Tuesday, October 24th 2017

AOC Unveils the Q3279VWF Monitor: 31.5", 1440p, 60 Hz, FreeSync

AOC is introducing another monitor to their already extensive lineup, in the form of the Q3279VWF. This monitor, whose product name reads "unintelligible", has an interesting feature set: it counts with a 31.5", 2560 x 1440 MVA-based panel, which ticks at a 60 Hz refresh rate and 5 ms response time. The refresh rate may seem a tad low for users used to über-fast 144 Hz panels, but this one should actually be a more interesting mainstream monitor option, since the lower refresh rate doesn't require an extremely expensive, high-end graphics card option. The adoption of AMD's FreeSync should keep those lower refresh rates in check with added fluidity and no screen tearing, besides keeping the price lower than equivalent NVIDIA offerings (of which this particular editor wishes there was a 60 Hz option to choose from.)

The monitor delivers a 10-bit experience, through usage of an 8-bit panel that achieves 10-bit "virtual" color depth due to the usage of FRC technology. Brightness is a sore point for this one, though; at only 250 cd/m², it's one of the lowest we've seen recently, and definitely wouldn't allow for true display of HDR content - not even on AMD's somewhat relaxed 400 nits brightness requirement. Display options include 1x VGA, 1x DVI Dual Link, 1x HDMI 1.4, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. Expect this monitor to go on sale this November, with a MSRP of £249 (likely $299).
Source: ETeknix
Add your own comment

13 Comments on AOC Unveils the Q3279VWF Monitor: 31.5", 1440p, 60 Hz, FreeSync

#1
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Pfffft 60hz is so yesterday
Posted on Reply
#2
Raevenlord
News Editor
FreedomEclipse
Pfffft 60hz is so yesterday
I admit I'm not really aware of the difference in fluidity between a 60 Hz and higher refresh rate monitors, never having tried something of the sort.

I do know I find a locked 60 FPS experience to be awesome, though. So there's that.
Posted on Reply
#3
Manu_PT
Raevenlord
I admit I'm not really aware of the difference in fluidity between a 60 Hz and higher refresh rate monitors, never having tried something of the sort.

I do know I find a locked 60 FPS experience to be awesome, though. So there's that.
Dont ever try 144hz, follow my advice. You will never be able to open a simple wordsheet on a 60hz laptop, and your wallet will be raped forever. Stick to 60hz, dont show anything better to your eyes and brain
Posted on Reply
#4
ZoneDymo
can 60hz die already? can't we move on ffs?
Posted on Reply
#5
Gasaraki
What a shitty monitor. Why even bother?
Posted on Reply
#6
xorbe
AOC-Q3279VWF, trying to compete with the NEC-3090WQXI on naming then ...

That 60Hz slideshow! One of the best things ever was jumping into 144Hz ahva-ips early on even though it was slightly expensive at the time.
Posted on Reply
#7
lexluthermiester
Raevenlord
I admit I'm not really aware of the difference in fluidity between a 60 Hz and higher refresh rate monitors, never having tried something of the sort. I do know I find a locked 60 FPS experience to be awesome, though. So there's that.
The difference between 60hz and 120hz is very noticeable and a great thing. Very smooth and fluid. However..
xorbe
That 60Hz slideshow! One of the best things ever was jumping into 144Hz ahva-ips early on even though it was slightly expensive at the time.
144hz is WAY over-rated. The human eye can not see the difference between 120hz and 144hz. You play extra for very little benefit. Additionally, the frame-rate math and vsynch work better for multiples of 30 when it comes to games and frame-rate sensitive programs.
Posted on Reply
#8
Manu_PT
I can notice 240hz from 144hz, even can notice 100hz to 120hz (did blind tests). Depends on each one.
Posted on Reply
#9
lexluthermiester
Gasaraki
What a shitty monitor. Why even bother?
Somewhat agree. While it's not garbage, after researching what an MVA panel is and how it works, I'd stick with IPS.
Manu_PT
I can notice 240hz from 144hz, even can notice 100hz to 120hz (did blind tests). Depends on each one.
144hz vs 240hz is humanly noticeable because it is a large difference, but not on a frame-by-frame basis. With 100hz to 120hz, again it's noticeable but not on a frame-by-frame basis. Human persistence of vision is a biological limitation of the optical sensing mechanisms within the eye[cones and rods] and the response rate of the optic nerve. While this can vary from person to person, medical science generally agrees that the human eye loses the ability to distinguish individual frames beyond 30hz and can not perceive the difference of framerate beyond 300hz. As you climb above 90hz, framerate improvements offer diminishing returns and benefit for the human eye. So realistically 120hz is the butter-zone of quality and computer-based mathematical symmetry. Anything above is just an effective waste.
Posted on Reply
#10
Manu_PT
No is not a waste, simply because you also get lower frame time and lower mouse input latency. And is very noticeable on quick flicks aswell. 120hz is not as snappy as 144hz, been there done that, now imagine 240hz.
Posted on Reply
#11
lexluthermiester
Manu_PT
No is not a waste, simply because you also get lower frame time and lower mouse input latency. And is very noticeable on quick flicks as well. 120hz is not as snappy as 144hz, been there done that, now imagine 240hz.
While your point is understandable, not sure it'll make that much difference. Didn't see it on the display I was trying out. But if it works for you, more power to you.
Posted on Reply
#12
xorbe
lexluthermiester
While your point is understandable, not sure it'll make that much difference. Didn't see it on the display I was trying out.
If you can't notice the difference, that's too bad. But if less Hz works for you, more power to you.
Posted on Reply
#13
ComedicHistorian
Yet another 1440p monitor. BORING. Those 120ghz, 32"+ 4K screens with HDR need to get here already so I can b*tch about not being able to afford one.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment