Twitter: Stay up to date: @TFTCentral |    Forum: Discuss this review  | RSS Feed: Review Alerts


Introduction

We talked in our High Refresh Rate Panels and Displays roadmap article about all the developments in the market for pushing refresh rate up, from all the main panel technologies. There has been a steady stream of screens released since that was published first in September 2016. In the 34 - 35" large ultra-wide space there have been two real options up until now. Consumers can opt for a 2560 x 1080 resolution panel, live with the relatively low resolution, but have native refresh rates of 144Hz and some overclocked even up to 200Hz. Those are available in IPS and VA technologies and can support these high refresh rates over existing DisplayPort 1.2 connections because they stick with the lower resolution. The other option are screens with an increased 3440 x 1440 resolution. Due to bandwidth limitations and restrictions of current DP 1.2 standards, those have so far been limited to a maximum of 100Hz. In fact initially there were only really 60Hz options with IPS panels, that could be overclocked to 100Hz (very successfully we might add). Panel manufacturers started to work on panels with a native 100Hz refresh rate, and our article talks about options from AU Optronics and Samsung in the VA technology space. We have with us now one of the first screens to use AU Optronics' 35" AMVA panel with 3440 x 1440 resolution and a native 100Hz. It's the AG352UCG and is part of AOC's AGON gaming screen line-up. It offers many other gaming features, including NVIDIA G-sync. It will be interesting to see how this new panel performs, whether it can live up to the 100Hz refresh rate properly and whether it provides a decent gaming experience in this ultra-wide market.

If you appreciate the review and enjoy reading and like our work, we would welcome a donation to the site to help us continue to make quality and detailed reviews for you.



Specifications and Features

The following table gives detailed information about the specs of the screen:

Monitor Specifications

Size

35"WS

Panel Coating

Light AG coating

Aspect Ratio

21:9 curved (2000R)

Interfaces

1x DisplayPort (version 1.2a), 1x HDMI 1.4b

Resolution

3440 x 1440

Pixel Pitch

0.2384 mm

Design colour

Glossy black plastic bezel with silver metal stand

Response Time

4ms G2G

Ergonomics

Tilt, 120mm height, swivel

Static Contrast Ratio

2000:1

Dynamic Contrast Ratio

n/a

VESA Compatible

Yes 100mm

Brightness

300 cd/m2

Accessories

Power cable and brick, DisplayPort, HDMI and USB cables

Viewing Angles

178 / 178

Panel Technology

AU Optronics AMVA

Weight

with stand: 11.8 Kg

Backlight Technology

W-LED

Physical Dimensions

(WxHxD)
847 x 584x 266.45 mm

Colour Depth

16.7m (8-bit)

Refresh Rate

100Hz
G-sync range 30 - 100Hz

Special Features

2x USB 3.0 ports (1 with charging), headphone and mic connections, 2x 2W speakers, LED lighting system

Colour Gamut

Standard gamut
sRGB, ~72% NTSC

The AG352UCG offers a modest range of connectivity options with DisplayPort 1.2a and HDMI 1.4b connections offered, limited in choice by the use of NVIDIA G-sync. DisplayPort is needed to support G-sync and the refresh rate up to 100Hz. The digital interfaces are HDCP certified for encrypted content and the video cables are provided in the box for both connections.

The screen has an external power supply and comes packaged with the power cable and power brick you need. There are also 2x USB 3.0 ports located on the back of the screen with the video connections with one have charging capabilities as well. A headphone jack and 2x mic connections are also provided along with 2x 2W integrated speakers.

Below is a summary of the features and connections of the screen:

Feature

Yes / No

Feature

Yes / No

Tilt adjust

DVI

Height adjust

HDMI

Swivel adjust

D-sub

Rotate adjust

DisplayPort

VESA compliant

Component

USB 2.0 Ports

Audio connection

USB 3.0 Ports

HDCP Support

Card Reader

MHL Support

Ambient Light Sensor

Integrated Speakers

Human Motion Sensor

PiP / PbP

Touch Screen

Blur Reduction Mode

Factory calibration

G-Sync

Hardware calibration

FreeSync

Uniformity correction

Wireless charging



Design and Ergonomics

  
Above: front views of the screen and stand. Click for larger versions

The AG352UCG comes in a black and silver design. The bezel around the panel is a glossy black plastic and is of moderate thickness. The bezel and small black inner panel border measure a total thickness of ~18mm along the sides and top edge of the screen. Along the bottom it tapers a little towards the sides, but in the middle of the lower bezel it reaches up to ~30mm thickness. There is a subtle grey 'AG352UCG' label in the top right hand corner, and a more obvious dark red "AGON" logo in the middle of the lower bezel. Given the glossy plastics on the front of the screen you may pick up some reflections depending on your viewing position and lighting, and some unwanted finger prints.


Above: front views of the screen. Click for larger versions

The stand is a matte silver aluminium design which is strong and sturdy. That's good, as the screen itself is very heavy given the size. It has a 3 pronged design and is about 266mm deep. So you need to have a fairly deep desk for it to sit a comfortable distance from you, without falling off the back. The stand provides a stable and sturdy base for the screen and there is no wobble at all during normal use.

 
Above: rear views of the screen. Click for larger versions

The back of the screen is enclosed in a matte black plastic primarily, with a central silver plastic "wing" section as shown above. The silver section contains 4 LED light strips which can be switched on via the OSD menu. These can be set to red, blue or green along with a light strip which is along the bottom edge of the display as well. The rear lights may not be relevant to some people, but if you are at a gaming event or can see the back of your screen they do look pretty nice. There is a flip-down headphone holder clip on the left hand side (when viewed from the back).


Above: side view. Click for larger version

The screen has a fairly deep footprint due to the design of the stand and also the curved nature of the panel itself.


Above: full tilt range shown. Click for larger versions

There is a decent set of ergonomic adjustments offered from this screen, with only rotation being left off. That would be impractical on a screen this size and with a curved format anyway so it's not missed. Tilt is smooth and fairly easy to move, offering a very good range of adjustments as shown above. Height adjustment is smooth and again fairly easy to reposition, and at the lowest setting the bottom edge is ~90mm from the top of the desk and at maximum extension is it ~200mm. This gives a 110mm adjustment range, slightly lower than the specified 120mm but still decent. Side to side swivel is a little stiffer to operate but again offers smooth movements.

