Thursday, December 10th 2020

AOC Announces the AGON AG493UCX Monitor: 49" VA, 5120 x 1440, 120 Hz, 1ms, 32:9, FreeSync and DisplayHDR 400

AOC has announced a new addition to their AGON line of gaming monitors in the form of the AGON AG493UCX. This is a beastly monitor with a 49" diagonal and 5K resolution with a Super Ultra-Wide aspect ratio of 32:9 (with a resolution of 5120 x 1440 pixels). The panel type is VA, which promises increased contrast ratios against those typically found in IPS panels (3000:1, in this case). AOC is promising 120 Hz refresh rates with a 1 ms (MPRT) response times with MBR backlight. There is also support for VRR technologies such as FreeSync and G-Sync (compatible).

Display brightness is quoted at 550 cd/m², which is just shy of a DisplayHDR 600 certification, but comfortably achieves the VESA DisplayHDR 400 certification. The monitor isn't a slouch in terms of color display either, being better than your average VA panel: the display is factory-calibrated and ships with a guaranteed dE <2, and coverage for 16.7 millions colors across a 93% DCI-P3 gamut coverage (and 121% sRGB coverage). I/O is handled by 2x DisplayPort 1.4, 2x HDMI 2.0, 1x USB type-C, 3x USB ports and 1x an audio output. 2x 5 W speakers are built in to the screen and the stand offers tilt, height and swivel adjustments. No word on pricing as of yet.

Update December 10th 2020: AOC has just made the AGON AG493UCX available for purchase. Initial availability is pegged for Europe with a price tag set at £899 / €899.
Source: TFT Central
Add your own comment

39 Comments on AOC Announces the AGON AG493UCX Monitor: 49" VA, 5120 x 1440, 120 Hz, 1ms, 32:9, FreeSync and DisplayHDR 400

#1
The Quim Reaper
Funny, they show the monitor with a racing game running on it.

...Which is the last type of game you'd want to run on a smeary VA panel.
Posted on Reply
#2
kapone32
That curve would create some serious immersion. I guess the technology is not there yet to give us a well priced high specced IPS 4K panel.
Posted on Reply
#3
Nater
Why does TechPowerUp insist on calling 1440p monitors 4K monitors? Just stop. It's not even mentioned as 4K in the original Chinese press release, because, newsflash, IT'S NOT A 4K MONITOR.

It's DQHD. Not 4K. DQHD. Not 4k. Say it with me. DQHD. Not 4K.
Posted on Reply
#4
IceShroom
NaterWhy does TechPowerUp insist on calling 1440p monitors 4K monitors? Just stop. It's not even mentioned as 4K in the original Chinese press release, because, newsflash, IT'S NOT A 4K MONITOR.

It's DQHD. Not 4K. DQHD. Not 4k. Say it with me. DQHD. Not 4K.
Your are right it is not 4K but 5K.
By your defination cinema 4K actually daul 1080p AKA DFHD (2160/2=1080).
Posted on Reply
#5
Nater
IceShroomYour are right it is not 4K but 5K.
By your defination cinema 4K actually daul 1080p AKA DFHD (2160/2=1080).
DQHD is another stupid industry "standard", I hate that one too. It's using 720 as the baseline for HD, not 1080. Technically correct, but who has ever bought a PC monitor that only did 720 since HD was a thing?

I think everyone can agree though that 4K = 3840 x 2160; Cinema 4k 4096 x 2160. 1440p is not 4K. It's QHD. double wide =Dual Quad HD. 2 times 4 times 720.
Posted on Reply
#6
IceShroom
NaterDQHD is another stupid industry "standard", I hate that one too. It's using 720 as the baseline for HD, not 1080. Technically correct, but who has ever bought a PC monitor that only did 720 since HD was a thing?

I think everyone can agree though that 4K = 3840 x 2160; Cinema 4k 4096 x 2160. 1440p is not 4K. It's QHD. double wide =Dual Quad HD. 2 times 4 times 720.
The reason why we call 4096x2160p 4K is becasuse of 4096 Horizontal pixel not because of the 2160 vertical pixel.
The monitor in here has 5120 Horizontal pixel, so technically it is a 5K monitor.
Posted on Reply
#7
Nater
IceShroomThe reason why we call 4096x2160p 4K is becasuse of 4096 Horizontal pixel not because of the 2160 vertical pixel.
The monitor in here has 5120 Horizontal pixel, so technically it is a 5K monitor.
You're preaching to the choir man.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
NaterWhy does TechPowerUp insist on calling 1440p monitors 4K monitors? Just stop. It's not even mentioned as 4K in the original Chinese press release, because, newsflash, IT'S NOT A 4K MONITOR.

It's DQHD. Not 4K. DQHD. Not 4k. Say it with me. DQHD. Not 4K.
Man all those HD words.

Just name the god damn resolution width x height. We already have 2K for... what exactly, precisely. 4K is now anything higher than 1440p.. Dafuq is going on. Are we in marketing, or in reality here? Remember HD ready...
IceShroomThe reason why we call 4096x2160p 4K is becasuse of 4096 Horizontal pixel not because of the 2160 vertical pixel.
The monitor in here has 5120 Horizontal pixel, so technically it is a 5K monitor.
No its technically 5120x1440

in marketing it could be 5K. But why even stop there, right? :D

A similar thing is happening with screen diagonals. Since ultrawide people buying 32 inch think they'll get their TV equivalent on a desk. Then they unpack the box and realize they've bought something the size of two soundbars.

EDIT: sand. In your vagina. Yep. Mine too :P
Posted on Reply
#9
Nater
Vayra86Man all those HD words.

