AOC launches AGON PRO AG274QZM Gaming Monitor: QHD, 240 Hz, HDR1000

[TheLostSwede]

AGON by AOC - one of the world's leading gaming monitor and IT accessories brands - announces the 27" (68.58 cm) AGON PRO AG274QZM, a super-fast 240 Hz gaming monitor with QHD resolution and a breath-taking Mini LED IPS panel. The AG274QZM beautifully matches the punchy and accurate colors of the IPS panel with a Mini LED backlight that has 576 dimming zones. This enables the monitor to achieve the high-tier DisplayHDR 1000 certification with 1200 nits peak brightness, displaying deep blacks and bright sunlight in the same frame, while offering true high-speed gaming (11 msGtG) without compromises that competitive gamers look for.

Designed for success
AGON PRO AG274QZM is the new member of the AGON PRO family geared towards the legends of the gaming community: pro-competitive players and esports enthusiasts. Sharing the exquisite craftsmanship of its family, the AGON PRO AG274QZM features an award winning (red dot design award) form and heavy-duty, ergonomic stand. The stand, with built-in cable management offers height, tilt, swivel and pivot adjustments for healthy, comfortable gaming sessions.




The 3-sides frameless 27" IPS panel with 1.07 billion colors features a QHD resolution (2560x1440) and a 240 Hz refresh rate, the best combination of features for today's high-end competitive gaming. The QHD resolution offers a sweet spot for the current GPUs to achieve both high fidelity and high framerates. On the other hand, the 240 Hz refresh rate today represents the new base level for competitive FPS gamers, who were long accustomed to 144 Hz refresh rates and above. With a true 1 ms GtG response time, fast-paced action on the monitor appears smooth with virtually no ghosting. Thanks to the on-board NVIDIA G-SYNC compatibility, tearing and stutter are eliminated.

The more the merrier
The main feature of the competitive AG274QZM is its Mini LED backlight with 576 individual dimming zones. By turning on the backlight on only a small portion of the panel, the monitor can reach up to 1200 nits brightness to display bright visual features such as sunlight, fire etc., while displaying deep, dark shadows at the same time. This high dynamic range increases the perceived contrast ratio immensely and provides a rich, vivid, and immersive gaming experience. With the included monitor shield, the display can overcome challenges such as bright ambient light or reflections from stage/fill lights, increasing the perceived contrast even more. Certified with VESA DisplayHDR 1000, the AG274QZM offers a true HDR experience, combined with a fast refresh rate and sharp QHD resolution.

Furthermore, the AG274QZM is great for gamers who also work from home or use their PCs for content creation. The versatile monitor offers USB-C connectivity, with 65 W power delivery to charge and power connected laptops. With 4x USB 3.2 ports, the monitor can act as a dock to connect additional peripherals such as keyboard, mouse etc. With a built-in KVM switch, users can swap between two sources (e.g. a gaming pc and a work or streaming pc) while using the same keyboard and mouse set.



To customize the monitor to users' individual desk setups, the AG274QZM offers Light FX RGB lights on the back, which can be synchronized with other AGON by AOC gear. A logo projector also projects the AGON logo onto the desk for extra flair. The included puck-shaped QuickSwitch controller makes adjusting the OSD settings a breeze, while it can also be controlled via the joystick, or the G-Menu software.

AGON PRO AG274QZM will be available starting February 13, 2023 at a RRP of $1,049.99.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Space Lynx]

i mean if you are going to spend this much money you might as well do the OLED LG 27"

 

[Chrispy_]

i mean if you are going to spend this much money you might as well do the OLED LG 27"

I think that's the Achilles heel of mini-LED; The FALD arrays and their associated controller adds so much cost that the end result competes with OLED on price.

There's absolutely no contest with OLED. For a gaming display where pixel response time and contrast levels are the two most important factors, OLED isn't just better, it's several orders of magnitude better.