A summary of the ergonomic adjustments are shown below:

Function

Range

Smoothness

Ease of Use

Tilt

Yes

Smooth

Fairly easy

Height

120mm

Smooth

Fairly easy

Swivel

Yes

Smooth

Moderate stiff

Rotate

No

-

-

Overall

Good range of adjustments and smooth movements, mostly easy to use. No wobble

The materials were of a good standard and the build quality felt very good as well. There was no audible noise from the screen, even when conducting specific tests which can often identify buzzing issues. The whole screen remained cool even during prolonged use as well which was pleasing.


Above: connection options on the back of the screen. Click for larger versions

The back of the screen features the connections. In the middle area (top picture) are the DisplayPort, HDMI, mic and power connections. The provided power brick is pretty big by the way. Slightly to the side are the mic (another one), headphone and 2x USB 3.0 connections. One of those features charging capability. The port on the far right of the bottom picture is not in use.

 


OSD Menu


Above: OSD control joystick on the bottom edge of the screen in the middle. Click for larger version

The OSD menu is controlled through a single joystick control located on the bottom edge of the screen in the middle. It also acts as a pressable power button which can get a bit annoying, as you often end up pressing it in to select an option from the menu, only to end up turning the screen off. You need to get the hang of using the joystick to select and deselect options as it's not that intuitive. Pressing the joystick towards you brings up a quick access to the volume control, and pressing it left switches between HDMI and DisplayPort input. Again that can be a little annoying as you sometimes switch between inputs when you maybe didn't want to. Pressing right brings up the main OSD menu.

The menu is split in to 4 sections shown down the right hand side. The first 'luminance' section contains options shown above including the preset modes, gamma settings, and overdrive control.

The second 'color setup' menu allows you to control the colour temp preset modes, including the user mode where you can adjust the RGB values yourself for calibration.

The other two sections are pretty self-explanatory from the images above. There are the controls for the LED light system which glows on the bottom edge and back of the screen in here.

Overall there was a reasonable range of options available and the software was responsive. It wasn't very intuitive, maybe because pressing the joystick in always switches the screen off, when it feels like instead that should be what selects a setting for you.
 


Power Consumption

In terms of power consumption the manufacturer lists typical 'on' usage of 70W and 0.5W in standby. We carried out our normal tests to establish its power consumption ourselves.

State and Brightness Setting

Manufacturer Spec (W)

Measured Power Usage (W)

Default (90%)

70.0

66.6

Calibrated (23%)

-

36.9

Maximum Brightness (100%)

-

66.6

Minimum Brightness (0%)

-

28.3

Standby

0.5

0.5

We tested this ourselves and found that out of the box the screen used 66.6W at the default 90% brightness setting. Once calibrated the screen reached 36.9W consumption, and in standby it used only 0.5W. We have plotted these results below compared with other screens we have tested. The consumption is comparable to the other large ultra-wide screens we have tested as you might expect, with some of the smaller screens drawing less power (comparing the calibrated states).



Panel and Backlighting

Panel Manufacturer

AU Optronics

Colour Palette

16.7 million

Panel Technology

AMVA (VA-type)

Colour Depth

8-bit

Panel Module

M350QVR01.0

Colour space

Standard gamut

Backlighting Type

W-LED

Colour space coverage (%)

sRGB, ~72% NTSC

Panel Part and Colour Depth

The AOC AGON AG352UCG features an AU Optronics M350QVR01.0 AMVA technology panel which is capable of producing 16.7 million colours. This is achieved through an 8-bit colour depth. The panel part is confirmed when dismantling the screen as shown below:

Screen Coating

The screen coating is a light anti-glare (AG). Thankfully it isn't a heavily grainy coating like some old IPS-type panels and is also lighter than TN Film coatings. It retains its anti-glare properties to avoid too many unwanted reflections of a full glossy coating, but does not produce an too grainy or dirty an image that some thicker AG coatings can.


Backlight Type and Colour Gamut

The screen uses a White-LED (W-LED) backlight unit which is standard in today's market. This helps reduce power consumption compared with older CCFL backlight units and brings about some environmental benefits as well. The W-LED unit offers a standard colour gamut which is approximately equal to the sRGB colour space. Anyone wanting to work with wider colour spaces would need to consider wide gamut backlight screens or those which feature technologies such as Quantum Dot for extending the colour space. If you want to read more about colour spaces and gamut then please have a read of our detailed article.


Backlight Dimming and Flicker

We tested the screen to establish the methods used to control backlight dimming. Our in depth article talks in more details about a common method used for this which is called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM). This in itself gives cause for concern to some users who have experienced eye strain, headaches and other symptoms as a result of the flickering backlight caused by this technology. We use a photosensor + oscilloscope system to measure backlight dimming control with a high level of accuracy and ease. These tests allow us to establish

1) Whether PWM is being used to control the backlight
2) The frequency and other characteristics at which this operates, if it is used
3) Whether a flicker may be introduced or potentially noticeable at certain settings

If PWM is used for backlight dimming, the higher the frequency, the less likely you are to see artefacts and flicker. The duty cycle (the time for which the backlight is on) is also important and the shorter the duty cycle, the more potential there is that you may see flicker. The other factor which can influence flicker is the amplitude of the PWM, measuring the difference in brightness output between the 'on' and 'off' states. Please remember that not every user would notice a flicker from a backlight using PWM, but it is something to be wary of. It is also a hard thing to quantify as it is very subjective when talking about whether a user may or may not experience the side effects.


100%                                                                      50%                                                                     0%


Above scale = 1 horizontal grid = 5ms

At 100% brightness a constant voltage is applied to the backlight. As you reduce the brightness setting to dim the backlight a Direct Current (DC) method is used, as opposed to any form of PWM. This applies to all brightness settings from 100% down to 0%. The screen is flicker free as a result as advertised, which is great news.

Pulse Width Modulation Used

No

Cycling Frequency

n/a

Possible Flicker at

 

100% Brightness

No

50% Brightness

No

0% Brightness

No

 


Contrast Stability and Brightness

We wanted to see how much variance there was in the screens contrast as we adjusted the monitor setting for brightness. In theory, brightness and contrast are two independent parameters, and good contrast is a requirement regardless of the brightness adjustment. Unfortunately, such is not always the case in practice. We recorded the screens luminance and black depth at various OSD brightness settings, and calculated the contrast ratio from there. Graphics card settings were left at default with no ICC profile or calibration active. Tests were made using an X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter. It should be noted that we used the BasICColor calibration software here to record these, and so luminance at default settings may vary a little from the LaCie Blue Eye Pro report.