Just name the god damn resolution H x W. We already have 2K for... what exactly, precisely. 4K is now anything higher than 1440p. Dafuq is going on. Are we in marketing, or in reality here?
No kidding. It's nearly impossible shopping at places like Dell trying to decode all their acronyms. Why it puts so much sand in my vagina seeing a news blurb on what should be a highly respected PC enthusiast website further muddying the waters.
Posted on Reply
#11
Nater
nickbaldwin86This is a pretty sweet 5K monitor
It's only 4K. :p
Posted on Reply
#12
nickbaldwin86
NaterIt's only 4K. :p
IceShroomThe monitor in here has 5120 Horizontal pixel, so technically it is a 5K monitor.
I knew that and thought 5000+ Horizontal meant 5K so on... 2k is 2000+ etc.... hence the 4k means 4000 :kookoo:

in your mind a 4k monitor is only 2k if you think it is vertical?

I was only making a joke and now I am having to pave facts :fear:

:slap:
Posted on Reply
#13
Nater
Yeah I can't keep up anymore.
Posted on Reply
#14
skizzo
honestly I was bothered by the fact it was described as a 4K monitor too lol

it seems industry standard in my exposure is using the vertical lines to categorize properly. funny how every 4K monitor on rtings.com is 3840 x 2160. They sure don't list something like 5120 x 1440 as 5k or 4k....because it is just two 2K monitors (and 2K is 2560 x 1440) side by side in a single unit. do the math for pete sake! 2560 * 2 = 5120

Posted on Reply
#15
MrAMD
4K? It's 1.5 million pixels away from it. It's not even UHD. More like super duper wide QHD
Posted on Reply
#16
Vayra86
nickbaldwin86I knew that and thought 5000+ Horizontal meant 5K so on... 2k is 2000+ etc.... hence the 4k means 4000 :kookoo:

in your mind a 4k monitor is only 2k if you think it is vertical?

I was only making a joke and now I am having to pave facts :fear:

:slap:
Careful man, its a short road to insanity if you dabble in the Ks.
MrAMD4K? It's 1.5 million pixels away from it. It's not even UHD. More like super duper wide QHD
SDWQHD?

I'll see myself out now :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#18
Patriot
Vayra86SDWQHD?
I'll see myself out now :rolleyes:
Just call it the double wide lol
Posted on Reply
#19
moproblems99
Nater2 times 4 times 720.
That math doesn't work. It would need to be 2 times 4 times 640.

PS: The author's 4K spec was probably a typo and meant to be 5k. Hopefully.
Posted on Reply
#20
Nater
moproblems99That math doesn't work. It would need to be 2 times 4 times 640.

PS: The author's 4K spec was probably a typo and meant to be 5k. Hopefully.
Yeah sorry I typed that wrong, it doesn't read right straight math wise.

None of it makes sense because marketing departments got ahold of all this stuff. Why this thread is so fun.
High Definition (HD) = 1280 x 720 at 16:9. 921,600 pixels.
Quad High Definition (QHD) = 2560x1440 at 16:9. 3,686,400 pixels.
3,686,400/921,600 = 4. So there's your "Quad".
Dual Quad High Definition = 5120x1440 and is now 32:9 aspect ratio. 7,372,800 pixels.

So 2 * (4 * HD) =
2 * (4 * 921,600) =
2 * 3,686,400 =
7,372,800

So Mats is spot on. IT'S SEVEN FREAKING KAY! OMGZ. :D
Posted on Reply
#21
Valantar
Wait, it took a literal year for this to reach the market? Wow, that must be some sort of record.
Posted on Reply
#22
hyp36rmax
The Quim ReaperFunny, they show the monitor with a racing game running on it.

...Which is the last type of game you'd want to run on a smeary VA panel.
That's funny a lot of sim racers are using a Samsung CRG9 49" VA panel....
Posted on Reply
#23
kapone32
After thoroughly enjoying the VA panel on the Gigabyte 32QC. This may go in the lab if the panel is half decent.
Posted on Reply
#24
Chrispy_
My experience with two high-refresh AOC monitors (one Agon, one AOC) is that their black response times are utter garbage.

I returned both in disbelief, the second one, a CQ32G1 I though would be better based on an RTINGS review but it turns out they based their measurements on the 27" variant and had the cheek to simply copy and paste the 27" article for the 32" version with a completely different panel and completely different firmware behaviour.

Mid-year RTINGS updated their review for the 32" model and holy cow the performance is utterly inexcusable. How the hell can AOC call something a gaming monitor when it is a smeary blurry mess incapable of even attaining the 33ms response times for 30fps console-quality framerates? That 91.4ms translates to a maximum of 11Hz before smearing kicks in.



In short, I can't trust AOC to get it right. I know tuning a VA panel is a delicate balance but they managed to somehow make the transitions that VA is typically very good at awful, without fixing the 0-20% that it's always bad at, having some pretty bad overshoot halos in the process, all whilst having some of the jankiest firmware I've used in a while that forgets some settings between power cycles. Really important settings like UMLB or Freesync, too - Having to turn one of those on every damn boot was infuriating - and yet more evidence of a complete lack of actual testing and thought from AOC.

Sorry for the rant, but VA panels have such an enormous amount of variance depending on the manufacturer tuning the firmware and I feel that AOC's stunningly-poor firmware for two out of two gaming panels is something worth mentioning in this context.
Posted on Reply
#25
BorisDG
Nowadays panels quality is so low. 80%+ are coming with some kind of pixel defects.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.