G2G response times?
11ms vs <0.1ms makes OLED something like 12000% faster.

Contrast ratios on fine details/fringes?
1000:1 vs infinity:1 makes OLED infinitely better.

I'll admit that if you're worried about image retention, mini-LED offers the best contrast ratio you can get with traditional LCD, but it's still not as good as OLED, especially since 576 zones will still result in bright halos around point lights on dark backgrounds. 576 zones is still only 32 x 18 backlights and that means the smallest possible backlight zone for a single pixel will result in an 80x80 bright corona reducing contrast to 1000:1 in that area.

 

[evernessince]

I think that's the Achilles heel of mini-LED; The FALD arrays and their associated controller adds so much cost that the end result competes with OLED on price.

There's absolutely no contest with OLED. For a gaming display where pixel response time and contrast levels are the two most important factors, OLED isn't just better, it's several orders of magnitude better.

G2G response times?
11ms vs <0.1ms makes OLED something like 12000% faster.

Contrast ratios on fine details/fringes?
1000:1 vs infinity:1 makes OLED infinitely better.

I'll admit that if you're worried about image retention, mini-LED offers the best contrast ratio you can get with traditional LCD, but it's still not as good as OLED, especially since 576 zones will still result in bright halos around point lights on dark backgrounds. 576 zones is still only 32 x 18 backlights and that means the smallest possible backlight zone for a single pixel will result in an 80x80 bright corona reducing contrast to 1000:1 in that area.

Aside from the image retention issue you mentioned, there's also subpixel layout and maximum brightness that are big problems for OLED.

One of the most notable complaints with the alienware or LG OLED monitors is that text is blurry. This extends to the LG C2 as well. IMO this is a dealbreaker because being a PC monitor means having text on screen in most cases, often of smaller sizes, and impairing the ability to read that is going to diminish the experience greatly.

FYI OLED being 12000 faster is not accurate. G2G response time is only a single factor in the display latency chain. Optimum Tech recently reviewed the new LG 240 Hz OLED and found that the ROG Swift 360Hz PG27AQN (an IPS display) was faster.

Mind you when it comes to motion clarity the BenQ Zowie XL2566K (which is TN) was the winner by far.

"Infinite" contrast ratio is misleading as well. Any number divided by zero is infinite and OLEDs can entirely turn off pixels to reach 0. This is more a play on the way contrast is measured more than an actual representation of the display's contrast performance. This is a problem because every OLED has infinite contrast under the current measurement even though contrast performance between them varies quite a bit. Newer OLEDs that can get brighter will achieve a higher perceived contrast than older dimmer OLEDs despite both having "infinite" contrast. The current measurement also ignores the fact that the minimum brightness of any point on the screen can be no lower than the amount of ambient light in the room. The only scenario in which an OLED has "infinite" contrast is on the spec sheet but in any real world room it will not. People tend to exaggerate the benefit of OLED vs the brightness of IPS. The best OLED monitors still only get around 200 nits maximum brightness whereas IPS can get 700+ nits. In order to benefit from the OLED your room really needs to be dark to very dark most of the time. The IPS will work well in any environment.

I'm sure OLED will get better over time but as of right now you have to take the factors mentioned above into consideration when making a monitor purchase.

 

[RH92]

Anything over 800 bucks im going with OLED !

 

[Cr4zy]

Aside from the image retention issue you mentioned, there's also subpixel layout and maximum brightness that are big problems for OLED.

Ive not personally had any complaints with the subpixel on my QD-OLED I realise those that use their displays for a lot of text work might have issues but for content, design and gaming its been a non-issue.

Max brightness of my OLED still is higher than the display I replaced so it's not exactly a deal breaker for a lot of people upgrading. I can understand if you were going from 600+ nits sustained down to whatever but most people are sidegrading the brightness at worst and thats for those at max brightness anyway.

