Not exactly. What I'm saying is that AOC has the cheapest offers, and what you get is something that feels to be of the lowest quality.ball2hi wrote:So in other words what you're saying is, AOC offers good products but there are still better products out there.RealNC wrote:I have one. I'll just say: "You get what you pay for". At least when it comes to AOC.
The AOC I have here (a G2770PF) for example, has worse image quality than my Samsung XL2370 from 2009 (7 years old!), which was an average 60Hz TN-panel gaming monitor (yes, gaming monitors were 60Hz back then, with the "gaming" part referring to no input lag.)
Compared to that monitor, the AOC has more ghosting, worse colors, much worse viewing angles and the overdrive implementation is completely useless. I have overdrive turned off because movement makes stuff appear fat and bold, while it doesn't help with ghosting at all. Fortunately, 100Hz and higher reduces ghosting enough and is about the same as the old 60Hz Samsung. But running the monitor at 60Hz (some games force this mode, Skyrim Special Edition being the most recent example), oh my freakin' god. It's a shit-fest of ghosting and smeared visuals. Fortunately, most games don't force 60Hz and I can use 120Hz with 1/2 vsync instead.
The build quality also seems quite poor; pressing the buttons for the OSD makes them squick (like a door with rusty hinges) and the bezel is not even straight, but slightly deformed at places with bumps on it.
So that's what I meant with "you get what you pay for."
The monitor on its own is still rather expensive, but the thing is that it's still cheaper than other gaming monitors. It's the usual "gaming" label; heavily overpriced in general. There's no way in hell that this AOC monitor is actually worth the $370. It looks and feels like a $150 product. But it's still cheaper than the competing 27" gaming monitors.