AOC 27G2E 27 in IPS FHD 144Hz Freesync VESA Gaming Monitor ($199.97)

redflagdealsguy wrote: ↑ Through advanced internet telemetry gathered by fax and phonograph technology, I was able to capture a snapshot of the above user.



Jokes aside, the 3080ti / 3090 / 4080 / 4090 will do 1440p max ultra.

If you run with full RTX as well, then you might have an argument.

Will it run three 1440p monitors at max ultra and still gives 100+ FPS?

life359 wrote: ↑ The monitor is clearly targeted at gamers given the refresh rate and response time. If you want 1440p for productivity, you buy a lower refresh rate monitor that is 1440p like something with 75hz.

Everything is a compromise. Arguing that 27" 1080p is bad just because it's 1080p when it's clearly meant for gaming (not text reading) is ridiculous.

Gaming perspective: You're gonna have a better time gaming 1440 @ 75hz vs 1080 @ 144hz. If you're a serious gamer you'd go 24" 1080 @ 144hz+

Productivity perspective: 1440p is ideal

Common denominator: 1440p is preferable for most people

thr333zy wrote: ↑ Gaming perspective: You're gonna have a better time gaming 1440 @ 75hz vs 1080 @ 144hz. If you're a serious gamer you'd go 24" 1080 @ 144hz+

Productivity perspective: 1440p is the only answer.

I used to run 1440p at 75hz. I did not know what I was missing until I moved to 165hz. There is absolutely no way I can go back to sub 100 FPS now. Hence why I will always sacrifice quality to get higher refresh rates.

That said, I still want a big monitor, as I find 24" too small regardless of the resolution. If I had my time back I would probably have bought something like this instead of the current 32" 1440p 165hz I run now, specifically because it's very difficult to drive 1440p at over 100 FPS. There are very few games (that I play) that run at 165hz at 1440p, even dropping all the settings down to low.

People will say "get a better card". OK sure, let's say I buy the next gen Rdna3 or 4000 series, the problem will continue with newer games coming out that continue to run like crap because devs continue to seem focused on optimizing for the Xbox and PS5 (60hz), so 144/165 isn't a priority.

life359 wrote: ↑ I used to run 1440p at 75hz. I did not know what I was missing until I moved to 165hz. There is absolutely no way I can go back to sub 100 FPS now. Hence why I will always sacrifice quality to get higher refresh rates.

Definitely the caveat is if you've never used 1440" or 144hz +, this is the monitor for you. Once you've experienced something beyond 1080p/75hz you can never go back.

life359 wrote: ↑ That said, I still want a big monitor, as I find 24" too small regardless of the resolution. If I had my time back I would probably have bought something like this instead of the current 32" 1440p 165hz I run now, specifically because it's very difficult to drive 1440p at over 100 FPS. There are very few games (that I play) that run at 165hz at 1440p, even dropping all the settings down to low.

I feel the same way - went from 2x 27" 1440p @ 75hz to 1x 34" 1440p at 165hz, it was not the same. Thought I could replace the 2 monitors with 1, but ended up getting a 24" 1080p set vertically beside the 34" for actual multitasking.

life359 wrote: ↑ Absolutely not true on most newer AAA games. Go try to run Cyberpunk 2077 at max settings 1440p on a 3000 series card and tell me how well you do.

I'll give you a hint - you aren't reaching 144 or 165 FPS. I know because I have a 3080 and I have to turn things down to low with DLSS enabled just to get above 125 FPS in most areas.

Far Cry 6? No DLSS and the FSR implementation is garbage. I can't even get a steady 100 FPS, even with turning down the options.

The threshold he set was breaking 100fps not 144 or 165.

You can break a 100 with at least some of the cards mentioned, it might take a 4080 / 4090, but it's doable.

If you're looking for every performance killing addon on to enable on that most demanding of games, you can also find a way to prove me wrong.

have the same monitor in 24 inch, great monitor and have suggested it to multiple friends. Well reviewed on reddit as well. Using it as a 2nd monitor now cause i upgraded to 1440p 27inch 165hz for main. Big difference in gaming and will never go back to 24 ,

27" for $200 is a great deal if youre starting out.

RedLineee wrote: ↑ have the same monitor in 24 inch, great monitor and have suggested it to multiple friends. Well reviewed on reddit as well. Using it as a 2nd monitor now cause i upgraded to 1440p 27inch 165hz for main. Big difference in gaming and will never go back to 24 ,

27" for $200 is a great deal if youre starting out.

Why do you need to start out at Mediocre?

The standard hot deal is
24 in FHD sub $150
27 in QHD sub $250
32 in UHD sub $350

Dont buy this.

redflagdealsguy wrote: ↑ The threshold he set was breaking 100fps not 144 or 165.

You can break a 100 with at least some of the cards mentioned, it might take a 4080 / 4090, but it's doable.

If you're looking for every performance killing addon on to enable on that most demanding of games, you can also find a way to prove me wrong.

100 FPS is not high refresh rate IMO. I can tell the difference between 100 and 144. 144 is minimum I'd consider "high refresh rate."

I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to addons.

life359 wrote: ↑ Absolutely not true on most newer AAA games. Go try to run Cyberpunk 2077 at max settings 1440p on a 3000 series card and tell me how well you do.

The point was 1440p at high refresh rate. No one said max settings. Get off your high horse bud.

