AOC launches 25-inch FreeSync monitor with 240Hz refresh rate

[Scorpus]

AOC has unveiled a new 25-inch gaming monitor that attempts to push refresh rates to their limits. The Agon AG251FZ is a TN LCD that supports FreeSync, with a variable refresh window from 48Hz up to a massive 240Hz.

Whether or not you'll be able to discern a difference between 240Hz and 144Hz – the most common refresh rate for fast gaming monitors – remains to be seen. The good news is that with a resolution of just 1920 x 1080, you shouldn't have too much trouble pushing games well above 100 Hz with a powerful gaming system.

The AG251FZ features a maximum brightness of 400 nits and a static contrast ratio of 1000:1. Unfortunately viewing angles aren't spectacular from this TN display at just 170/160° degrees, and color accuracy is limited due to 6-bit+FRC performance. Both issues shouldn't impact gamers significantly, as this monitor is designed specifically for fast refresh rates.

This display packs a stand with tilt, swivel and pivot adjustments, plus there's a folding arm on the right side that's a perfect headphone holder. Port-wise we're looking at two HDMI ports, DisplayPort, DVI and VGA alongside a USB 3.0 hub and some audio jacks.

The AOC Agon AG251FZ will be available in January 2016 for $449.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/67204-aoc-launches-25-inch-freesync-monitor-240hz-refresh.html

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

A TN panel for $450? I'd value a higher quality panel than I would a ridiculous 240 Hz refresh rate panel. This is just smoke & mirrors marketing crap as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Burty117]

I've never experienced anything above 144Hz. I would like to try this monitor out.

I find the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz to be quite noticeable. Jumping up double again should yield some results.

When I googled it, I think the military settled that the human eye couldn't see any faster than 320Hz so we're getting closer to near perfect refresh rates.

Now waiting for that 4K 28inch @ 320Hz IPS beast (I joke, I joke)

 

[tomkaten]

I'm waiting for the GPU that can run those frame rates in AAA titles, even in Full HD

 

[Arris]

Running an overclocked monitor at 96Hz is definitely a benefit to my use of my system but that's on a 2560x1440 display. I'd doubt that this is really that beneficial, especially now with the push for 4k from Consoles as well as high spec PCs. And if VR takes off these new gaming monitors are going to have a very limited market, possibly hardcore CS:GO players and maybe a few other people. Maybe FreeSync gives this more value than I attribute to it.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Running an overclocked monitor at 96Hz is definitely a benefit to my use of my system but that's on a 2560x1440 display. I'd doubt that this is really that beneficial, especially now with the push for 4k from Consoles as well as high spec PCs. And if VR takes off these new gaming monitors are going to have a very limited market, possibly hardcore CS:GO players and maybe a few other people. Maybe FreeSync gives this more value than I attribute to it.

Even if VR did take off, which I doubt it will, many games are not suited for VR, things like strategy games, third person shooters, ece. Basically anything that isnt a FPS or racing game.

VR making monitors a niche market is about as likely as everybody moving to laptops for gaming. Highly unlikely.

 

[mrjgriffin]

I'm waiting for the GPU that can run those frame rates in AAA titles, even in Full HD

well since its a 1080p monitor im willing to bet 2 pascal titans in sli would come pretty close. if not im sure the next gen of amd/nvidia cards will be able to do it.

 

[Arris]

Running an overclocked monitor at 96Hz is definitely a benefit to my use of my system but that's on a 2560x1440 display. I'd doubt that this is really that beneficial, especially now with the push for 4k from Consoles as well as high spec PCs. And if VR takes off these new gaming monitors are going to have a very limited market, possibly hardcore CS:GO players and maybe a few other people. Maybe FreeSync gives this more value than I attribute to it.

Even if VR did take off, which I doubt it will, many games are not suited for VR, things like strategy games, third person shooters, ece. Basically anything that isnt a FPS or racing game.

VR making monitors a niche market is about as likely as everybody moving to laptops for gaming. Highly unlikely.

Not what I said at all. Didn't say that VR would make "monitors" a niche market, but this specific gaming monitor at the price it is going to release at. I know a lot of games still are not easily run at 4k at decent framerates, but really question the point in releasing 1920x1080 monitors in 2016(almost 2017!). I've been gaming at 2560x1440@96Hz for over 3 years for crying out loud... What I'm trying to say is that between those adopting 4k monitors, and those trying out VR is there really a decent market for this 240Hz(which I'm dubious of being much actual value) low resolution monitor.

I'm definitely not saying VR will make monitor/gaming monitors niche, that would be a ridiculous statement to make. But with the cost of early adoption of VR not many people will be looking to splash out for a fancy 240Hz lower resolution monitor and VR, especially if they have a decent enough monitor already.

 

[Wytefang]

1080p? LOL. 25"? LOL. Wake me up when they join the modern world at 1440p or higher. Thanks!

 

[Burty117]

but really question the point in releasing 1920x1080 monitors in 2016(almost 2017!). I've been gaming at 2560x1440@96Hz for over 3 years for crying out loud... What I'm trying to say is that between those adopting 4k monitors, and those trying out VR is there really a decent market for this 240Hz(which I'm dubious of being much actual value) low resolution monitor.

To be fair, at the size the monitor is, 1080p doesn't look all that bad on them. I use a 24 inch 1080p monitor at work and it's not that bad. Sitting a normal distance away on a normal average desk you can't really distinguish the pixel's.

I think the market for a screen like this will be hardcore Counter-Strike fans, if it gives someone, even the slightest chance of seeing something that tiny bit quicker, this screen will be for them, a single 1070 would probably be able to run counter strike at a solid 240fps as well.

 

[Wytefang]

Nah, you can EASILY see the difference between something like 1080p and 1440p. I should know, I have one of each side-by-side of each other.

That being said, I don't think this compares well with the far superior ASUS ROG SWIFT gaming monitor.

 

[Arris]

To be fair, at the size the monitor is, 1080p doesn't look all that bad on them. I use a 24 inch 1080p monitor at work and it's not that bad. Sitting a normal distance away on a normal average desk you can't really distinguish the pixel's.

I think the market for a screen like this will be hardcore Counter-Strike fans, if it gives someone, even the slightest chance of seeing something that tiny bit quicker, this screen will be for them, a single 1070 would probably be able to run counter strike at a solid 240fps as well.

As Wytefang said, the difference between 2560x1440 and 1920x1080 is very noticeable (1,612,800 more pixels). I use two 24 inch 1080 monitors at work every day, and a 27 2560x1440 at home. In fact the jump in resolution means I use lower levels of anti-aliasing in games as the jaggies inherently less visible.

As for the market being dedicated CS fans, and they would most likely already have 144Hz panels, that's about the reach of the market for this. I would speculate that the majority of other PC gamers and tech enthusiasts would rather have a higher definition, 10 bit, larger monitor than this niché product. And why 25"? Just to be different? Does an inch make all the difference? *ahem*