OSD Brightness

Luminance
(cd/m2)

Black Point (cd/m2)

Contrast Ratio
( x:1)

100

343.31

0.17

2019

90

319.16

0.16

1995

80

294.33

0.14

2102

70

268.10

0.13

2062

60

239.94

0.12

2000

50

210.52

0.10

2105

40

179.30

0.09

1992

30

145.47

0.07

2078

20

109.99

0.05

2200

10

71.85

0.04

1798

0

31.09

<0.02

--

 

Total Luminance Adjustment Range (cd/m2)

312.22

Brightness OSD setting controls backlight?

Total Black Point Adjustment Range (cd/m2)

>0.15

Average Static Contrast Ratio

2035:1

PWM Free? 

Recommended OSD setting for 120 cd/m2

23

The brightness control gave us a very good range of adjustment. At the top end the maximum luminance reached 343 cd/m2 which was a little higher than the specified maximum brightness of 300 cd/m2 from the manufacturer. There was a very good 312 cd/m2 adjustment range in total, and so at the minimum setting you could reach down to a low luminance of 31 cd/m2. This should be adequate for those wanting to work in darkened room conditions with low ambient light. A setting of 23 in the OSD menu should return you a luminance of around 120 cd/m2 at default settings in this preset mode. It should be noted that the brightness regulation is controlled without the need for Pulse Width Modulation, using a Direct Current (DC) method for all brightness settings between 100 and 0% and so the screen is flicker free.

We have plotted the luminance trend on the graph above. The screen behaves as it should in this regard, with a reduction in the luminance output of the screen controlled by the reduction in the OSD brightness setting. This is pretty much a linear relationship as you can see.

The average contrast ratio of the screen was excellent thanks to the VA technology panel, measured at 2035:1. We have not provided our usual contrast stability graph as rounding errors come in to play too much at such high static contrasts.



Testing Methodology

An important thing to consider for most users is how a screen will perform out of the box and with some basic manual adjustments. Since most users won't have access to hardware colorimeter tools, it is important to understand how the screen is going to perform in terms of colour accuracy for the average user.

We restored our graphics card to default settings and disabled any previously active ICC profiles and gamma corrections. The screen was tested at default factory settings using our new X-rite i1 Pro 2 Spectrophotometer combined with LaCie's Blue Eye Pro software suite. An X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter was also used to verify the black point and contrast ratio since the i1 Pro 2 spectrophotometer is less reliable at the darker end.

Targets for these tests are as follows:

  • CIE Diagram - validates the colour space covered by the monitors backlighting in a 2D view, with the black triangle representing the displays gamut, and other reference colour spaces shown for comparison

  • Gamma - we aim for 2.2 which is the default for computer monitors

  • Colour temperature / white point - we aim for 6500k which is the temperature of daylight

  • Luminance - we aim for 120 cd/m2, which is the recommended luminance for LCD monitors in normal lighting conditions

  • Black depth - we aim for as low as possible to maximise shadow detail and to offer us the best contrast ratio

  • Contrast ratio - we aim for as high as possible. Any dynamic contrast ratio controls are turned off here if present

  • dE average / maximum - as low as possible. If DeltaE >3, the color displayed is significantly different from the theoretical one, meaning that the difference will be perceptible to the viewer. If DeltaE <2, LaCie considers the calibration a success; there remains a slight difference, but it is barely undetectable. If DeltaE < 1, the color fidelity is excellent.



Default Performance and Setup

Default settings of the screen were as follows:

Monitor OSD Option

Default Settings

Game mode

Off

Brightness

90

Contrast

50

Gamma

Gamma1

Color Temp

Warm

RGB

65, 65, 65 (locked)


AOC AGON AG352UCG - Default Settings

   


 

Default Settings

luminance (cd/m2)

325

Black Point (cd/m2)

0.15

Contrast Ratio

2117:1

Initially out of the box the screen was set with a high 90% brightness and so was overly bright and uncomfortable to use, so you will definitely need to turn that down. You could tell the screen was using a standard gamut backlight as well with the naked eye, and the colour balance and temperature felt pretty good, although a little too warm.

We went ahead and measured the default state with the i1 Pro 2. The CIE diagram on the left of the image confirms that the monitors colour gamut (black triangle) is fairly equal to the sRGB colour space. There is some modest over-coverage in most shades but not by anything too significant. Default gamma was recorded at 2.3 average, leaving it with a minor 6% deviance from the target which was pretty good. We also measured the other gamma modes in the OSD menu and found that gamma2 returned a slightly better gamma at 2.1 average (4% deviance). Gamma3 was 2.5 average with a 15% deviance. White point was measured at a slightly warm 5982k, being 8% out from the 6500k we'd ideally want for desktop use. We tested the other colour temperature modes with normal = 6905k, cool = 9136k, sRGB = 6013k and user = 5960k. The warm default mode is probably as good as any, although some basic OSD adjustments in the user mode can probably correct the white point quite easily. We will provide some recommended OSD settings in a moment for you to try.

Luminance was recorded at a very bright 325 cd/m2 which is too high for prolonged general use. The screen was set at a default 90% brightness in the OSD menu but that is easy to change of course to reach a more comfortable setting without impacting any other aspect of the setup. The black depth was 0.15 cd/m2 at this default brightness setting, giving us an excellent static contrast ratio of 2117:1 thanks to the VA panel. Colour accuracy was very good out of the box with an average dE of 1.9. Testing the screen with colour gradients showed a few issues. Most shades showed smooth transitions although there was some moderate banding visible in the darker shades. If you look very closely, you can see some noise as well which is most noticeable in the very dark shades. It's not overly obvious and shouldn't represent any real issue in day to day use, unless you're working with a lot of dark content.

 


Calibration

We used the X-rite i1 Pro 2 Spectrophotometer combined with the LaCie Blue Eye Pro software package to achieve these results and reports. An X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter was used to validate the black depth and contrast ratios due to lower end limitations of the i1 Pro device.

Monitor OSD Option

Calibrated Settings

Game mode

Off

Brightness

23

Contrast

50

Gamma

Gamma2

Color Temp

User

RGB

62, 63, 68


AOC AGON AG352UCG - Calibrated Settings

  
 

 

Calibrated Settings

luminance (cd/m2)

121

Black Point (cd/m2)

0.06

Contrast Ratio

1944:1

We stuck to the 'user' color temp mode which offered us access to the RGB controls from within the menu. We adjusted the RGB channels and brightness setting as shown in the table above. Note that in the user mode, the RGB channels default from their setting of 65 each in the 'warm' preset, down to 50 each in this mode. That has the knock on effect of significantly reducing contrast ratio, down to around 1300:1. As a result, we started by bumping them back up to 65 each and then carrying out the calibration process to determine the optimal settings shown. This will help us preserve the strong ~2000:1 contrast ratio from this panel. All these OSD changes allowed us to obtain an optimal hardware starting point and setup before software level changes would be made at the graphics card level. We left the  LaCie software to calibrate to "max" brightness which would just retain the luminance of whatever brightness we'd set the screen to, and would not in any way try and alter the luminance at the graphics card level, which can reduce contrast ratio. These adjustments before profiling the screen would help preserve tonal values and limit banding issues. After this we let the software carry out the LUT adjustments and create an ICC profile.

