Monday, May 8th 2017

MSI Intros Optix AG32CQ Curved Gaming Monitor

The new MSI Optix AG32CQ probably sparks déjà vu because a monitor with a near-identical name and design was launched last October. That is, until you pay close attention to the "Q" in its name. The new Optix AG32CQ has a similar feature-set to the AG32C, but with increased resolution to 2560 x 1440 pixels, hence the "Q," denoting quad-HD. The 32-inch monitor with 1800R curvature still offers the goodness of a VA panel with 178°/178° viewing angles, 144 Hz refresh-rate (slightly lower than the 165 Hz of its Full HD predecessor), 1 ms (GTG) response-time, 3000:1 static contrast ratio, and support for AMD FreeSync technology. The company didn't reveal pricing.
Add your own comment

9 Comments on MSI Intros Optix AG32CQ Curved Gaming Monitor

#1
Hyrel
I don't see the point of the curvature for anything less than 21:9...
Posted on Reply
#2
erixx
yes, and... at 32" you need 4K to make it look crispy. (I have had 3 generations of 32" screens).
Posted on Reply
#3
Arrakis9
If they can deliver this at around $500 or less then I'd consider buying it.
Posted on Reply
#4
lynx29
Arrakis+9 said:
If they can deliver this at around $500 or less then I'd consider buying it.
I would avoid MSI for monitors, they have a bad warranty, if you get a dead pixel they don't really care.

My next monitor will be a different brand, or from Massdrop, Massdrop offers a perfect pixel one year warranty on their brand monitor.
Posted on Reply
#5
Chloe Price
Hyrel said:
I don't see the point of the curvature for anything less than 21:9...
Why? I'd rather have 4K than ultrawide.
Posted on Reply
#6
Gungar
erixx said:
yes, and... at 32" you need 4K to make it look crispy. (I have had 3 generations of 32" screens).
That's 400% pure BULLSHIT, 1440p is nearly TWICE the amount of pixel of 1080p and 1080p for 23inch screen is perfect. So under 40" there is 0 reason to go 4K.

That 4K marketing bullshit is REALLY getting on my nerves.
Posted on Reply
#7
lynx29
Gungar said:
That's 400% pure BULLSHIT, 1440p is nearly TWICE the amount of pixel of 1080p and 1080p for 23inch screen is perfect. So under 40" there is 0 reason to go 4K.

That 4K marketing bullshit is REALLY getting on my nerves.
I am using a LG 24" 4K to play my card games like hearthstone and magic the gathering, and I can actually tell a difference easily, the cards are much crisper and nicer to look at than 1440p 27".
Posted on Reply
#8
ZoneDymo
Gungar said:
That's 400% pure BULLSHIT, 1440p is nearly TWICE the amount of pixel of 1080p and 1080p for 23inch screen is perfect. So under 40" there is 0 reason to go 4K.

That 4K marketing bullshit is REALLY getting on my nerves.
^this, I mean each their own, but its annoying when people sell opinion as a fact.
Posted on Reply
#9
Gungar
lynx29 said:
I am using a LG 24" 4K to play my card games like hearthstone and magic the gathering, and I can actually tell a difference easily, the cards are much crisper and nicer to look at than 1440p 27".
My Eizo is much crisper than my hp screen and they both have the same resolution and size. Are you sure its not the quality difference of the screen and not the resolution that does that?

And wtf 24" 4k that's a WHOOPING 183ppi, i mean except you are sitting 3 inch from the screen i really don't understand that much density.
Posted on Reply