Friday, June 21st 2024
AGON by AOC Unveils the C27G2Z3 Full HD 280Hz Curved Monitor
AGON by AOC—one of the world's leading gaming monitor and IT accessories brands - is thrilled to announce the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK, a curved 27" (68.6 cm) Full HD monitor that combines immersive visuals with lightning-fast performance. Designed to cater to both competitive and casual gamers, the C27G2Z3/BK boasts an impressive 280 Hz refresh rate, up to 1 ms GtG and 0.5 ms MPRT response times, and a high-contrast Fast VA panel with a 1500R curvature, all at an affordable price point.
The AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK's 1500R curvature envelops users in the game world, providing an immersive experience that draws them deeper into the action. The curved 27" screen offers a more natural and comfortable viewing experience, reducing eye strain and fatigue during extended gaming sessions. Whether racing through the streets in a high-speed simulation or exploring vast open worlds, the C27G2Z3/BK's curvature enhances the sense of presence and engagement for the user.
Lightning-fast performance for a competitive edge
With a blistering 280 Hz refresh rate, the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK beats the current esports standard of 240 Hz, and delivers ultra-smooth and responsive gameplay, giving gamers the edge in fast-paced, competitive titles. The monitor can achieve up to 1 ms GtG response time, using the highest overdrive setting, which ensures that ghosting and motion blur are virtually eliminated, whilst providing crisp and clear visuals. For an even smoother experience, the C27G2Z3/BK features an MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) setting using a strobing backlight that enables a 0.5 ms MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time), further enhancing motion clarity.
High-contrast visuals with HDR10
The Fast VA panel of the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK delivers exceptional image quality with a high contrast ratio of 4000:1, ensuring deep blacks and vibrant colors for a truly immersive visual experience. With HDR10 compliance, the monitor can display a wider range of brightness and color levels, bringing out the finest details in both dark and bright scenes. The Full HD resolution (1920x1080) strikes a fine balance between visual clarity and performance, allowing even mid-range GPUs to achieve the monitor's impressive 280 Hz refresh rate and enjoy high-framerate gameplay for many titles.
Adaptive-Sync for tear-free gaming
To eliminate screen tearing and stuttering, the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK supports Adaptive-Sync technology, synchronizing the monitor's refresh rate with the GPU's output for a seamless and fluid gaming experience. This technology is compatible with both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, ensuring that the vast majority of users can enjoy smooth gameplay.
Ergonomic design for comfort and convenience
The C27G2Z3/BK features a sturdy and adjustable stand with 130 mm height adjustment, tilt, and swivel functionality, allowing users to find the perfect viewing angle for their setup. The monitor's slim bezels and sleek design make it an attractive addition to any gaming space, while its VESA mount compatibility offers additional flexibility for wall mounting or multi-monitor setups.
Pricing and availability
The AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK will be available from late June 2024, backed by a 3-year warranty, at an attractive MSRP of £199.99.
The AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK's 1500R curvature envelops users in the game world, providing an immersive experience that draws them deeper into the action. The curved 27" screen offers a more natural and comfortable viewing experience, reducing eye strain and fatigue during extended gaming sessions. Whether racing through the streets in a high-speed simulation or exploring vast open worlds, the C27G2Z3/BK's curvature enhances the sense of presence and engagement for the user.
With a blistering 280 Hz refresh rate, the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK beats the current esports standard of 240 Hz, and delivers ultra-smooth and responsive gameplay, giving gamers the edge in fast-paced, competitive titles. The monitor can achieve up to 1 ms GtG response time, using the highest overdrive setting, which ensures that ghosting and motion blur are virtually eliminated, whilst providing crisp and clear visuals. For an even smoother experience, the C27G2Z3/BK features an MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) setting using a strobing backlight that enables a 0.5 ms MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time), further enhancing motion clarity.
High-contrast visuals with HDR10
The Fast VA panel of the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK delivers exceptional image quality with a high contrast ratio of 4000:1, ensuring deep blacks and vibrant colors for a truly immersive visual experience. With HDR10 compliance, the monitor can display a wider range of brightness and color levels, bringing out the finest details in both dark and bright scenes. The Full HD resolution (1920x1080) strikes a fine balance between visual clarity and performance, allowing even mid-range GPUs to achieve the monitor's impressive 280 Hz refresh rate and enjoy high-framerate gameplay for many titles.
Adaptive-Sync for tear-free gaming
To eliminate screen tearing and stuttering, the AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK supports Adaptive-Sync technology, synchronizing the monitor's refresh rate with the GPU's output for a seamless and fluid gaming experience. This technology is compatible with both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs, ensuring that the vast majority of users can enjoy smooth gameplay.
Ergonomic design for comfort and convenience
The C27G2Z3/BK features a sturdy and adjustable stand with 130 mm height adjustment, tilt, and swivel functionality, allowing users to find the perfect viewing angle for their setup. The monitor's slim bezels and sleek design make it an attractive addition to any gaming space, while its VESA mount compatibility offers additional flexibility for wall mounting or multi-monitor setups.
Pricing and availability
The AOC GAMING C27G2Z3/BK will be available from late June 2024, backed by a 3-year warranty, at an attractive MSRP of £199.99.
53 Comments on AGON by AOC Unveils the C27G2Z3 Full HD 280Hz Curved Monitor
And that you "Yuck!" opinion is based on an intellectual assessment, not one based on reality or experience.