Sure some people will have issue with them but for me OLED is just a better tech to buy into currently, maybe in the future mini-led or micro-led backlights will have some better choices but OLED is hard to beat especially when you can get burn in warranty.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Would love a 21:9 1440p 34" monitor with the same specs.

 

[evernessince]

Ive not personally had any complaints with the subpixel on my QD-OLED I realise those that use their displays for a lot of text work might have issues but for content, design and gaming its been a non-issue.

Max brightness of my OLED still is higher than the display I replaced so it's not exactly a deal breaker for a lot of people upgrading. I can understand if you were going from 600+ nits sustained down to whatever but most people are sidegrading the brightness at worst and thats for those at max brightness anyway.

Sure some people will have issue with them but for me OLED is just a better tech to buy into currently, maybe in the future mini-led or micro-led backlights will have some better choices but OLED is hard to beat especially when you can get burn in warranty.

Not even just people who work with a lot of text, you can see in the link I posted that the drop in text clarity will be noticeable regardless of it you are playing games or handling documents. If you do a google search of the Alienware 34 OLED, you can see a lot of people found it to be a dealbreaker and ended up returning the monitor. The problem with poor text clarity, aside from making things harder to read, it that is causes eye strain which can lead to headaches and fatigue.

You may not be affected and I'm glad you like your monitor but it's something to note for people to consider.

Typically when considering a monitor, you want at least 200 nits for a dimly lit room, 250 nits for typical lighting, and 270 - 300 nits for a room with a lot of ambient light. You can run an OLED monitor in moderate ambient lighting but it will make it unnecessarily harder to use and wash out any contrast advantage it had. You really want to get the room as dark as possible to benefit from OLED blacks. The higher the ambient light, the less of an advantage that monitor is going to have. VR is probably the ideal application for OLED because it avoids the burn-in issue and removes almost all ambient light.

 

[Garrus]

Aside from the image retention issue you mentioned, there's also subpixel layout and maximum brightness that are big problems for OLED.

One of the most notable complaints with the alienware or LG OLED monitors is that text is blurry. This extends to the LG C2 as well. IMO this is a dealbreaker because being a PC monitor means having text on screen in most cases, often of smaller sizes, and impairing the ability to read that is going to diminish the experience greatly.

FYI OLED being 12000 faster is not accurate. G2G response time is only a single factor in the display latency chain. Optimum Tech recently reviewed the new LG 240 Hz OLED and found that the ROG Swift 360Hz PG27AQN (an IPS display) was faster.

Mind you when it comes to motion clarity the BenQ Zowie XL2566K (which is TN) was the winner by far.

"Infinite" contrast ratio is misleading as well. Any number divided by zero is infinite and OLEDs can entirely turn off pixels to reach 0. This is more a play on the way contrast is measured more than an actual representation of the display's contrast performance. This is a problem because every OLED has infinite contrast under the current measurement even though contrast performance between them varies quite a bit. Newer OLEDs that can get brighter will achieve a higher perceived contrast than older dimmer OLEDs despite both having "infinite" contrast. The current measurement also ignores the fact that the minimum brightness of any point on the screen can be no lower than the amount of ambient light in the room. The only scenario in which an OLED has "infinite" contrast is on the spec sheet but in any real world room it will not. People tend to exaggerate the benefit of OLED vs the brightness of IPS. The best OLED monitors still only get around 200 nits maximum brightness whereas IPS can get 700+ nits. In order to benefit from the OLED your room really needs to be dark to very dark most of the time. The IPS will work well in any environment.

I'm sure OLED will get better over time but as of right now you have to take the factors mentioned above into consideration when making a monitor purchase.

You posted a video where he says "get the OLED" to argue against OLED... ok...

Not even just people who work with a lot of text, you can see in the link I posted that the drop in text clarity will be noticeable regardless of it you are playing games or handling documents. If you do a google search of the Alienware 34 OLED, you can see a lot of people found it to be a dealbreaker and ended up returning the monitor. The problem with poor text clarity, aside from making things harder to read, it that is causes eye strain which can lead to headaches and fatigue.

