Most gaming monitors rely on TN-panels to achieve the speeds they have on paper. While checking the G2460PG, I will also bring up another G-Sync capable monitor that I tried in recent memory, namely the ROG Swift PG278Q.
Let's start with the basics, the G2460PG features a W-LED backlit 8-bit TN panel, with a peak brightness of 350candelas per square milimeter, brighter than ASUS PG278Q. This is way too bright for my eyes, even for a few minutes of use.
Most monitors don't feature the same uniform image quality across their surface. There are various types of uniformity, and many characteristics that can influence the way the monitor performs in corners as opposed to the center. I am interested in luminance (partly because that's the one I can consistently, and accurately measure).
Worth noting is that the results only apply to the review sample, and other items from the same model might behave very differently.
After setting the center of the screen at 2209cd/m2, I took 8 other readings from surrounding regions. The result is similar to that of ASUS' PG2478Q, with the darkest region being at the top right corner, with a deviation of 22% from the center. This is noticeable to the naked eye, though not necessarily a dramatic difference from the center.
When it comes to color fidelity, TN-panels usually lag behind IPS monitors, though the former are known for their speed. Most gaming screens opt to use TN panels for exactly this reason.
AOC's G2460PG doesn't look as vibrant as ASUS PG278Q did in terms of color reproduction. Bright vivid colors loook particularly muted. The average Delta-E was a 2.0 out of the box, which is not necessarily stellar, but its quite adequate for a TN-panel monitor. Following calibration, I managed to bring it to an average of 1.4 which is an impressive improvement over the un-calibrated performance.
I measured a contrast of 0.3254 cd/m2 (better than ASUS PG278Q) uncalibrated and 0.26544 calibrated black-point, and a static contrast ratio of 776.4 (with ULMB turned off) which is quite off from the advertised 1000:1.
The viewing angle is decent enough. On the horizontal axis (top-down) there's little to no color shift up until around 160 degrees, though a noticeable decrease in lighting occus, the image turning dimmer and dimmer. On the vertical axis (left to right) the situation is somewhat different with a vizible reddish-green colorshift taking place. As you move from side to side, a red/green tint is added to the mix and darkens considerably.
Still, these rests are consistent to TN-panel type monitors, and in this space AOC's G2460PG performs quite well.
G-Sync and input-lag
G-Sync has yet to be widely adopted, mainly because the price-range jumps up when the feature is added. Most monitors using G-Sync are quite expenmsive, for example ASUS' ROG Swift was priced at about $800 at release and its price has only gone up.
While I tried a number of games at 1080p, the focus of the test was to get the 144fps to match the 144Hz of the screen, then maybe force fluctuations from 100+ to 60 or less and notice any tearing taking place.
Tomb Raider performed at an average of 134FPS on the Ultra preset, with drops down at 120FPS. I managed to bring create spikes by forcing the LOD maps to load (while playing not during the benchmark), and got a drop to 85FPS. While the fluctuation is something noticeable, there was no input-lag spike or noticeable screen tearing.
Compared to it, using V-Sync there was noticeable stutter across the board with all games tested, though most noticeably with BF4 and DA: I. Like I stated when testing ASUS PG278Q, the most dramatic difference between G-Sync and V-Sync or no sync is when the FPS is low. While its still noticeable at 120+FPS, it's most dramatic at 60.
Under heavy-usage, G2460PG uses only 32watts, which is considerably lower than ASUS' ROG Swift. In idle, it eats abut 1W.
G-Sync adds to the power-requirements, and when the monitor is in stand-by it will keep eating about 15W until G-Sync turns off, which takes around 5 minutes.