Mine is based on the fact that I have 8 such 27" 1080p monitors (because I'm poor probably or something). And I have a hard time distinguishing individual pixels on them.
Then I'm from a time when you played your games at 320x200, so tiny tiny pixels don't bother me much.
I have a 24" 1080p monitor, and a 34" 3440x1440 one. One is 91 PPI, the other is 109, which doesn't sound like a massive difference, but it is quite visible. On the other hand, the first one has 8,425 pixels per square inch, but the second one has 12,030, which is almost a 50% difference.I am, too, and I still love playing old games at their appropriate resolutions. But I wouldn't want pixel art in modern cinematic games.
So, please, do as you wish with your money, but the majority of the people playing games on PC (at least those who took the Steam survey) are either unable or unwilling to pay that much for what is essentially a very expensive antialiasing method. And for my part, elitism or snobism is mostly unwelcome.
1080p at 194.9 FPS is only 27% faster than 1440p at 152.9 FPS, which is then 64% faster than 2160p's 93.1 FPS.
www.techpowerup.com/review/xfx-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-magnetic-air/30.html
So, 2160p doesn't require 4 times the GPU power to output the same framerate.There is no "lack of detail" on that 55" TV. 2160p is always more detailed than 1080p no matter the screen size.
For the first the normal viewing distance is 2 or 3 metres, while for the second only around 50 cm.
At the same pixel density but at longer distances, details will be smaller. Pretty obvious.
This not what "same pixel density" means.
Which is true, but is not what I'm talking about.
Using : res18h39.netlify.app/calculator?ref=gtg.benabraham.net
For a 55" 2160p TV at 3 meters, I get a PPD of 167.37
For a 27" 1080p monitor at 0.5 meters, I get a PPD of 31.1
They say "When DLP displays are used, for example, the pixel structure is usually noticeable when the PPD is under 30, and it is usually not noticeable when the PPD is over 35. A PPD between 30 and 35 is borderline in that the pixel structure may or may not be noticeable."
So, apparent pixel density is better for the TV than the monitor, but as I said it's pretty hard to see individual pixels on the 1080p monitor. And if you increase the distance to 0.6 meters, you are at 36.26.
And yes, apparent pixels are much smaller on the TV (5 times smaller in one dimension), so details will be fainter.
so what do you mean by the comment you lose out on vertical space? I wish I could find the original post heh... can't find it.
I mentioned earlier in this thread about focal length changes and eye fatigue that people can get reading text when sitting too close to a physically wide screen. A good friend of mine is an optometrist and we talk about human vision quite a lot (she's helped me understand colourblindness a lot better over the years).
The eyestrain from a large, flat ultrawide is from your eye having to change focal length a lot because if you sit 50cm from a 34" ultrawide, the focal length of the start of a line of text is going to be about 70cm, then it's 50cm in the middle of the line of text and your eye muscles have to change the shape of your lens every single line of text you read.
As you get older, the lens gets stiffer and so your muscles need to work harder, and that's what causes the eyestrain. It's also a good idea not to regularly do this unnecessarily even when you're younger because it's additional strain on your eye muscles, and unlike your biceps which look good when they grow bigger, you don't want bulky muscles in your eye - it's super important that your eye remains the same shape and same size!
i wonder what would be the perfect screen size and curve (or none) for that distance?
My point is that smaller resolutions don't look particularly good at larger screen sizes. If you disagree, all the better for you. :)I'm not sure how it applies to every situation. Browsing TPU in a full size window, for example, puts all the text into the middle of the screen, like it was a regular 16:9, with lots of empty space on the side.
Of course editing a Word document showing 2-3 pages side-by-side is a different story.
PPI affects scaling and text clarity, ideally you want 96ppi because that's the correct actual size for content and it's 100% of the legacy printed media standard 96dpi that is older than you, me, and any kind of computer display ever made. Windows scaling is garbage so somewhere close to 96ppi is good for 100%, and somewhere close to 192ppi is good for 200%, use other values only if you have no choice, or if you're sitting at a very different distance to the intended "reading text sat at a desk" kind of distances.
Larger screens are akin to more screens, without the bezel interruption
People with multiple screens will universally tilt them to face themselves at their seated position without even thinking about it. In an office with several hundred people using dual or triple screens, not a single person has all their screens lined up straight.
My theory is that the ideal screen radius matches your sitting distance. This would however create some barrel distortion since curved screens are typically only curved in one axis, so the larger the discrepancy between vertical curve and horizontal curve, the worse an image looks. Given that we don't really have any dual-axis curved displays, I think the correct answer for "what's the best curve radius" is more complex but easy enough to explain:
You want the curvature to be as little as possible, whilst also ensuring that your viewing angles to the extreme edges of the display are within the gamma/brightness/contrast sweet spot of the display technology. Here's an RTINGS review of my Odyssey (VA) and you can see that colour saturation drops off a cliff at about 25-30° and brightness drops off a cliff beyond 15-20°
So for my particular display it's important that at my typical viewing distance the viewing angle of the far edges is no more than 20°. The 1000R seems to make that the case, but it seems like the edges are still almost perfectly square-on to me, so I could probably get away with a 2000R curve that would still keep the edges within the viewing-angle sweet-spot.
Personally the only reason for ultrawide screen popularity I can see is the fact they're cheaper to manufacture - manufacturers can cut more of them from the mother glass than 16:9 screens - but for general usage I consider them an abomination.