Average gamma was now corrected to 2.2 average with a minor 1% deviance, correcting nearly all of the 6% deviance we'd seen out of the box. The white point had now been corrected to 6470k, which corrected the 8% deviance we'd seen out of the box where the screen was a little too warm. Luminance had been improved thanks to the adjustment to the brightness control and was now being measured at 121 cd/m2. This left us a black depth of 0.06 cd/m2 and maintained an excellent static contrast ratio of 1944:1. The drop compared with the out of the box contrast ratio was due to the corrections necessary to the gamma curve and white point. Colour accuracy of the resulting profile was excellent, with dE average of 0.5 and maximum of 1.0. LaCie would consider colour fidelity to be very good. Testing the screen with various colour gradients showed mostly smooth transitions. There was some moderate banding in darker tones before calibration, and this was accentuated slightly due to the adjustments to the graphics card LUT from the profiling of the screen. You can use our settings and try our calibrated ICC profile if you wish, which are available in our ICC profile database. Keep in mind that results will vary from one screen to another and from one computer / graphics card to another.



Calibration Performance Comparisons

The comparisons made in this section try to give you a better view of how each screen performs, particularly out of the box which is what is going to matter to most consumers. When comparing the default factory settings for each monitor it is important to take into account several measurement areas - gamma, white point and colour accuracy. There's no point having a low dE colour accuracy figure if the gamma curve is way off for instance. A good factory calibration requires all 3 to be well set up. We have deliberately not included luminance in this comparison since this is normally far too high by default on every screen. However, that is very easily controlled through the brightness setting (on most screens) and should not impact the other areas being measured anyway. It is easy enough to obtain a suitable luminance for your working conditions and individual preferences, but a reliable factory setup in gamma, white point and colour accuracy is important and not as easy to change accurately without a calibration tool.

From these comparisons we can also compare the calibrated colour accuracy, black depth and contrast ratio. After a calibration the gamma, white point and luminance should all be at their desired targets.

Default setup of the screen out of the box was reasonably good but not perfect. There was a moderate 6% deviance in gamma (2.3 average) and 8% deviance in white point (5982k - too warm), although colour accuracy was good with an average dE of 1.9 and strong contrast ratio of >2000:1. Some of the other ultra-wide screens we've tested have been fairly similar to be honest. The Acer Predator X34 and Asus ROG Swift PG348Q for instance were fairly similar to the AOC overall, except being IPS-based they had a much lower contrast ratio. The Acer Predator Z35 is another 35" VA technology screen and was fairly comparable overall to the AOC.

The display was very strong when it came to calibrated contrast ratio thanks to the use of a VA technology panel. At 1944:1 it was almost twice as high as the wide range of IPS and TN Film gaming panels listed here, which is not surprising as contrast is one of the key benefits of VA technology overall. It didn't reach as high as the other modern VA screens we've tested, like the 27" Acer Predator Z271 (2529:1) or the competing 35" Acer Predator Z35 (2813:1), but it was still an excellent static contrast ratio.



Viewing Angles


Above: Viewing angles shown from front and side, and  from above and below. Click for larger image

Viewing angles of the screen were a little disappointing to be honest. The image behaved more like older generation VA panels than some of the modern VA screens we've tested. From a side angle, the image became washed out and pale in appearance as you can see. The same was visible from above and below with some pink colour introduced. It reminded us of some older generation VA panels such as that used in the BenQ GW2750HM for instance although actually it was very like the Acer Predator Z35 we tested in January 2016. We had hoped for better, as we had seen improvements in VA viewing angles with some other recent models like the BenQ GW2760HS and BenQ BL3200PT for instance. So here, despite it being a brand new panel from AU Optronics, it seems viewing angles have taken a bit of a step back. Perhaps there's been less focus on this area with the push for high refresh rate support and the new 35" curved format? We felt the same when we tested the Acer Predator Z35.

The viewing angles were still a bit better than TN Film matrices, commonly used in gaming displays. There was a less pronounced contrast shift vertically here. The colour tone and gamma shifts were more noticeable of course than IPS-type panels, including the 34" Acer Predator X34 as an example. Users should also be aware that the panel exhibits the off-centre contrast shift which is inherent to the VA pixel structure. When viewing a very dark grey font for example on a black background, the font almost disappears when viewed head on, but gets lighter as you move slightly to the side. This is an extreme case of course as this is a very dark grey tone we are testing with. Lighter greys and other colours will appear a little darker from head on than they will from a side angle, but you may well find you lose some detail as a result. This can be particularly problematic in dark images and where grey tone is important. It is this issue that has led to many graphics professionals and colour enthusiasts choosing IPS panels instead, and the manufacturers have been quick to incorporate this alternative panel technology in their screens. We would like to make a point that for many people this won't be an issue at all, and many may not even notice it. Remember, many people are perfectly happy with their TN Film panels and other VA based screens. Just something to be wary of if you are affected by this issue or are doing colour critical work.


Above: View of an all black screen from the side. Click for larger version

We captured a photo of an all-black image as viewed from a side angle as shown above. This can help exhibit any glow you might see on different panel technologies. Here, on the AG352UCG the actual glow caused by the VA panel technology was quite low, with some pale areas picked up in the photo. This side-angle photo actually captures some of the uniformity issues we measured in the following section, and you can clearly see the darker and lighter areas of the screen. From a head on viewing position this is hard to see, but viewing the screen from a side angle accentuates it.



Panel Uniformity

We wanted to test here how uniform the brightness was across the screen, as well as identify any leakage from the backlight in dark lighting conditions. Measurements of the luminance were taken at 36 points across the panel on a pure white background. The measurements for luminance were taken using BasICColor's calibration software package, combined with an X-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter with a central point on the screen calibrated to 120 cd/m2. The below uniformity diagram shows the difference, as a percentage, between the measurement recorded at each point on the screen, as compared with the central reference point.

It is worth noting that panel uniformity can vary from one screen to another, and can depend on manufacturing lines, screen transport and other local factors. This is only a guide of the uniformity of the sample screen we have for review.


