Imo optimal resolution for 1080p. But too small for 1440p.

Yet more terrible monitors with horrible black levels... The only way to get your games looking good is with great colours and black levels, not hz.

I've recently came up with a great idea for my 28inch 4k monitor. By running it at 3840 x 1646 instead of 2160. I've turned my monitor into a smaller paranomic 21:9 running at 1646p. This makes sense as 4k is really hard to run at a nice fps on modern games and running it at ultrawide paranomic looks very cool.

Yet more terrible monitors with horrible black levels... The only way to get your games looking good is with great colours and black levels, not hz.

If you play chess - yes , but in fast , dynamic games there is no place to compare!

Not true and I have 144 Hz monitors and they have their place for like BF3, 4 etc but anything else? Nope. So don't exaggerate. If you're not playing competitively then you could go for something else that would be far better in quality. Besides I play a number of games competitively and when I decide to go downstairs to play on my TV which is far better quality picture wise I enjoy the games more and it does not seem to affect my performance tbf. I can tell the difference in smoothness but I for one enjoy my games more. If I really want to be competitive I will go upstairs but competitive is not everything. Not every game is competitive.

To small lol. 23 inch for 1680x1050 27inch for 1920x1080 32 inch for 2560 x 1440 34 ich and up for 4k @ least for me.

When I saw the title I was hoping for some decent 27" monitors at a reasonable price. Then I actually took half a second to process the title and realized they're in the 24" category. Then I clicked the link -__- and saw that they're TNs... and somehow cost a stupid amount. 575 Euros for a 23.8" TN? Go home AOC, you're drunk. I'll take my chances with the random Chinese ****ter company spewing out 27" 144Hz IPS panels for $390 or $440 for a "pixel perfect" one. That sounds like a steal until you realize you're still paying $440 for a 27" monitor just because it isn't imprisoned at 60Hz.

Not true and I have 144 Hz monitors and they have their place for like BF3, 4 etc but anything else? Nope. So don't exaggerate.

hahahaha your narrow mind amuses me. Many other games benefit from 120hz+ and you only seem to be using "etc" in your sentence as you do not grasp this concept.

If you're not playing competitively then you could go for something else that would be far better in quality.

Fair point, but unfortunately this monitor is not aimed at "casuals", thus this is a comparison of 2 different groups, unfair imo.

Besides I play a number of games competitively and when I decide to go downstairs to play on my TV which is far better quality picture wise I enjoy the games more and it does not seem to affect my performance tbf.

Unfortunately your down fall in this paragraph is using "I". you are creating an opinion, which other people may see differently, thus making your comment invalid when reviewing/comparing this monitor as you are using your own opinion in favour of a fact, or even better, a majority vote of what people use to game with in regards to displays.

I can tell the difference in smoothness but I for one enjoy my games more. If I really want to be competitive I will go upstairs but competitive is not everything. Not every game is competitive.

True, but this monitor (as i said once before) will be used in a competitive environment the majority of the time. yes 1440p skews this, but it is still considered a "competitive monitor" due to its response time, refresh rate and size (24 inches). The majorities of the games played on this monitor will be competitive games.