You may not be affected and I'm glad you like your monitor but it's something to note for people to consider.

Typically when considering a monitor, you want at least 200 nits for a dimly lit room, 250 nits for typical lighting, and 270 - 300 nits for a room with a lot of ambient light. You can run an OLED monitor in moderate ambient lighting but it will make it unnecessarily harder to use and wash out any contrast advantage it had. You really want to get the room as dark as possible to benefit from OLED blacks. The higher the ambient light, the less of an advantage that monitor is going to have. VR is probably the ideal application for OLED because it avoids the burn-in issue and removes almost all ambient light.

You are arguing against it without using it. It is not nearly as dark as you think. I have to turn the brightness down on my OLED.

 

[Vayra86]

This is a horrible product, stay fár away...

If this is supposed to be 'budget' miniLED to compete with OLED, its DOA. And that's what it is right now.

Typically when considering a monitor, you want at least 200 nits for a dimly lit room, 250 nits for typical lighting, and 270 - 300 nits for a room with a lot of ambient light. You can run an OLED monitor in moderate ambient lighting but it will make it unnecessarily harder to use and wash out any contrast advantage it had. You really want to get the room as dark as possible to benefit from OLED blacks. The higher the ambient light, the less of an advantage that monitor is going to have. VR is probably the ideal application for OLED because it avoids the burn-in issue and removes almost all ambient light.

Absolute nonsense, all you have to prevent is getting sunlight to fall onto your screen or having it behind you, which is the case with every other monitor ever - that's just unpleasant to look at.

But 180cd/m2 is a standard issue brightness & calibration target for any typically lit room. Daylight, mind, or office lighting. OLED meets that spec just fine. Another aspect here is that at higher brightness greyscale balance and deltaE errors can increase which they certainly do on any LCD, with IPS suffering the least - but that comes with a meagre 1000:1 contrast as well.

The idea that high brightness is ever somehow required is absolute bullshit, its a matter of what you're getting accustomed to. I've played around with a LOT of monitors and settings... high brightness is more eye strain/fatigue every time, in different settings. Similarly, playing in rooms with bad lighting conditions (absolute darkness, or sunlight falling in etc.) is going to show unpleasant panel qualities across the board; even specks of dust will appear more readily in the sun's reflection, its just something anyone will want to avoid if possible.

 

[evernessince]

You posted a video where he says "get the OLED" to argue against OLED... ok...


You are arguing against it without using it. It is not nearly as dark as you think. I have to turn the brightness down on my OLED.

My monitor is calibrated to 210 nits via a ColorMunki Display (a professional colorimeter) for a mostly dim room and I've routinely calibrated displays for people with various needs and ambient light levels. Do not assume that someone doesn't know what a specific brightness level is like.

The argument presented in the video is a lot more nuanced then "get the OLED", you are entirely misrepresenting it by glossing over the points made.

Absolute nonsense, all you have to prevent is getting sunlight to fall onto your screen or having it behind you, which is the case with every other monitor ever - that's just unpleasant to look at.

It's a funny thing, light bounces. When light is bouncing through a room, it's called ambient light. You'll almost always have ambient light unless you live in a darkroom. I never said anything about direct sunlight, I specifically referenced ambient to avoid the the assumptions like you've made here.

But 180cd/m2 is a standard issue brightness & calibration target for any typically lit room. Daylight, mind, or office lighting. OLED meets that spec just fine. Another aspect here is that at higher brightness greyscale balance and deltaE errors can increase which they certainly do on any LCD, with IPS suffering the least - but that comes with a meagre 1000:1 contrast as well.