Uniformity of Luminance

The luminance uniformity of the screen was not great on this sample. There was a major drop in luminance towards the upper left hand region of the screen which was the most problematic. Here, the luminance dropped as low as 86 cd/m2, compared with the calibrated central point of 120 cd/m2. The upper corners seem to show the most variation from the central region. Only 53% of the screen was within a 10% deviance of the central point which was not very good. For gaming and multimedia (which are of course the intended uses), this shouldn't be too much of an issue. However, you would need to be wary of the variation if you wanted to do any colour critical work. We'd seen similarly quite poor uniformity from the 35" AMVA panel in the Acer Predator Z35 incidentally. Perhaps given the size, curved nature and panel structure, it is hard to provide reliable uniformity of luminance on these models.


Backlight Leakage


Above: All black screen in a darkened room. Click for larger version

We also tested the screen with an all black image and in a darkened room. A camera was used to capture the result. The camera showed there was a little backlight bleed evident, with the most noticeable areas being along the top right hand edge, and bottom right hand corner.

Note: if you want to test your own screen for backlight bleed and uniformity problems at any point you need to ensure you have suitable testing conditions. Set the monitor to a sensible day to day brightness level, preferably as close to 120 cd/m2 as you can get it (our tests are once the screen is calibrated to this luminance). Don't just take a photo at the default brightness which is almost always far too high and not a realistic usage condition. You need to take the photo from about 1.5 - 2m back to avoid capturing viewing angle characteristics, especially on IPS-type panels where off-angle glow can come in to play easily. Photos should be taken in a darkened room at a shutter speed which captures what you see reliably and doesn't over-expose the image. A shutter speed of 1/8 second will probably be suitable for this.



General and Office Applications

One of the key selling points of ultra-wide screens like the this is it's high resolution and large screen size. The 3440 x 1440 resolution offers a sharp but comfortable picture. Its pixel area is about 1.8 times larger than an Ultra-Wide Full HD 21:9 monitor (2560 x 1080), and about 2.4 times larger than a Full HD 16:9 monitor (1920 x 1080). It provides an efficient environment in using Microsoft Office programs showing 47 columns and 63 rows in excel. Thankfully the high resolution is of a very comfortable size on the 35" panel, with a 0.2384mm pixel pitch is is comparable to a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor (0.2331mm). This means you are basically getting a wider desktop to work with, with a similar font size to a 27" model, and maintaining the same vertical resolution as well. If you're coming from a lower resolution / larger pixel pitch you may still find the fonts look quite small to start with, but like the 27" 1440p models out there you soon get used to it. Side by side multi-tasking on this screen is excellent and you really do have a nice wide area to work with. We liked the curved format of the display actually for day to day office work. It just felt a bit more comfortable than a flat screen on a model as wide as this, bringing the corners a bit nearer to you. It was very nice to have this full 3440 x 1440 resolution as opposed to the 2560 x 1080 res we've seen on some other ultra-wide screens, including the Acer Predator Z35. On that model, resolution was scarified in favour of a higher refresh rate (144Hz native, 200Hz overclocked) and due to bandwidth limitations of the current DisplayPort 1.2 standards. On the AG352UCG here, the balance has been struck between a higher 3440 x 1440 res, and a native 100Hz refresh rate.

The light AG coating of the panel is welcome, and much better than the grainy and 'dirty' appearance of some older IPS panels or many TN Film panel coatings. The viewing angles of the VA panel technology were not great sadly, and a step back from some other modern VA panels we've tested in fact. You will notice fairly obvious contrast and colour tone shifts if you move your line of sight around much of view the screen from an angle. Some contrast shifts may be evident because of the very wide size of the display, as you glance towards the edges from a centrally aligned position. That's hard to avoid on such a large desktop monitor from close up. The default setup of the screen was reasonably good, and easy to tweak through the OSD to get an even better performance to correct the white point. We were pleased with the strong ~2000:1 calibrated contrast ratio as well which is certainly a strength of the VA panel. It might not be as high as some other VA panels which reach nearer to 3000:1, but it's still a lot better than any IPS or TN Film offering.

The brightness range of the screen was very good, with the ability to offer a luminance between 343 and 31 cd/m2. This should mean the screen is perfectly useable in a wide variety of ambient light conditions, including darkened rooms. A setting of ~23 in the OSD brightness control should return you a luminance close to 120 cd/m2 out of the box. On another positive note, the brightness regulation is controlled without the need for the use of the now infamous Pulse-Width Modulation (PWM), and so those who suffer from eye fatigue or headaches associated with flickering backlights need not worry. Several low blue light settings are available in the OSD menu if you want to use those as well to reduce potentially harmful blue light output. There was no audible noise or buzzing from the screen, even when specifically looking for it using test images with a large amount of text at once. The screen also remains cool even during prolonged use.

There are a few extras provided here as well including a 2x port USB 3.0 hub on the back, one with charging support as well . There is an audio output for headphone connection if you want, along with integrated speakers. There were no further extras such as ambient light sensors or card readers on this model which can be useful in office environments. There was a decent range of ergonomic adjustments available from the stand allowing you to obtain a comfortable position for a wide variety of angles of tilt, height and swivel positions possible. The VESA mounting support may also be useful to some people as well.

 

 
Responsiveness and Gaming

Quoted G2G Response Time

4ms G2G

Quoted ISO Response Time

n/a

Panel Manufacturer and Technology

AU Optronics AMVA (VA type)

Panel Part

M350QVR01.0

Overdrive Used

Yes

Overdrive Control Available to User

Overdrive

Overdrive Settings

Off, Weak, Light, Medium, Strong

The AG352UCG is rated by AOC as having a 4ms G2G response time which indicates the panel uses overdrive / response time compensation (RTC) technology to boost pixel transitions across grey to grey changes. The part being used is the AU Optronics M350QVR01.0 AMVA (VA-type) panel. Have a read about response time in our specs section if you need additional information about this measurement.

We will first test the screen using our thorough response time testing method. This uses an oscilloscope and photosensor to measure the pixel response times across a series of different transitions, in the full range from 0 (black) to 255 (white). This will give us a realistic view of how the monitor performs in real life, as opposed to being reliant only on a manufacturers spec. We can work out the response times for changing between many different shades, calculate the maximum, minimum and average grey to grey (G2G) response times, and provide an evaluation of any overshoot present on the monitor.

We use an ETC M526 oscilloscope for these measurements along with a custom photosensor device. Have a read of our response time measurement article for a full explanation of the testing methodology and reported data.
 


Overdrive Setting

The 'Overdrive' setting is available via the main 'luminance' section of the OSD menu as shown above. We will test the modes to see which is optimal first of all. For now we have taken these measurements at the maximum native 100Hz, but we will look at the implications of the refresh rate in a moment once we've established the behaviour of the response times under this setting.



