Skip to main content

AOC Unveils Speedy 0.5ms Response Gaming Monitors

AOC today announced two gaming monitors that may very well make your day if you're looking for something extra speedy to spice up your gaming rig or the one you're thinking about building.

The new 27-inch AG271FZ2 and 24.5-inch AG251FZ2 LCD panels, part of AOC's AGON line, feature AMD FreeSync and a refresh rate of 240 Hz. But perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this new monitor duo is the fact that they have insanely fast response times, clocking in at just 0.5ms. This low of a response time ensures you'll get the most fluid movements possible out of the games you throw at these displays without ghosting. 

These specs and features make the new line nearly perfect for a PC gaming rig you may be dreaming of putting together. That smoking hot response time, and the refresh rate that's as high as you can get in a gaming monitor these days, so it's great for eSports players and others obsessed with speed. 

Both monitors offer DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI-D and VGA inputs in addition to Shadow Control for cranking up brightness of darker areas onscreen. In addition, Low Blue Light Mode is also available in an effort to soothe your tired eyes. 

However, with all that speed the monitors only feature 1080p resolution. This will disappoint the many gamers salivating over 4K monitors or 1440p. However, the AG271FZ2 and AG251FZ2 are going for just $380 and $330, respectively.

While both monitors are currently available for pre-order, there's no specific release date announced yet. But considering they're up for pre-order now, we'll likely see them hit stores later this year. 

  • alextheblue
    I'm a tightwad and I won't spend that much on a display, but it's good to see someone pushing displays sub-1ms response.
    Reply
  • coolitic
    Wait, what does monitor response time have to do with tearing, lol
    Reply
  • Upgrademe
    Retire 1080p already...:unsure:
    Reply
  • WildCard999
    Upgrademe said:
    Retire 1080p already...:unsure:
    Why? Nearly 65% of gamers out there, at least on Steam, are gaming at 1080P. There's more 720P gamers then 1440P & 4K combined.
    ?rel=ugc]https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    Upgrademe said:
    Retire 1080p already...:unsure:
    Retire any display under 240hz and above 1ms response time... :unsure:

    See what I did there? What fits your needs doesn't necessarily fit the needs of others. A TON of gamers prefer fast response times and high refresh rates over resolution and gamut. When you're on a budget the choices get even tougher.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    coolitic said:
    Wait, what does monitor response time have to do with tearing, lol
    Who said anything about tearing and response time? The (presumably very wide range) FreeSync will certainly deal with that.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    alextheblue said:
    I'm a tightwad and I won't spend that much on a display, but it's good to see someone pushing displays sub-1ms response.
    They are reporting the "MPRT" response time which takes into account backlight strobing, rather than a more usual metric of the actual pixel response time such as grey-to-grey, and it's not like there are any standards in place for companies to measure response times by, so I'm not sure this "0.5ms" response time actually means much. It's a bit hard to take monitor specifications seriously for any screen that advertises a 50,000,000:1 "dynamic" contrast ratio for a panel that actually only offers contrast of about 1,000:1.

    Plus, you can't enable backlight strobing and adaptive sync at the same time, so you will miss out on FreeSync or G-Sync with the feature enabled, and backlight strobing reduces maximum screen brightness as well. In any case, even at 240Hz, pixels have multiple milliseconds to complete a full transition without creating significant ghosting. Maybe the image will remain slightly sharper during motion, but it's still a TN panel, so it's not like image quality is going to be great. Expect mediocre color accuracy, mediocre contrast, and mediocre viewing angles from the screen. I'd be more interested in hearing about improvements to the several-millisecond pixel response times that are typical for IPS and VA panels. Or how about an industry-standard way of accurately measuring response times and other monitor specifications so that we are not left with the manufacturer's marketing numbers?

    WildCard999 said:
    Why? Nearly 65% of gamers out there, at least on Steam, are gaming at 1080P. There's more 720P gamers then 1440P & 4K combined.
    While that's true, it's kind of hard to tell much about what the situation is like in a particular market based on results of the Steam Hardware Survey. It would be nice if you could filter results by region, and various other criteria. For example, how many of these systems are laptops? How many are installed in net cafes? How many are HTPCs connected to televisions? How many are 10+ year old systems used only to run older titles and indie games? You can't really gain a good picture of what kind of monitors people are buying now for gaming based on that. You'll also see 1080p screens dominating Amazon's Best Sellers list, but how many of those are being used for gaming? It's kind of difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from the data.

    I do agree that 1080p is still a very viable resolution though, especially since graphics card performance hasn't exactly been progressing all that fast over the last few years. "Mid-range" graphics cards are still best suited for 1080p in the latest games, and if raytraced lighting effects catch on and we don't see significant hardware advancements in that area for a while, even those with higher-end cards may need to limit their resolution to get good frame rates with those effects enabled. And of course, high refresh rates are now a desirable feature, and it can be difficult to keep frame rates in the 100+ fps range in many games at resolutions above 1080p without high-end hardware.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    cryoburner said:
    Or how about an industry-standard way of accurately measuring response times and other monitor specifications so that we are not left with the manufacturer's marketing numbers?
    That would be nice.
    Reply