No, standard is much higher:

15 Important Monitor Specifications Explained - The Ultimate Guide

Now a days computer monitors are available in huge variety of size, resolution and other features. Specifications vary widely across different monitors and each one is designed for very specific needs. Whether you're a casual

www.binarytides.com

https://www.coolblue.be/en/advice/what-is-the-brightness-of-your-monitor.html

Most monitors are not calibrated out of the box and if they are, they are calibrated at the out of the box brightness (typically 250 - 350 nits). Adjusting brightness higher or lower will impact the deltaE. If you care about color accuracy you should be calibrating your display with a measurement instrument regardless after you adjust your display to your desired brightness.

For example, my Acer monitor has an out of the box brightness of 260 nits and 340 nits in "sports mode". I think you vastly underestimate the brightness standard monitors come with.

The idea that high brightness is ever somehow required is absolute bullshit, its a matter of what you're getting accustomed to. I've played around with a LOT of monitors and settings... high brightness is more eye strain/fatigue every time, in different settings. Similarly, playing in rooms with bad lighting conditions (absolute darkness, or sunlight falling in etc.) is going to show unpleasant panel qualities across the board; even specks of dust will appear more readily in the sun's reflection, its just something anyone will want to avoid if possible.

Think about that for a second. You take your phone outside and it automatically increases screen brightness so that elements on the screen are still visible. The same concept applies here, the more ambient light, the higher brightness that is required to keep the display visible.

FYI absolute darkness is not bad for monitor viewing, it's only bad when the display has an overtly highly brightness. As I've said multiple time, your display should be calibrated according to the ambient light conditions present in the room. It's 100% possible to use a display in a pitch black room and avoid eye fatigue.

 

[Chomiq]

This is a horrible product, stay fár away...

If this is supposed to be 'budget' miniLED to compete with OLED, its DOA. And that's what it is right now.


Absolute nonsense, all you have to prevent is getting sunlight to fall onto your screen or having it behind you, which is the case with every other monitor ever - that's just unpleasant to look at.

But 180cd/m2 is a standard issue brightness & calibration target for any typically lit room. Daylight, mind, or office lighting. OLED meets that spec just fine. Another aspect here is that at higher brightness greyscale balance and deltaE errors can increase which they certainly do on any LCD, with IPS suffering the least - but that comes with a meagre 1000:1 contrast as well.

The idea that high brightness is ever somehow required is absolute bullshit, its a matter of what you're getting accustomed to. I've played around with a LOT of monitors and settings... high brightness is more eye strain/fatigue every time, in different settings. Similarly, playing in rooms with bad lighting conditions (absolute darkness, or sunlight falling in etc.) is going to show unpleasant panel qualities across the board; even specks of dust will appear more readily in the sun's reflection, its just something anyone will want to avoid if possible.

^ this. Using IPS calibrated to 160 nitts, anything above 180 would cause eye strain for me after 8 hours of work.

 

[Vayra86]

My monitor is calibrated to 210 nits via a ColorMunki Display (a professional colorimeter) for a mostly dim room and I've routinely calibrated displays for people with various needs and ambient light levels. Do not assume that someone doesn't know what a specific brightness level is like.

The argument presented in the video is a lot more nuanced then "get the OLED", you are entirely misrepresenting it by glossing over the points made.



It's a funny thing, light bounces. When light is bouncing through a room, it's called ambient light. You'll almost always have ambient light unless you live in a darkroom. I never said anything about direct sunlight, I specifically referenced ambient to avoid the the assumptions like you've made here.



No, standard is much higher:

15 Important Monitor Specifications Explained - The Ultimate Guide

Now a days computer monitors are available in huge variety of size, resolution and other features. Specifications vary widely across different monitors and each one is designed for very specific needs. Whether you're a casual

www.binarytides.com

https://www.coolblue.be/en/advice/what-is-the-brightness-of-your-monitor.html

Most monitors are not calibrated out of the box and if they are, they are calibrated at the out of the box brightness (typically 250 - 350 nits). Adjusting brightness higher or lower will impact the deltaE. If you care about color accuracy you should be calibrating your display with a measurement instrument regardless after you adjust your display to your desired brightness.