We used some visual tests first of all to help us determine which the optimal overdrive setting was. You could tell that there was very little difference between the off, weak and light modes and no overshoot was evident, so we didn't bother taking detailed response time measurements in the first two 'off' and 'weak' settings. The 'light' setting returned an average G2G response time of 15.7ms and showed no overshoot at all. As is quite common for a VA panel, there are a couple of particularly troublesome transitions where the shade is changing from black to grey. They ranged up to 54.5ms in fact (0 > 50) and so skewed the average response time figure. If we ignore those couple of very slow transitions then the average would be around 10.4ms in this 'light' mode.

Switching up to the 'medium' mode brought about some positive changes in motion clarity in practice, and the measured response time had now dropped to 12.1ms G2G average. Again if we ignore the slow transitions it would be more like 7.1ms which would be very good. There was some low levels of overshoot starting to creep in, but nothing really to worry about. This 'medium' mode was an improvement over off/weak/light.

The 'strong' setting introduced some obvious and distracting overshoot in practice and the overdrive impulse was just too aggressive in this mode. Response times had been pushed down a little to 10.5ms G2G (5.8ms ignoring the couple of very slow transitions), but the overshoot was at very high levels. Stick with the 'medium' setting for optimal performance.


0-50-0 transition, overdrive = medium
scale = 20ms per horizontal grid

Above is the oscilloscope graph for the problematic 0-50 transition. You can see the extremely slow rise time here, no matter what the overdrive setting or refresh rate selected. Very slow indeed. Apart from a few problematic transitions the other response times were mostly very good, but these inconsistencies did cause some problems in practice.

The above images give you an indication of the blurring levels in each of the overdrive modes, using the PixPerAn test tool. Responsiveness improves a little as you move from off > weak > light mode. The image is sharpest and clearest in the 'medium' mode, a little hard to capture here with these tests. You can see that in the strong mode, high levels of overshoot appear in the form of dark halos and so should be avoided.
 


Refresh Rate and G-sync

The AG352UCG supports a refresh rate of up to 100Hz natively, and this is the first native high refresh rate VA panel we've tested with this high 3440 x 1440 resolution. When enabled, and from a compatible system, G-sync is also available which operates in a range between 30 and 100Hz.

Impact of Refresh Rate


We stuck to the 'medium' overdrive setting for now which we had identified as optimal in the previous section, and we wanted to test the response times at a couple of refresh rates to see if that influences the pixel transitions. It's quite common for the overdrive impulse to be dynamically controlled across different refresh rate range like this. The overshoot can also be impacted we have seen in the past.

You can see that there does seem to be some slight difference in response times when running the screen at 60Hz and at its maximum 100Hz. At 60Hz, average G2G response times were 14.3ms (8.9ms if you ignore the very slow problematic transitions). This improved a little to 12.1ms (7.1ms without slow transitions) as the refresh rate increased. It looks like the overdrive impulse is being boosted a little as the refresh rate increases, to help ensure the pixel response times are fast enough to keep up with the increased frame rate.

To keep up effectively with a 60Hz refresh rate, response times need to be consistently and reliably under 16.6ms G2G (1000ms / 60Hz = 16.67ms). To keep up with 100Hz they need to be reliably under 10ms (1000 / 100 = 10). In both cases, there are a few transitions which were just really slow. This is very common from VA panels and we've seen the same thing from another AU Optronics VA panel with a native 144Hz refresh rate too. You can see the same pattern if you look at the review of the Acer Predator Z35 which is a 35" screen featuring a 2560 x 1080 resolution VA panel from AU Optronics, with a native 144Hz refresh rate that Acer have also then overclocked to 200Hz. That was plagued by certain slow transitions when changing from black to grey, and the same can be seen here from the panel in the AOC AGON AG352UCG. This is a shame, as if you ignore those few very slow transitions, AU Optronics have actually done a decent job getting the rest of the response times down, under the required thresholds for the refresh rate and without introducing any real overshoot as well (in the medium mode at least).


Above: Pursuit Camera Tests at 60Hz and 100Hz. Overdrive = Medium

Pursuit cameras are used to capture motion blur as a user might experience it on a display. They are simply cameras which follow the on-screen motion and are extremely accurate at measuring motion blur, ghosting and overdrive artefacts of moving images. Since they simulate the eye tracking motion of moving eyes, they can be useful in giving an idea of how a moving image appears to the end user. It is the blurring caused by eye tracking on continuously-displayed refreshes (sample-and-hold) that we are keen to analyse with this new approach. This is not pixel persistence caused by response times; but a different cause of display motion blur which cannot be captured using static camera tests. Low response times do have a positive impact on motion blur, and higher refresh rates also help reduce blurring to a degree. It does not matter how low response times are, or how high refresh rates are, you will still see motion blur from LCD displays under normal operation to some extent and that is what this section is designed to measure. Further technologies specifically designed to reduce perceived motion blur are required to eliminate the blur seen on these type of sample-and-hold displays such as strobed blur reduction backlights.

We used the Blurbusters.com Ghosting Motion Test which is designed to be used with pursuit camera setups. The pursuit camera method is explained at BlurBusters as well as covered in this research paper. We carried out the tests at various refresh rates, with and without Blur Reduction enabled. These UFO objects were moving horizontally at 960 pixels per second, at a frame rate matching refresh rate of the monitor.

These tests capture the kind of blurring you would see with the naked eye when tracking moving objects across the screen. There are some improvements in motion clarity as you increase the refresh rate on this screen, with the boost of an extra 40Hz. There are some improvements from the pixel response times as we've tested above, along with improved frame rates and the way our eyes perceive refresh rate on a sample-and-hold display like this. You can see that there are some dark trails in places where the slow transitions from black > grey and causing an issue. The black lines of the red ship should be changing to the blue background colour as the UFO moves across the screen, but are problematic transitions and very slow as we measured with our oscilloscope. So dark trailing in places is an issue on this screen, regardless of the refresh rate. There is unfortunately no blur reduction backlight on this screen, as they are typically provided on screens of 120Hz and above. You will often see NVIDIA's ULMB provided where G-sync is used, but not on this model. That's a shame, as it might have been useful to help cut down on some of the remaining motion blur.



