Friday, January 20th 2017

AOC Announces the Agon AG352UCG: Ultrawide 35", 3440*1440, 100 Hz and G-Sync

Joining the already considerable plethora of gaming-oriented monitor offers from the company, AOC has recently announced the launch of the Agon AG352UCG. As it happens with AOC's line of monitors, this one also has quite respectable - and dare I say near-perfect specifications.

It is a 35" behemoth of a monitor, though its ultrawide aspect ratio will undoubtedly make it look smaller due to the lower verticality of the display than in other screen formats; packs a 21:9, 3440*1440 AU Optronics VA panel with 100Hz refresh rate (and 4ms response time), as well as G-Sync support to boot. The panel boasts 100% sRGB coverage, and a 2000R curvature ratio.
However, brightness stays at a not-so-extraordinary 300 nits, though it does carry a contrast ratio of 2500:1 and 178-degree viewing angles in both directions. The stand includes height, tilt and swivel adjustments, with the rear of the display featuring LED lighting that can be customized to one of three colors (red, blue, or green).

Ports include 1x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x HDMI, a 4x USB 3.0 hub, and a pair of 3.5mm headphone jacks, with the usual 2W speakers being included in the monitor's body. As a housewarming gift, AOC bundles with the monitor a fold-out stand for your headphones, and there's a handle on the stand in case you want to transport the Agon to a LAN party.

You'll be able to purchase the Agon AG352UCG in March for £799, or about $984, though with pricing in the US being usually much lower than in any EU country, you can expect it to retail for less.Source: HotHardware
Add your own comment

22 Comments on AOC Announces the Agon AG352UCG: Ultrawide 35", 3440*1440, 100 Hz and G-Sync

#1
TheGuruStud
Bzzzt, exploitation hardware detected, no buy.
Posted on Reply
#2
ironwolf
brightness stays at a not-so-extraordinary 300 nits
:confused: So is this like terrible, bad, not so bad? What would be considered good, great, OMGWTFBBQSAUCE?
Posted on Reply
#3
TheGuruStud
ironwolf said:
:confused: So is this like terrible, bad, not so bad? What would be considered good, great, OMGWTFBBQSAUCE?
Just standard, but for the cost I think they're expecting more.
Posted on Reply
#4
Basard
I hope thats a metal stand.... for a grand it better be.
Posted on Reply
#5
bogami
Very promising monitor with G sync but the price is still too high for such monitors since the 4K is much cheaper. You could fall off the fashion label because it is already established,and normalize the price of around 400€ .
Posted on Reply
#6
Roph
Lol gsync
Posted on Reply
#7
nickbaldwin86
Roph said:
Lol gsync
someone hasn't played on a GSYNC monitor... after owning one I cant say I will ever own a non-GSYNC monitor for gaming again.

haters gonna hate
Posted on Reply
#8
Prima.Vera
Is this the same panel and build as the already existing ones, with identical specs, from Acer and Asus? If so, the price seems okish....
Posted on Reply
#9
NdMk2o1o
Basard said:
I hope thats a metal stand.... for a grand it better be.
If you're talking dollars it will more likely be a straight dollar to pound conversion so I'd hazard an educated guess and say it will be $799 not $1k...just saying.
Posted on Reply
#10
petepete
Ill wait for 240 hz for that price tyvm
Posted on Reply
#11
sweet
nickbaldwin86 said:
someone hasn't played on a GSYNC monitor... after owning one I cant say I will ever own a non-GSYNC monitor for gaming again.