For example, my Acer monitor has an out of the box brightness of 260 nits and 340 nits in "sports mode". I think you vastly underestimate the brightness standard monitors come with.



Think about that for a second. You take your phone outside and it automatically increases screen brightness so that elements on the screen are still visible. The same concept applies here, the more ambient light, the higher brightness that is required to keep the display visible.

FYI absolute darkness is not bad for monitor viewing, it's only bad when the display has an overtly highly brightness. As I've said multiple time, your display should be calibrated according to the ambient light conditions present in the room. It's 100% possible to use a display in a pitch black room and avoid eye fatigue.

What's set out of the box is irrelevant, its common knowledge most screens leave the factory with stock settings that are far too bright and several modes designed specifically to stand out in store displays.
'Sports mode'... lol. What is this, a showroom and you're the salesman? If you're using those fantastic view modes you're doing it wrong to begin with.

Of course you can tweak brightness ever so slightly for different lighting conditions. But let's go back to the original point: your idea that OLED is too dim for its typical use case or 'most rooms'. Its really not; and posting some random links with non-information of what is 'typical' brightness (Coolblue says '300 nits is the best brightness for no eye strain'... that's certified nonsense even by your own statements ) doesn't really help make your point either.

The reality is, everyone is capable of adjusting the lighting conditions to whatever they need them to be. You can close a curtain or shutter. You can turn a light on or off. And in typical office lighting, the least eye strain is achieved by having a monitor at about similar brightness, not brighter than its environment. Strain is caused by high contrast situations. Both OLED and LCD are capable of equally large contrast ranges, but they get there in different ways; LCD by peak brightness, OLED by lowest black point.

So for different use cases you will have different needs, and generally we adjust our environment to meet those needs. I don't need color pop and eye candy when I'm writing text in an office; lower brightness even helps me work longer. But I do want it later when I start gaming at home - and I can easily have the lighting conditions required to get there.

Think about that for a second. You take your phone outside and it automatically increases screen brightness so that elements on the screen are still visible. The same concept applies here, the more ambient light, the higher brightness that is required to keep the display visible.

FYI absolute darkness is not bad for monitor viewing, it's only bad when the display has an overtly highly brightness. As I've said multiple time, your display should be calibrated according to the ambient light conditions present in the room. It's 100% possible to use a display in a pitch black room and avoid eye fatigue.

- Absolute darkness is generally considered a bad, and indeed more fatigue inducing environment to look at screens and light in general - this is a high contrast situation. Even with a generally low cd/m2.
- Phone outside is a screen that gets brighter especially when it gets hit by direct sunlight or at least, much more ambient light than you would have indoors.

You're trying to adjust realities to make your point that OLED is too dim. Sorry bud, that's just not true.

 

[evernessince]

Of course you can tweak brightness ever so slightly for different lighting conditions. But let's go back to the original point: your idea that OLED is too dim for its typical use case or 'most rooms'.

No, that's an assumption you made. If you read my priors, I specifically state on multiple occasion that the benefit under typical lighting condition of OLED wanes. I also made an argument that current OLED monitors (I'm putting more qualifiers here because you seem drawn to misinterpreting things) are too dim to be used in all environments, which is 100% true.

In typical internet fashion you replied rudely to a comment you skipped through because you felt a single line was incorrect without reading the whole thing.

Phone outside is a screen that gets brighter especially when it gets hit by direct sunlight or at least, much more ambient light than you would have indoors.

Your phone adjusts brightness regardless of whether the sun is directly hitting it or not. Ambient light levels are much higher outside of course but that wasn't the point of my example, it was to point out that higher ambient light levels require higher levels of brightness to properly see the screen. Surely you did not think that I was saying that outside midday lighting is normal inside lighting.

 

[Vayra86]

No, that's an assumption you made. If you read my priors, I specifically state on multiple occasion that the benefit under typical lighting condition of OLED wanes. I also made an argument that current OLED monitors (I'm putting more qualifiers here because you seem drawn to misinterpreting things) are too dim to be used in all environments, which is 100% true.