Detailed Response Time Measurements
Refresh Rate = 100Hz, Overdrive = Medium

We stuck with what was the optimal 'medium' response time setting and maximum 100Hz refresh rate. The average G2G response time was measured at 10.2ms overall, but 6.6ms if you ignore the hand full of very slow problematic transitions from black to grey. On the most part then, the transitions were fast enough to keep up with the frame rate demands, where they need to be consistently under 10ms to support the 100Hz refresh rate. However, with some being much slower, changes from black to grey shades are an issue and will introduce blurring and smearing with dark colours. The lowest response time measured was 3.3ms, reaching below the advertised 4ms G2G figure in fact.

If we evaluate the Response Time Compensation (RTC) overshoot then the results are pretty good in this mode. There were a few transitions where changing between two light shades produced some moderate levels of overshoot, but nothing too severe. Most transitions were free from overshoot and so you shouldn't see any real problems in practice.

 


Display Comparisons

The above comparison table and graph shows you the lowest, average and highest G2G response time measurement for each screen we have tested with our oscilloscope system. There is also a colour coded mark next to each screen in the table to indicate the RTC overshoot error, as the response time figure alone doesn't tell the whole story.

As a reminder, these measurements were in the optimal 'medium' overdrive mode, and with maximum 100Hz refresh rate. With an average G2G figure of 10.2ms measured, it was quite similar to the Acer Predator Z35 which is its nearest competitor (from the models we've tested). That too is a 35" VA panel with high refresh rate, albeit supporting up to 200Hz maximum but at a lower resolution than the AOC. As we've said earlier, it's the few problem transitions changing from black to grey that are the problem, and dragging the overall average down a lot. If we ignored those problem transitions, the average for the AOC would be 6.6ms G2G. That's the average we saw from the Acer Predator Z271 in fact, which is a 27" VA screen. That is using a modern Samsung VA panel though, as opposed to an AU Optronics VA panel like the Z35 model, and like this AOC screen. It seems Samsung have done a better job of tidying up those slow black transitions on their VA technology, and that they are still an issue from AUO's offerings.

Some of the IPS ultra-wide screens can offer a better performance from the response times as well. Models like the Acer Predator X34 (7.9ms G2G at 100Hz) and Asus ROG Swift PG348Q (7.8ms at 100Hz) for instance are good examples of alternative screens. Those both feature a 3440 x 1440 resolution and a 100Hz refresh rate, but offer faster overall pixel response times and a slightly better motion clarity as a result. Certainly the black transitions are not an issue like they are on the AOC or the Acer Predator Z35 VA screen. TN Film gaming screens can reach even faster of course, down to 2 - 3ms G2G with low to moderate overshoot.



Additional Gaming Features

Aspect Ratio Control - the screen does not offer any aspect ratio control options through the OSD menu at all. This is due to a limitation of using NVIDIA's G-sync technology. As we understand it, it is locked to only one defined resolution, in this case 3440 x 1440 so it is not possible (or easy) to provide G-sync support with a scaler. This isn't really a problem for PC use since you can just control the aspect ratio through your graphics card settings. Since a lot of content is in a 16:9 aspect ratio though it might prove a little problematic if you can't control the aspect ratio from your input device. From a games console for instance, it might be a problem since the screen is a native 21:9 aspect ratio.

Preset Modes - There are several specific game preset modes available from the 'luminance' menu in the OSD. There are Gamer, FPS, RTC and Racing modes to choose from. All have differing preset values for things like gamma, overdrive, shadow control. May be useful for different gaming situations.

Shadow Control - You can adjust this slider to change the black saturation levels in dark images, to help bring out detail in darker scenes. Might be useful if you play a lot of darker games.



Lag

We have written an in depth article about input lag and the various measurement techniques which are used to evaluate this aspect of a display. It's important to first of all understand the different methods available and also what this lag means to you as an end-user.

Input Lag vs. Display Lag vs. Signal Processing

To avoid confusion with different terminology we will refer to this section of our reviews as just "lag" from now on, as there are a few different aspects to consider, and different interpretations of the term "input lag". We will consider the following points here as much as possible. The overall "display lag" is the first, that being the delay between the image being shown on the TFT display and that being shown on a CRT. This is what many people will know as input lag and originally was the measure made to explain why the image is a little behind when using a CRT. The older stopwatch based methods were the common way to measure this in the past, but through advanced studies have been shown to be quite inaccurate. As a result, more advanced tools like SMTT provide a method to measure that delay between a TFT and CRT while removing the inaccuracies of older stopwatch methods.

In reality that lag / delay is caused by a combination of two things - the signal processing delay caused by the TFT electronics / scaler, and the response time of the pixels themselves. Most "input lag" measurements over the years have always been based on the overall display lag (signal processing + response time) and indeed the SMTT tool is based on this visual difference between a CRT and TFT and so measures the overall display lag. In practice the signal processing is the element which gives the feel of lag to the user, and the response time of course can impact blurring, and overall image quality in moving scenes. As people become more aware of lag as a possible issue, we are of course keen to try and understand the split between the two as much as possible to give a complete picture.

The signal processing element within that is quite hard to identify without extremely high end equipment and very complicated methods. In fact the studies by Thomas Thiemann which really kicked this whole thing off were based on equipment worth >100,1000 Euro, requiring extremely high bandwidths and very complicated methods to trigger the correct behaviour and accurately measure the signal processing on its own. Other techniques which are being used since are not conducted by Thomas (he is a freelance writer) or based on this equipment or technique, and may also be subject to other errors or inaccuracies based on our conversations with him since. It's very hard as a result to produce a technique which will measure just the signal processing on its own unfortunately. Many measurement techniques are also not explained and so it is important to try and get a picture from various sources if possible to make an informed judgement about a display overall.

For our tests we will continue to use the SMTT tool to measure the overall "display lag". From there we can use our oscilloscope system to measure the response time across a wide range of grey to grey (G2G) transitions as recorded in our response time tests. Since SMTT will not include the full response time within its measurements, after speaking with Thomas further about the situation we will subtract half of the average G2G response time from the total display lag. This should allow us to give a good estimation of how much of the overall lag is attributable to the signal processing element on its own.

 

Lag Classification


To help in this section we will also introduce a broader classification system for these results to help categorise each screen as one of the following levels:

  • Class 1) Less than 10ms / 1 frame lag at 100Hz - should be fine for gamers, even at high levels

  • Class 2) A lag of 10 - 20ms / One to two frames at 100Hz - moderate lag but should be fine for many gamers. Caution advised for serious gaming

  • Class 3) A lag of more than 20ms / more than 2 frames at 100Hz - Some noticeable lag in daily usage, not suitable for high end gaming


For the full reviews of the models compared here and the dates they were written (and when screens were approximately released to the market), please see our full reviews index.

