AOC G2460PG

Mine arrived this afternoon, so I thought I'd post some first impressions as there are a lot of people posting about monitor specs right now.

First thing - no dead or stuck pixels and minimal backlight bleed. So that's the issues that are always the first anxious points when getting a new monitor out of the way.

Now I can only compare it to my other TN panel since that's the one I've been looking at nigh on every day for the past five or six years. It is a pretty good TN panel, though - a Hyundai W220D. Good colours and blacks for a TN and certainly good enough for me. When I saw the banding, washed out greys and shade crush on other TN panels it really stuck out as something I didn't experience on mine.

So, okay. Out of the box it's horribly bright. Which monitor isn't. I followed the callibration on pcmonitors.info, and it was immediately much better. Better than my Hyundai? Overall, definitely, which is really pleasing. There is more liveliness and... I dunno, crispness... to the colours compared to what I'm used to. The blacks aren't as quite as deep and the contrast in dark shades isn't quite as a good I don't think. Very, very slightly more banding in dark shades on this one, but I have to look extremely closely to notice it. However, the whites are brighter and cleaner at a brightness level giving decent black levels, so I guess that speaks to overall better contrast on this one.

One major issue in favour of the AOC I've only just noticed. Seeing both side-by-side, with different OcUK pages up, I now see a distinct pink tinge to the whites on my old Hyundai. I never noticed that before. Well, I mean, I noticed it in that I knew it was there (and I laboured for ages when I first calibrated it trying to get rid of it) but I generally forgot about it in daily use. Seeing them together now... it's really noticeable, and I can't believe it didn't irritate me more in day-to-day use. The whites on the AOC are... well, white.

I fired up BL2 for a quick look at the impacts of higher refresh rates and g-sync too.

I thought given the high frames I get on this title that I'd prefer the impact of ULMB to g-sync, but I really didn't. First, ULMB darkens the image too much, and I just don't see the benefits it's supposed to give in terms of blur reduction. Maybe this is because I've come straight from a 60Hz panel and the difference in motion blur is already so remarkable (and it really is!) that I just don't see the extra benefit. G-sync did feel smoother too, and I was pretty amazed at the overall impression. Motion blur really does seem pretty much unnoticeable (to me at least). Brilliant!

Overall very pleased with this. I'd like it to be easier to switch between refresh rates and g-sync/ULMB, but I think it's a feature of all g-sync monitors that it has to be via the control panel.

Further update: one thing I've noticed that is clearly worse on this screen than my previous one is the viewing angles. On closer inspection, I don't think it's so much that the Hyundai has better dark shades, but more that it has better viewing angles. In comparison, the shades towards the bottom of the AOC are noticeably lighter than the middle and the top noticeably darker. The bottom looks a bit washed out.

I know this is an issue with TN panels, and I guess it's just that the W220D was very good for a TN in this respect.

Switching the gamma setting to three does help the washed out look at the bottom, as pcmonitors.info noted, but the difference in colour depth from middle of the screen to the top and bottom is still more marked on this model.

Trying to find a height/pivot adjustment that suits me best to minimise this. Not a major issue compared to the positive points I've mentioned, and certainly not worth trading the truer whites for, but this is a bit of a mark against the AOC compared to my previous TN screen.

Edit: having the centre of the monitor in line with the bridge of my nose and at a relatively flat pitch ameliorates this to a decent degree, but I'm a bit concerned how comfortable this will be long-term. I'm used to having the centre of the screen about in line with my chin and looking down on it at a pitch of a few degrees. I could do this with the viewing angles of the W220D, but not so much with this one (the top gets very dark if I open up the pitch on the pivot position).

Awesome feedback here, really glad to see you like the monitor overall and that the information on my review helped.

These 24" 144Hz panels do seem to have slightly weaker viewing angle performance than some others of the size. The internal diffusion of light from the screen surface can sometimes exacerbate this a bit as well. I haven't actually seen the Hyundai W220D myself (or if I have I don't remember). How would you compare the matte screen surfaces on these two?

Yes, I found your site very useful in picking through the vagaries of different makes and models. Was quite a headache for a while and with a biggish purchase like this you always want to make sure of making a sound decision. It was a great resource, that actually uses the same tests and metrics from one monitor to the next (so many sites fail to do this!).

The Hyundai matte surface itself is actually pretty similar to the AOC. I have them side-by- side right now, with the W220D as my secondary display, and, I'd say the surface is slightly less grainy perhaps on the Hyundai, but there's little in it. Hmm... actually, perhaps there is a bit in it. Less grainy on the W220D, yeah. Not hugely noticeable but the more I look, the more I see it.