In typical internet fashion you replied rudely to a comment you skipped through because you felt a single line was incorrect without reading the whole thing.



Your phone adjusts brightness regardless of whether the sun is directly hitting it or not. Ambient light levels are much higher outside of course but that wasn't the point of my example, it was to point out that higher ambient light levels require higher levels of brightness to properly see the screen. Surely you did not think that I was saying that outside midday lighting is normal inside lighting.

Sorry maybe I ran with it a bit - but I do believe you also ran a bit with the LCD is better stance 'because of higher brightness'. Bright screens were never a real perk, and when OLED's 'benefit wanes', is not generally the situation where it matters - when it does matter, you'll make sure its benefit doesn't wane by just closing a curtain.

The other way around though... making the room brighter because you don't want to enjoy the near-grey blacks of LCD, or want to avoid IPS glow... is that preferable? I hardly think it is. For immersion, you'll want dim lighting so more attention is drawn to the screen. Now these aren't benefits, this is about avoiding problematic screen 'qualities'.

Your phone adjusts brightness regardless of whether the sun is directly hitting it or not. Ambient light levels are much higher outside of course but that wasn't the point of my example, it was to point out that higher ambient light levels require higher levels of brightness to properly see the screen. Surely you did not think that I was saying that outside midday lighting is normal inside lighting.

This is true, but again, this is you running with an idea as much as I am. The phone brightness is an extreme - for the general range of office /indoor situations, you can make do with 200-250 nits just fine, there is no way you're 'needing 300-350' anywhere unless you've got direct sunlight or reflection on the screen, which means there's a different problem to fix. But that is what some of your links above said.

 

[evernessince]

Sorry maybe I ran with it a bit - but I do believe you also ran a bit with the LCD is better stance 'because of higher brightness'. Bright screens were never a real perk, and when OLED's 'benefit wanes', is not generally the situation where it matters - when it does matter, you'll make sure its benefit doesn't wane by just closing a curtain.

From my end as well, it could have been worded much better and it was definitely not my intent to imply that brighter is better or that most people should not buy an OLED because of their brightness.

The other way around though... making the room brighter because you don't want to enjoy the near-grey blacks of LCD, or want to avoid IPS glow... is that preferable? I hardly think it is. For immersion, you'll want dim lighting so more attention is drawn to the screen. Now these aren't benefits, this is about avoiding problematic screen 'qualities'.

It's best to try to minimize ambient light in all scenarios, as you point out dim lighting is preferable. I was merely pointing out that there may be situations where individuals may prefer to have higher amounts of ambient light. For example, I like to leave my office windows open during the entire work day and prefer to keep the windows open near my game station assuming the sun is still out. There may also be situations where a person has to setup their rig in the living room (had to do that once myself for 6 months) or sunroom (around here these are insulated and not open like I know they are in hotter climates) for example. Not saying these are common or uncommon, just trying to account for potential situations.

This is true, but again, this is you running with an idea as much as I am. The phone brightness is an extreme - for the general range of office /indoor situations, you can make do with 200-250 nits just fine, there is no way you're 'needing 300-350' anywhere unless you've got direct sunlight or reflection on the screen, which means there's a different problem to fix. But that is what some of your links above said.

I agree with all the above.

 

[Arco]

Text? Just use Mactype. Vaporized the fringing. (Might not work on all programs but it's a good start.) [QD-OLED is special, doesn't work.]

Regarding brightness, I have a lot of light around my screen and I find it bright.

 

[evernessince]

Text? Just use Mactype. Vaporized the fringing. (Might not work on all programs but it's a good start.) [QD-OLED is special, doesn't work.]

Regarding brightness, I have a lot of light around my screen and I find it bright.

I don't know why Microsoft doesn't just support other subpixel layouts in general. OLED text on MACs look great.