Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ 4K 144Hz Monitor Review: Faster Than Fast

Nearly perfect

Reviews
By
last updated
Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ
Editor's Choice
(Image: © Asus)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

When it comes to premium gaming rigs, only an Ultra HD monitor will do. If you’re going to invest in high-end graphics hardware, it only makes sense to have the highest possible resolution. That prospect narrows buyers’ choices considerably. Before today, we’ve only reviewed four other desktop monitors that can run 3840 x 2160 resolution at 144 Hz, and all of them cost north of $1,000. But prices inevitably fall, and the Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ represents a new value plateau.

Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ

(Image credit: Asus)

At around $800 at this writing (if you can find it in stock), the XG27UQ delivers4K  resolution at 144 Hz over a single DisplayPort cable and, when paired with a sufficiently stout video card, also supports HDR and Adaptive-Sync. 

We’ve talked about the performance advantages of 1440p and 1080p monitors. Certainly, it’s easier to achieve high frame rates when there are fewer pixels to move. And motion resolution is the ultimate barometer of gaming performance. If a display blurs fast action, 4K won’t save the image from smearing. No, you need speed for sure, and the XG27UQ provides it in spades. We recorded the lowest input lag yet for an 4K monitor. This display is easily qualified for competition gaming and well-suited for the most skilled players.

Image quality excels too with true 90% coverage of DCI-P3 and some of the best HDR we’ve seen. Only a FALD-equipped monitor or OLED panel can top the picture quality we saw from the XG27UQ.This monitor truly does the standard justice.

If you have the system horsepower, there are few monitors that can match the Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ in all areas of gaming performance and image quality. Though it’s not exactly inexpensive, it undercuts the top premium displays by a significant margin. With all this in its favor, we highly recommend checking it out.

Christian Eberle
Christian Eberle
Contributing Editor

Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors. Christian began his obsession with tech when he built his first PC in 1991, a 286 running DOS 3.0 at a blazing 12MHz. In 2006, he undertook training from the Imaging Science Foundation in video calibration and testing and thus started a passion for precise imaging that persists to this day. He is also a professional musician with a degree from the New England Conservatory as a classical bassoonist which he used to good effect as a performer with the West Point Army Band from 1987 to 2013. He enjoys watching movies and listening to high-end audio in his custom-built home theater and can be seen riding trails near his home on a race-ready ICE VTX recumbent trike. Christian enjoys the endless summer in Florida where he lives with his wife and Chihuahua and plays with orchestras around the state.

11 Comments Comment from the forums
  • law records
    1.) Does the monitor have a fan? I've read about how loud monitor fans can be, so the ideal monitor for me wouldn't have one.
    2.) Does this panel have FALD? I suspect it doesn't, given the price.
    3.) How big a difference is there between Gsync compatible and "proper" G-sync? I have a "proper" G-sync monitor with the chip, but it looks like more and more screens are just going with the "compatible" version which doesn't. I read some of the technical differences, but curious about how noticeable it is when gaming.

    I have an 1080ti and will be upgrading to a 3080 once supply stabilizes.
    Reply
  • truerock
    So, DisplayPort 1.4 supports a maximum of 4K UHD (3840 \00d7 2160) at 60 Hz with 30 bit/px RGB color and HDR .

    You couldn't have tested 144MHz.

    Oh... I think you may have used compression.
    If you use compression I think there should be some details about that in your testing... or at least clearly state: "this is a test with compression" for each test using compression.
    Reply
  • Shadowclash10
    I don't think saying it's expensive compared to other 27 inchers is a good con. It's a somewhat premium 4K 144hz monitor, what did you expect? Now, one con is that is has very large and ugly bezels.
    Reply
  • veldrane2
    WTB 120Hz+, 4k, sub 4ms, 29-34" monitor.

    I've been stuck on 27 inchers for about a decade now. Going to another is not really an upgrade. Double this due to increase in quality of 2k.

    So its kinda pointless. We have all this wonderful new hardware cpming out that can finally run 4k really, really well, and monitor manufacturers in general seem to be just derping around instead of pumping out full lines of HBR3 displays.

    And no, I don't want it to be TV sized. Not 43", not 55" or whatever else, just an upgrade from not into 27".

    Maybe someone at Tom's Hardware could reach out to some of these manufacturers and do a write up about this hold up. Might turn out to be a good topic for an article.
    Reply
  • Bisbus
    I would definitely second this. There simply aren't any 32" high refresh rate monitors out. Especially with the 3080 coming out it seems manufacturers are caught behind the times.
    Reply
  • excalibur1814
    Manufacturers aren't caught behind the times, they're just lazy and will continue to churn out the same, tired, old tech as they're making money. I have a simple, standard, Asus VS248HR which cost £120. It's terrible, but does what it does. I left a reasonable review on Amazon, to which Asus replied as they didn't like what I'd written.

    These companies will continue releasing rubbish, at the lower end, to ensure anything above 'standard' affords a premium. Typical, standard, every single day profit. Heck, we'd still be on 1366x768 if they had their way.

    P.s. It would be amazing if these companies also made it 100% clear if the 3.5m jack audio/heaphone out was linked to the hdmi port.
    Reply
  • peteer01
    Talks about DSC as if it helps with image lag instead of calling it out as necessary compression because DisplayPort 1.4 doesn’t natively support the bandwidth needed for 144Hz 4K
    Says you can count the number of 4K 144Hz monitors on one hand
    Doesn’t bother to list the lack of HDMI 2.1 (which has more bandwidth than DP1.4) under cons or in the part of the article I readI stopped couldn't get through this advertisement. The misinformation is frustrating. I get it, you write reviews that make products look good, but can you avoid lies and misinformation?
    Reply
  • Jackal_x
    How does it compare to the LG 27GN950?
    im pretty stuck atm for what i should buy, maybe its worth waiting to see if theres more options in the next few months with HDMI 2.1 support?
    Reply
  • kyzarvs
    law records said:

    2.) Does this panel have FALD? I suspect it doesn't, given the price.

    Today, we’ll be looking at a less-expensive alternative that delivers everything except the FALD backlight for $800 as of writing. Meet the Asus ROG Strix XG27UQ.
    The sentence that includes the price - second paragraph.
    Reply
  • Shadowclash10
    excalibur1814 said:
    Manufacturers aren't caught behind the times, they're just lazy and will continue to churn out the same, tired, old tech as they're making money. I have a simple, standard, Asus VS248HR which cost £120. It's terrible, but does what it does. I left a reasonable review on Amazon, to which Asus replied as they didn't like what I'd written.

    These companies will continue releasing rubbish, at the lower end, to ensure anything above 'standard' affords a premium. Typical, standard, every single day profit. Heck, we'd still be on 1366x768 if they had their way.

    P.s. It would be amazing if these companies also made it 100% clear if the 3.5m jack audio/heaphone out was linked to the hdmi port.
    Yeah. Sadly, that;s how the majority of tech companies run. If they have no competition, why push hard and innovate? The only reason is so that an upstart doesn't come along and dethrone them. Just look at Intel! There are so many improvements they could easily make for consumers, but they don't because consumers are "content".
    Reply