haters gonna hate
Freesync monitor deliver the same thing at a much cheaper price. But I agree that the cheaper AMD cards are not fast enough for some e-peen o_O
Off topic, in competitive FPS like CSGO, the recommended fps is around 250 so anything-sync is not needed.
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
petepete said:
Ill wait for 240 hz for that price tyvm
I'm waiting for the 480Hz 8K one
Posted on Reply
#13
webdigo
Who on earth would enjoy sitting 50cm away from a huge 35 inch monitor?
Posted on Reply
#14
P4-630
The Way It's Meant to be Played
Prima.Vera said:
I'm waiting for the 480Hz 8K one
Once you're retired and old?
LOL! :D:p
Posted on Reply
#15
vasra
Which version of G-sync?
Posted on Reply
#16
Ikaruga
sweet said:
Freesync monitor deliver the same thing at a much cheaper price. But I agree that the cheaper AMD cards are not fast enough for some e-peen
Off topic, in competitive FPS like CSGO, the recommended fps is around 250 so anything-sync is not needed.
It's true that it's very close, but not quite the same, g-sync is clearly a better technology, it just too expensive while it delivers not much more real world performance than Freesync.
  • G-Sync stores the frames on the FPGAa built into the monitor, so the video card doesn't need to resend those frames again when needed.
  • G-Sync works regardless of the variable refresh rate (VRR) of the monitor. AMD's Low Framerate Compensation (LCF) made things a lot better, but it's still not as good as g-sync.
  • G-sync works in windowed and windowless mode too.
Posted on Reply
#18
evernessince
Ikaruga said:
It's true that it's very close, but not quite the same, g-sync is clearly a better technology, it just too expensive while it delivers not much more real world performance than Freesync.
  • G-Sync stores the frames on the FPGAa built into the monitor, so the video card doesn't need to resend those frames again when needed.
  • G-Sync works regardless of the variable refresh rate (VRR) of the monitor. AMD's Low Framerate Compensation (LCF) made things a lot better, but it's still not as good as g-sync.
  • G-sync works in windowed and windowless mode too.

Oh please, Tom's hardware and multiple other websites did a comparison and found no difference between the technologies when actually playing games.

1. G-Sync only uses it's lookaside frame buffer because of the method it uses that duplicates frames under 30 FPS. This does not make it better than Free-Sync, it's just Nvidia's solution. In addition, because this does require additional logic it does cause more input lag.

2. G-Sync works down to 30 FPS. Below that and it merely duplicates or even quadruples frames. AMD's LFC is exactly the same. The difference being you get to choose how the system handles frames under 30 FPS.

3. AMD added borderless windows support in late 2016

Source for some of the technical information
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ

Free-Sync is only getting better over time and because it's not a hardware based solution like G-Sync, can only continue to improve. We are even getting rumors at this point that Microsoft may implement something on the operating system / API level.
Posted on Reply
#19
Ubersonic
Yet another promising monitor ruined by curving it >.>


sweet said:
Freesync monitor deliver the same thing at a much cheaper price.
Freesync is very good, but it's not in the same league as GSYNC.

Which really sucks IMO because it basically means that unless AMD license the tech their cards will always be inferior to Nvidia's now :(
Posted on Reply
#20
Ikaruga
evernessince said:
Oh please, Tom's hardware and multiple other websites did a comparison and found no difference between the technologies when actually playing games.

1. G-Sync only uses it's lookaside frame buffer because of the method it uses that duplicates frames under 30 FPS. This does not make it better than Free-Sync, it's just Nvidia's solution. In addition, because this does require additional logic it does cause more input lag.

2. G-Sync works down to 30 FPS. Below that and it merely duplicates or even quadruples frames. AMD's LFC is exactly the same. The difference being you get to choose how the system handles frames under 30 FPS.

3. AMD added borderless windows support in late 2016

Source for some of the technical information
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ

Free-Sync is only getting better over time and because it's not a hardware based solution like G-Sync, can only continue to improve. We are even getting rumors at this point that Microsoft may implement something on the operating system / API level.
The pcper source (a bit outdated too) concludes that g-sync is a bit better, the same thing I said. I did extensive tests with both kind and I can tell you g-sync just feels better. Inputlag is virtually non-exsistent around 120-144fps, which is perfectly fine to play at: http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/ (a bit outdated too, both amd and nvidia drivers improved a lot since). And, no it's not the same, especially at lower frame-rates. Nvidia is notably quicker and smoother, it really is.
Posted on Reply
#21
Jism
sweet said:
Freesync monitor deliver the same thing at a much cheaper price. But I agree that the cheaper AMD cards are not fast enough for some e-peen o_O
Off topic, in competitive FPS like CSGO, the recommended fps is around 250 so anything-sync is not needed.
What? 250FPS?

What player NEEDS 250 fps ... That's just crazy.

CS can be played perfectly fine at 120fps as well. *Reminds me of the iiyama CRT times... 120Hz at 1600x1200.
Posted on Reply
#22
deemon
webdigo said:
Who on earth would enjoy sitting 50cm away from a huge 35 inch monitor?
me.

Now think about your question in this manner... "Who on earth would enjoy VR goggles?" Now do you understand how silly your question actually was?

What this display really is lacking is HDR.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment