AOC U28G2XU2

[Inle]

The AOC U28G2XU2 offers a 28-inch 4K 144 Hz IPS panel and costs less than its direct competitors. If you're in the market for a 4K gaming monitor but don't want to go larger than 28 inches, find out what you can expect from the most affordable option.

Show full review

 

[Onasi]

I will be honest, I wanted to ask this under a previous display review, but forgot - what is the rationale for using 250 cd as the brightness target? This seems unusually high and most other monitor reviews I have read tend to stick to the 120-150 range usually. Sure, I get the “normal uncontrolled environment” logic here, but it seems to me that even under such conditions 250 would be incredibly bright, to the point of causing eyestrain. I know brightness is subjective and depends on ambient light, but still.
This isn’t a criticism, by the way, the review is excellent, just wanted to know the reasoning.

 

[mechtech]

I got this monitor for $300 CAD

Amazon.ca

That's quite the premium for 144Hz!!!

 

[GoldenX]

As an owner of an AOC Q27G3XMN, please review it. It's the underdog of displays.

 

[kilo]

I will be honest, I wanted to ask this under a previous display review, but forgot - what is the rationale for using 250 cd as the brightness target? This seems unusually high and most other monitor reviews I have read tend to stick to the 120-150 range usually. Sure, I get the “normal uncontrolled environment” logic here, but it seems to me that even under such conditions 250 would be incredibly bright, to the point of causing eyestrain.

I have a cheap Acer that has a 250 max, which I would consider the lowest acceptable brightness. HDR needs 1000 and HDR400 is a much lower quality HDR that needs 400.

 

[Chry]

IPS? In 2024?
Just stop being poor!

 

[Kipicog]

I don't understand why they slam those red accent colors on it, will stop many people from buying it.

sRGB locks brightness is a bummer.

 

[sLowEnd]

I don't understand why they slam those red accent colors on it, will stop many people from buying it.

I doubt its as much of detractor as you think. Most of LG's Ultragear lineup has similar red accents, and they are still pretty popular.

 

[Kipicog]

I doubt its as much of detractor as you think. Most of LG's Ultragear lineup has similar red accents, and they are still pretty popular.

Would be even more popular if they made them all black.

Most LGs higher end stuff don't have red on it. Their OLEDs for example.

 

[Chomiq]

IPS? In 2024?
Just stop being poor!

And jump into the burn in bandwagon?

 

[Kipicog]

And jump into the burn in bandwagon?

I will take a very small chance of burn in than living with terrible LCD image quality and issues from day one. I got rid of my last LCD panel recently and I will never be going back. Phone, laptop, TV all had OLED for years and years. Now main monitor has been replaced too.

OLED motion clarity alone is next level compared to LCD smearing hell. Zero blooming, terrible contrast ratio and corner glow (IPS/VA). Dark room gaming with OLED is immersive on a whole new level.

Besides, burn-in has not been a big problem on OLED for years, this is 2024 not 2014.

Had 15-20 phones with OLED in the last 15 years and 5 OLED TVs, zero burn-in on any of those devices. Every high-end product goes OLED for a reason. LCD is for entry to mid-end stuff.

 

[Inle]

I will be honest, I wanted to ask this under a previous display review, but forgot - what is the rationale for using 250 cd as the brightness target? This seems unusually high and most other monitor reviews I have read tend to stick to the 120-150 range usually. Sure, I get the “normal uncontrolled environment” logic here, but it seems to me that even under such conditions 250 would be incredibly bright, to the point of causing eyestrain. I know brightness is subjective and depends on ambient light, but still.
This isn’t a criticism, by the way, the review is excellent, just wanted to know the reasoning.

There's no deeper reasoning than what you already mentioned. I've calibrated hundreds of monitors for people at their homes and noticed a trend: most of them intuitively set the brightness to around 250 cd/m2. They never know the actual panel brightness, but that's what they end up on "by feel". If I were testing professional monitors and calibrating them for screen-to-print matching, then I'd stick with the industry-standard luminance range of 80-120 cd/m2 (most commonly 100 cd/m2). For home monitors, it makes more sense to me to examine them with the settings that are likely to be used in real life. 99% of users would consider a 100 or 120 cd/m2 luminance screen far too dim, to a point where it's basically useless.