My 3060Ti can run most games in 1440p at high refresh rates with med /high settings.

I have the 24" version that I picked up for $120 BNIB off marketplace, really amazing monitor. Dint know what panel this uses, but if it's larger version of the panel the 24 has then you cam expect contrast ratios closer to 1400:1 and 350 nits brightness.

Seems there aren't too many reviews of the 27" version, most hits redirect the the 24". With the 24G2 there were models using a Panda panel with much higher than advertised brightness and contrast ratio, then they quietly substituted an inferior panel from BOE that had better overdrive and response time but worse in several other ways.

Here is how to tell the differences

soccer29 wrote: ↑ i use a aoc 27g2. great monitor for the price.

wonder how this new 27g2e is different?

The "e" is the same monitor but with cost cutting measures (perhaps for different markets) seen in the lack of height adjustment on the stand and may not include display cables.

RedLineee wrote: ↑ have the same monitor in 24 inch, great monitor and have suggested it to multiple friends. Well reviewed on reddit as well. Using it as a 2nd monitor now cause i upgraded to 1440p 27inch 165hz for main. Big difference in gaming and will never go back to 24 ,

27" for $200 is a great deal if youre starting out.

1080p at 24 inches is fine for desk use. It won't be super crisp or a premium experience, but it'll be useable for general purpose and it works if you're an FPS junkie for games. It's the 24 -> 27 inch at this resolution that'll really give a lot of people a bad time.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a Costco monitor with 1440p 27" or above? TIA.

RedLineee wrote: ↑ have the same monitor in 24 inch, great monitor and have suggested it to multiple friends. Well reviewed on reddit as well. Using it as a 2nd monitor now cause i upgraded to 1440p 27inch 165hz for main. Big difference in gaming and will never go back to 24 ,

27" for $200 is a great deal if youre starting out.

thr333zy wrote: ↑ Gaming perspective: You're gonna have a better time gaming 1440 @ 75hz vs 1080 @ 144hz.

This is absolutely NOT true.

so I have two of the 24G2

on the one hand... great looking monitors at a great price

on the other hand, one literally set on fire.... yep. near the bottom left of the screen a blue/black blob started quickly developing and while im looking at it smoke starts coming from the very bottom left. I quickly unplugged it and sent the pictures of the melted monitor film to AOC for an RMA, havent received anything back yet, this happened pretty recently.

Pics

Krigen89 wrote: ↑ The point was 1440p at high refresh rate. No one said max settings. Get off your high horse bud.

My 3060Ti can run most games in 1440p at high refresh rates with med /high settings.

Actually someone did suggest max/ultra settings.

Your 3060ti isn't running cyberpunk at medium or high at [email protected]

life359 wrote: ↑I know there's going to be some mouth breathers come into this thread and whine that it's 1080p at 27" but seriously, for the price the specs are fantastic. Driving 1440p at high refresh rates in newer games is hard on even the newest hardware

Krigen89 wrote: ↑ First, no. Second, especially not with DLSS/FSR/XESS.

life359 wrote: ↑


Absolutely not true on most newer AAA games. Go try to run Cyberpunk 2077 at max settings 1440p on a 3000 series card and tell me how well you do.

Krigen89 wrote: ↑ The point was 1440p at high refresh rate. No one said max settings. Get off your high horse bud.

My 3060Ti can run most games in 1440p at high refresh rates with med /high settings.

life359 wrote: ↑ Actually someone did suggest max/ultra settings.

Your 3060ti isn't running cyberpunk at medium or high at [email protected]

Bro just stop. We didn't say max settings, and we didn't say 144hz.
https://www.gpucheck.com/game-gpu/cyber ... i9-10900k/
109fps at high settings, 154 at medium. Now I'm done with you.

Thanks OP, saw this in-store (CC) and thought it looked like a decent monitor, at least at a glance. Will find out once I get it.

Edit: Actually, I saw the plain "G" version, not "GE", not sure about the difference.

Krigen89 wrote: ↑ Bro just stop. We didn't say max settings, and we didn't say 144hz.
https://www.gpucheck.com/game-gpu/cyber ... i9-10900k/
109fps at high settings, 154 at medium. Now I'm done with you.

Actually redflagdealsguy said max/ultra near end of page one. The post with the rendered head picture.

And I'm the one who said high refresh rate. If you don't care about high refresh rate, then buy [email protected]

Regarding those benchmarks, well, I'm running a 10600k. Perhaps on that particular game I'm CPU bound. There are still many games that don't use more than 6 cores and I do not get 165 fps even on low settings.

Edit: you know what? That site is BS:
https://www.gpucheck.com/game-gpu/cyber ... 600k/ultra

I absolutely am not getting 315.8 FPS on low, even with DLSS on.

https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1004 ... arks-1440p
This site tested with a 5900x and on max settings was only getting 78 FPS. No way a 10900k gives 96.3 FPS vs the 5900x.

ballabones wrote: ↑ so I have two of the 24G2

on the one hand... great looking monitors at a great price

on the other hand, one literally set on fire.... yep. near the bottom left of the screen a blue/black blob started quickly developing and while im looking at it smoke starts coming from the very bottom left. I quickly unplugged it and sent the pictures of the melted monitor film to AOC for an RMA, havent received anything back yet, this happened pretty recently.

Curious as to whether your Serial begins with ATN or AWB?