The big differences on the two are the far superior viewing angles on the Hyundai and the slightly better dark shades, and the far superior whites and more vibrant colours on the AOC.

(The difference has led to me not only tinkering endlessly with the ergonomics of the AOC, but also going back into the OSD and trying again to get better whites on the Hyundai. If I cure the pink tinge, I get a blue one, and I can't cure both and maintain acceptable contrast. And yet I thought it was pretty near perfect for a TN prior to getting my new one...)

I am a bit disappointed by the viewing angle, but it's bearable with the ergonomic adjustments I've now made (just have to hope I don't get any neck pain as a result... )

Ok, been tinkering with settings and ergonomics for a couple of days so, and thought I should update because I'm not happy that my previous information was all accurate. (PCM2 is under no threat for his job from the likes of me that's for sure!)

First, viewing angles and the washed-out bottom region of the screen. I don't know if this was the matte coating as was suggested, but I have found that moving the screen back six to eight inches and having the gamma on three really helps with this. For whatever reason, I just couldn't have it as close or as low down and pitched back as my Hyundai, but pushed back a bit and raised upwards at less of a pitch it's actually fine now, and perfectly comparable to my old screen in terms of differences in shade between top and bottom.

Second, what I thought was inferior contrast in dark shades. No, this monitor actually has considerably superior contrast in dark shades, it's just the ICC profile I run for my old monitor corrects the colours at the expense of a deal of brightness, so the black luminence is lower. I've used a few test images now, though, and I can distinguish between dark shades more clearly on this monitor, but it did originally give me the impression that the dark shades were less well-represnted. Well, they are less dark, but as I say I did sacrifice probably too much contrast on my old one, so it's a good trade-off I think.

Third, the light contrast. The whites are a lot brighter compared to the blacks on this one, but I can't really distinguish between light shades any better than I could on my old monitor. This is one area I'd like to improve, but I can't find a setting that lets me distinguish between any more than a 10% difference in the brightest shades. Overall, the whites are brighter and cleaner, but the light shade crush is no better.

And finally, the colours. They are more vivid, but actually a little over-saturated with my settings. I've dialed them down a bit and with that and the third gamma setting they are much closer to true colours, but still saturated a bit. This actually looks good for films and games, and brings them to life nicely, but it's a bit off for photos. Kind of like the "dynamic" mode on Samsung phones.

Overall, now I've found these things out and sorted out the viewing angle issue I was having, I'm really very pleased with the image quality on this display - especially the contrast, the detail in dark shades, and the clean whites. I'd like a little more white shade definition and slightly less saturated colours, but overall it's very pleasing, and I'm actually much preferring the image now to my old W220D, which I was doubting I would before it arrived.

Glad to see that you were able to improve the situation with a bit of fiddling (with settings and monitor positioning). The white saturation is always a bit of an issue with these sorts of monitors. If you observe this page you should notice the bottom row becomes more visible if you lower your head and/or raise the screen.

Using 'Gamma3' will make some shades look deeper and more saturated than they should, but that can be a good thing in some ways. If they're appealing to you and it makes the bottom of the monitor appear less 'washed out' (as noted in the review and observed by yourself) then that's good.

Yeah, that's one of the images I was using. I can't really see the 254 squares, even from a distance looking straightish on (I have to put my chin on the desk and look up at the screen to see them). And using the images here I can't see any differences between white shades of >91%.

You're dead right about the gamma three setting. It does over-saturate the colours, but I find on gamma one the whole screen looks a bit washed out (especially the bottom, but not only that). Although I would like to have the best of both (less saturated colours without the washed out look), I find gamma three sujectively more pleasing. As I'm not really bothered too much about colour fidelity for photos, being much more keen on film and game image quality, I'm happy with how it's worked. I probably won't stop tinkering for a little while, but yeah pretty satisfied with it now.

Thanks again for your detailed review. Really helped with the buying decision and the initial calibration.

hi i was just wondering if you tried it at 144hz with g-sync off ?

Just wondering how much a difference g-sync does make with a high refresh rate cheers

I've tried it a little. I've only done a small amount of gaming since I got it, but I have tried:

Borderlands 2 @144Hz & g-sync, @120Hz & ULMB, and @120/144Hz with neither
Crysis 3 @144Hz with g-sync and without

What most people seem to say, and what my experience backs up, is that the benefits are quite frame-rate dependent. G-sync doesn't help with motion blur, but it does smooth out the subjective perception of variances in frame and eliminates screen tearing.

