haha. 🙂 Don't get me wrong, that whole ordeal was incredibly frustrating and a huge waste of time, but while it worked that was the best monitor I've ever used bar none. And I've used some friggin' nice monitors. Hopefully the MSIs won't have the issues that the Samsungs did. And what do y'all have against curved monitors? Sitting in front of it you'll never notice it. It is a total non-quality. I've used curved displays from 24" to ~55" (don't know exactly how big it was, bigger than 50") and it has never been a thing I've even thought about. Right now I'm rocking an [url=https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-STRIX-XG27VQ/<]ASUS ROG Strix XG27VQ[/url<] and it's impossible to tell that it's curved sitting on front of it. You might ask, "then why even make it curved?" Yeah, alright. But why complain about it when it is? That's like complaining about the RGB LEDs on your motherboard. It's inside a case, you'll never notice it. Fuhgeddaboutit.

        • cegras
        • 2 years ago

        I’m worried I will notice – but you’re right, I should try it before I pan it. I’ve read that such a tight curvature on a small monitor distorts straight lines, which would drive me nuts.

        It seems that the samsung 24″ is having a lot of quality control issues, otherwise the price seems too good to be true.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        Users whose curved displays pull double duty as desk monitors and televisions at a range will notice the distortion when sitting back.

        Any sort of work that requires precise geometry will be more frustrating.

    • gerryg
    • 2 years ago

    But does it support FreeSync 2 LFC?

      • Shobai
      • 2 years ago

      I’m out of the loop – how does FreeSync 2’s LFC differ from FreeSync’s LFC?

        • DoomGuy64
        • 2 years ago

        I think it’s mostly new tech like HDR support, and nothing to do with supporting LFC, because LFC is done in the driver.

          • jihadjoe
          • 2 years ago

          LFC is done in the driver, but has specific requirements for the hardware in order to be able to function. IIRC the maximum refresh rate has to be at least 2.5x the minimum refresh rate, otherwise the newer Crimson driver isn’t able to work its magic and you’re stuck with a choice between judder or tearing if the framerate drops below the minimum refresh rate.

        • LostCat
        • 2 years ago

        It’s the same thing, just required in FS2 instead of optional.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      Isn’t that a truism? I thought LFC was Mandatory for Freesync 2?

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 2 years ago

    I used to not mind the whole everything is 1080p thing before variable refresh rates. Now that monitors can dip below 60Hz I’m a little annoyed at just how many of them continue to be released as “gaming” monitors.

      • Demetri
      • 2 years ago

      It’s 144hz and probably has a motion blur reducing backlight; to me those are much more important gaming features than 1440P or 4K. 1080P means you can drive that high refresh rate without needing a monster graphics card. Even as someone with a Freesync monitor, I still think sub-60fps sucks. Adaptive sync certainly helps, but there’s no replacement for high FPS.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        I was driving 1440P on a 290X no problem, and today’s 1060-class cards should be able to do the same.

          • Demetri
          • 2 years ago

          At what framerate though? Even a 1080 Ti can’t do 144 @ 1440P in a lot of new games on ultra.

          [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/star_wars_battlefront_ii_2017_pc_graphics_analysis_benchmark_review,5.html[/url<]

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      It’s 24″, 1920×1080 is common because that’s the resolution that closest to the 96dpi stuff is designed for.

      Hopefully we’ll go straight to 3840×2160 and 2x scaling, I hate the way you can only get 1920×1080 on laptops these days and have to use blurry 1.25x scaling.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This