(Measurements in ms)

 

Total Display Lag (SMTT 2)

5.63

Pixel Response Time Element

5.1

Estimated Signal Processing Lag

0.53

Lag Classification

1


 
Class 1

We have provided a comparison above against other models we have tested to give an indication between screens. The screens tested are split into two measurements which are based on our overall display lag tests (using SMTT) and half the average G2G response time, as measured by the oscilloscope. The response time is split from the overall display lag and shown on the graph as the green bar. From there, the signal processing (red bar) can be provided as a good estimation.

The screen showed a total average display lag of 5.63 ms as measured with SMTT 2. Taking into account half the average G2G response time at 5.1ms, we can estimate that there is ~0.53ms of signal processing lag on this screen which is basically non-existent and shouldn't represent any problems in gaming. This is typical for a G-sync screen where the absence of a scaler (and the presence of the G-sync module) help eliminate lag almost entirely.



Movies and Video

The following summarises the screens performance in video applications:

  • 35" screen size makes it a good option for an all-in-one multimedia screen, but being quite a bit smaller than most modern LCD TV's of course even at this massive size.

  • 21:9 aspect ratio is more well suited to videos, more so than the wide range of 16:9 format screens around, leaving smaller borders on DVD's and wide screen content at the top and bottom.

  • 3440 x 1440 resolution can support full 1080 HD resolution content

  • Digital interfaces support HDCP for any encrypted and protected content

  • Limited range of connectivity options provided with 1x DisplayPort and 1x HDMI offered

  • Cables provided in the box for DisplayPort and HDMI

  • Light AG coating providing clean and clear images, without the unwanted reflections of a glossy solution.

  • Wide brightness range adjustment possible from the display, including a maximum luminance of ~343 cd/m2 and a fairly decent minimum luminance of 41 cd/m2. This should afford you good control for different lighting conditions. Brightness regulation is controlled without the need for PWM and so is flicker free for all brightness settings.

  • Black depth and contrast ratio are excellent thanks to the VA panel at 1944:1 after calibration. Detail in darker scenes should not be lost as a result and blacks look deep.

  • There are no specific preset modes for movies or cinema on this model

  • Decent enough pixel responsiveness which should be able to handle fast moving scenes in movies without issue. Low overshoot issues which is pleasing in the medium overdrive mode, which you may want to stick to for movies. You may experience some dark trails in places due to the slow transitions from black to grey.

  • Viewing angles are a little behind what we were hoping for and there is noticeable gamma and colour tone shift as you change your viewing position. The image becomes quickly washed out so we wouldn't advise using this screen for viewing from anything other than head on really. There is at least no pale IPS-glow on dark content like you see from the majority of IPS-type panels.

  • Some slight areas of backlight leakage but nothing too major on our sample which is good. Some uniformity variations may be visible on darker movie scenes in darkened room conditions.

  • Good and easy to use tilt, height and swivel ergonomic adjustments available from the stand making it pretty easy to re-position the screen for movie viewing from a distance, or with other people.

  • 2x 2W integrated stereo speakers on this model but probably not suitable for much more than the odd YouTube clip. There is a headphone output connection if needed.

  • No hardware aspect ratio options at all so connection of external devices may be tricky since many will operate at a 16:9 aspect ratio instead of the screens 21:9. Not an issue when watching movies from a PC where the graphics card can handle the scaling, but from an external device it might be an issue.

  • Picture in picture (PiP) and Picture By Picture (PbP) are not available.
     


Conclusion

The AOC AGON AG352UCG was the first 3440 x 1440 VA panel we've tested with a native high refresh rate and overall from a gaming point of view it performed well. The high refresh rate gives you a nice boost from a normal 60Hz panel, bringing about improved frame rate support and some benefits in perceived motion clarity. The availability of NVIDIA G-sync is very welcome, as the resolution of this screen is high and you may not always be able to power it at 100Hz. Talking about the resolution, it was definitely nice to have this higher res as we feel that 2560 x 1080 is too low, especially on a screen as large as this. So we preferred the "lower" refresh rate and higher resolution balance here. we know actually that these VA panels can't really keep up with 144Hz and above anyway, so it is a shame to sacrifice resolution for higher refresh rate which you can't really use. Input lag was also non-existent basically, thanks to the G-sync module. There was also a decent range of extra gaming features offered which is becoming standard for AOC's AGON gaming line-up. The high contrast ratio of the VA technology provides deep blacks and a lot of detail in darker content which is really a benefit of this technology when compared to the wide range of IPS and TN Film gaming screens on the market. The only slight concern for gaming on this model, and indeed many other VA screens, is that the response times are a little slow in places which can cause some problems with smearing of dark colours. If AUO can eliminate that in future panels, you could have a very responsive technology which would be more suited to supporting even higher refresh rates. As we move towards video connections beyond DisplayPort 1.2 where higher refresh rates will be possible, this will be important to get right for the VA panel manufacturers.

In other areas the AG352UCG provided a nice large screen size and resolution for day to day work. You have the benefits of VA technology with black depth and contrast, making it a good option for movies as well. You will need to be a bit careful with any colour work, as the uniformity is not very good and the viewing angles are somewhat limited still. We would like to see improvements there from future panels. There is a decent enough default setup and the flicker free backlight and added low blue light modes are welcome for office work. Overall it's a decent option in the ultra-wide market and worth a look.

If you appreciate this review and enjoy reading and like our work, we would welcome a donation to the site to help us continue to make quality and detailed reviews for you.
 

Pros

Cons

High native refresh rate without sacrifices to resolution

Some slow pixel transitions which can cause some problems

Low input lag, decent enough response times, G-sync and some additional gaming features

Lack of ULMB for blur reduction

Decent enough default setup and high static contrast ratio

Poor uniformity and viewing angles a little disappointing


 

TFT Central Awards Explained

We have two award classifications as part of our reviews. There's the top 'Recommended' award, where a monitor is excellent and highly recommended by us. There is also an 'Approved' award for a very good screen which may not be perfect, but is still a very good display. These awards won't be given out every time, but look out for the logo at the bottom of the conclusion. A list of monitors which have won our awards is available here.

 

 

Back to Top

 

Sections
______
 

Reviews

Articles

News

Forum

Buying Support

___________

 

TFT Selector

Specifications Explained

Terms and Functions

Technologies

Frequently Asked Questions

Resources

_______

 

Panel Search Tool
Settings and ICC Profiles Database

Monitor Panel Parts Database

Laptop Panel Parts Database

Links

About

_____

 

Contact

Donations

Store

Advertise

 


    Copyright, TFT Central.                 Privacy Policy and Cookies

 

     Search TFT Central