For me, there isn't much difference in Borderlands 2. Now I'm used to higher refresh rates and can more critically assess, I actually think ULMB works better here since I'm getting very high frame-rates consistently and with very few drops. It took me a while to see it, but moving around I can see more detail with ULMB on, and panning the camera quickly is smoother.

On Crysis 3, though, g-sync is definitely where it's at for me. I don't get high enough frames for ULMB to really shine, and as it's a demanding title the frame-rates are all over the place. G-sync on this title has a really noticeable effect. With it on the game is just perfectly smooth. I'm sure my frames are rising and falling but I can't tell. The feeling of connection to the game-world and smoothness of movement is qualitatively different. Playing with g-sync off is actually a bit painful now I'm used to its effects. It feels... juddery, and the difference is remarkable.

I even notice the difference on things like the Heaven benchmark. With g-sync on the whole run is completely smooth. You really notice it on the scenes where the camera pans around the airship or the set of floating islands. It's a completely smooth pan with g-sync, and a stuttery and juddery one without.

Short answer: yes, in games where you can't maintain high and consistent frame rates, the effects of g-sync are very noticeable indeed.

I can't help but think in ~12 months there will be only one out of g-sync/freesync.

Yes, the next few years should be an interesting period for monitor tech with the coming g-sync/freesync competition and (hopefully) the emergence of various types of OLED displays. Looking forward to it.

For now I'm very pleased with my G2460PG, but I bought it fully accepting that it came with a premium for early adoption of tech that might actually become obsolete relatively quickly...

How did you calibrate this, if you don't mind my asking? Mine just arrived, and it's horribly bright out of the box.

Yeah, it is. I tinkered with mine compulsively for the first week!

I've now got some settings that to me look really nice. Though all panels vary (as do personal tastes of course) so you'll probably have to tinker around with these settings a bit yourself.

In the OSD I set brightness to 30, contrast to 51, and use gamma setting 1. I set the colours PCM2 used in his monitor review: R62, G63, B65.

I've been up and down the dial on these, from low 50s to higher 60s on colour and high 20s to mid 30s on brightness, but finally settled on these, that I found worked nicely so long as I also make some minor alterations to desktop colour through Nvidia control panel.

In Nv CP I set: Brightness +45%, contrast +52%, gamma +0.92, digital vibrance +52%, except in the green channel, where I set gamma to +0.93.

That works for me. Finally have blacks nice and dark, shadows with a good combination of depth and detail, colours that are vibrant without being over-saturated, and almost no banding at all.

Edit: oh, another thing that might save you 80% of the tinkering I did - the display seems to take around half and hour to warm up when first turned on. Until then it can look pretty bleached and washed out. I must have spent a couple of hours in total in the first week of having this display mithering with the settings first thing in the morning only to end up pretty much back where I started later in the day. Took me a while to accept that it would just take a bit of time to warm up and just be patient...

Wow, what a difference. I take it you have yours set to 144Hz and leave G-Sync disabled in all games too?

Just played Shadow of Mordor for 5 mins as a quick test, and I'm hitting 70-80 fps at times, and when it dips below 60 there appears to be no stutter.

So far, so good!

Yeah, it looks really nice when calibrated a bit, doesn't it?

I actually have mine set to 120Hz so I can switch ULMB on when I want to since it won't work at 144Hz, and I enable or disable g-sync depending on what I'm playing. Well, not that I've played much since getting the monitor, but for instance if I'm firing up Borderlands 2 I switch g-sync off and use ULMB, but generally I have g-sync enabled in the control panel as I'm expecting to use it in the games I'm planning to play next (probably a couple from Dragon Age, Shadows of Mordor, Wolfenstein, Alien). And yeah, g-sync completely changes the visual experience and feeling of connectedness in games with slightly choppy frame-rates for me. Really like it.

Sorry man, I meant disable vsync!

ULMB - to be used when fps is expected to be above 120hz consistently?

Yeah, disabling vsync is the right thing to do if you're playing with g-sync enabled.

And I understand the conventional wisdom to be that if you're getting consistent frame rates above the refresh rate (whatever you set that at), then ULMB will work well as it really does give you ultra-low motion blur, and g-sync won't do as much for you (some people say it introduces input lag in these conditions, but I can't really comment on that from my experience). Some people prefer setting the refresh as low as 85Hz in games where they can get north of that but south of 120fps and enabling ULMB instead. I've only done limited testing myself, but I like g-sync a lot in Crysis 3 and it also makes the Heaven and Valley benchmarks uncannily smooth as well.

All good info, thanks very much.