Fortifying my stance is the fact that OLED monitor makers currently strive to hit the 250 cd/m2 mark with ABL turned off (so, constant screen brightness). Anything past 200 cd/m2 is proving to be good enough for combined daytime and nighttime usage, but 250 cd/m2 really is somewhat of a sweet spot.

Thank you for your kind words, happy to hear you like the review!

 

[..0]

so much nonsense on monitors now, all we need is one displayport. but instead we have so much shit going on. you have one gpu, and and a monitor or two, displayport cable and you are done.
to much stuff ads cost, points of failure, delay in operation and more.

 

[Chrispy_]

The panel seems okay in terms of refresh and image quality. I'd probably pick "weak" overdrive but I suspect it does depend a bit on whether you can reliably exceed 144fps at 4K as these budget displays don't have variable overdrive for VRR modes at changing framerates.

The OSD is a head-scratcher. Even generic office monitors make that under-bezel button collection less of a headache by simply using the display to label them with an OSD and have them be context sensitive.

IPS? In 2024?
Just stop being poor!

"I can afford the 4090 that's good for 2-3 years needed to get 100fps+ at 4K but I don't want to spend much on the display that will last for my next three graphics cards"

 

[Readlight]

Where is 2K TV?

 

[dgianstefani]

I doubt its as much of detractor as you think. Most of LG's Ultragear lineup has similar red accents, and they are still pretty popular.

I have an Ultragear as my secondary, the red accents are virtually invisible when the monitor is turned on, in normal room lighting.

 

[ecomorph]

As mentioned in the review, I can't stress enough how horrible the OSD is. From all monitors I've tried in my life (20+), the AOC OSD is the worst by far and I'll never buy an AOC monitor ever again on this reason alone (the quality of the monitor itself was pretty good, but the OSD is a dealbreaker). Can't believe they haven't changed it after all these years (got an AOC 24'' 1080p years ago and to this day, it remains a pain in the side). Extremely counter intuitive placement of buttons and unnecessary amount of buttons you have to press to do something as simple as switch between saved preset settings (or even save more than 2 customized presets).

Buyer beware.

 

[Onasi]

I have an Ultragear as my secondary, the red accents are virtually invisible when the monitor is turned on, in normal room lighting.

Same. No issues with accents. I did turn off the silly RGB ring on the backside though. I guess LG maybe thinks it can serve as some sort of bias light, but… ehhh, not really. Looks more goofy and distracting. I tested it once when I got the monitor and instantly went “that ain’t it, chief”.

 

[Dristun]

Whenever I'm gonna be in the market for a HRR-monitor, I'm gonna be that guy who doesn't want to go above 28" if the resolution stays at 4K — because I don't want to lose the PPI. The crispness of 4K on a 27" screen is amazing and I ain't ever going back. If it's 32" (or bigger) then it needs to be 6K (or above, respectively).

 

[Chrispy_]

Where is 2K TV?

2K = 1080p, based on the loose definition of "a display with approximately 2000 horizontal pixels" but the true 2K resolution is 2048x1080 and it's not a standard resolution or aspect ratio for PCs or TVs.

If you mean 2560x1440, that's normally called 1440p, though I've heard some people call it 2.5K before - and TV's don't use this resolution because it's not an integer multiple of the "Full HD" 1080p resolution.

 

[RUSerious]

Whenever I'm gonna be in the market for a HRR-monitor, I'm gonna be that guy who doesn't want to go above 28" if the resolution stays at 4K — because I don't want to lose the PPI. The crispness of 4K on a 27" screen is amazing and I ain't ever going back. If it's 32" (or bigger) then it needs to be 6K (or above, respectively).

My glasses would need glasses with a 27/28" 4K monitor.

 

[Dristun]

My glasses would need glasses with a 27/28" 4K monitor.

Without scaling yeah, back when 27-4K displays appeared used to be a huge problem. But scaling works well on Win11 now, it's been almost a decade haha. There are still some apps that need work but it's mostly smooth sailing on 200% for me. Even VSTs (music production stuff) scale well on high-res displays to whatever size you wish.