ROG Strix OLED XG27AQDMG with GLOSSY WOLED panel + "OLED Anti-Flicker"

M

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
3,714
https://rog.asus.com/monitors/27-to-31-5-inches/rog-strix-oled-xg27aqdmg/#pageContent-sec-fps/

1716228256047.png


  • ROG-exclusive OLED Anti-flicker technology helps reduce the flicker during refresh-rate fluctuations
Really interested to see how this claim of anti flicker holds up. If it works well then this would be a pretty huge breakthrough for OLEDs IMO.

Anti-flicker can be added via firmware update for existing Asus OLEDs as well, so looks like you PG32UCDM owners are in luck.

https://rog.asus.com/monitors/27-to-31-5-inches/rog-swift-oled-pg27aqdm/helpdesk_bios/

What's New:

1.Added OLED Anti-Flicker function that can reduce the flickering phenomenon caused by significant fluctuations in the screen refresh rate.

Bug Fixed:

1.Addressing compatibility issues of NV 40 series graphics cards in 2K 240hz.
 
Last edited:
tongshadow said:
This better be sub $600, 1440/240hz is so 2022.
Click to expand...

1716250751150.png


I'm not really interested in this monitor since it's only 1440p/240Hz like you said, but I think this could be interesting for future monitor releases. A glossy version of the 1440p/480Hz or a glossy version of the PG32UCP running this Anti-flicker tech sounds neat on paper at least.
 
MistaSparkul said:
View attachment 654945

I'm not really interested in this monitor since it's only 1440p/240Hz like you said, but I think this could be interesting for future monitor releases. A glossy version of the 1440p/480Hz or a glossy version of the PG32UCP running this Anti-flicker tech sounds neat on paper at least.
Click to expand...
Has that pricing and release date been officially confirmed anywhere?
 
MistaSparkul said:
View attachment 654945

I'm not really interested in this monitor since it's only 1440p/240Hz like you said, but I think this could be interesting for future monitor releases. A glossy version of the 1440p/480Hz or a glossy version of the PG32UCP running this Anti-flicker tech sounds neat on paper at least.
Click to expand...
Not a bad price for mid-range to be honest. It will make prices on the second hand market even lower and more people will be able to afford an OLED.
 
Geforcepat said:
2k/240hz sounds good to me in 2024 lol. It'll be an upgrade from my 2k/144hz. But yeah the 480hz one coming out in Q3 has me wanting that one too.
Click to expand...

For me personally I just don't see much reason to go back to 1440p when I've been on 4K for years already. Upscaling has sort of rendered the whole argument that 4K is "too demanding" as obsolete. Upscaling is found in nearly all new releases these days so you can always just fine tune your DLSS level to get to your desired performance targets. DLSS in Performance mode on a 4K screen actually looks better than a native 1440p screen running at 1440p to me at least while not performing a whole lot worst. So rather than playing at 1440p instead of 4K in order to save on performance, I'd rather just play on a 4K screen and use DLSS Performance mode.
 
Interesting, I never really thought about that.

People say 4k-27" is too much too but I have never been overly impressed with the text clarity at those levels. Even the "crappy" 28-30" 4k monitors I've used from back in the day still wowed with me how sharp and clear all the text and every rounded corner was.

also, CSGO/CS2 looks awesome in 4k.

Now I want one!
 
MistaSparkul said:
By an Asus rep on reddit.
Click to expand...
ASUS forgot to include Full-Glossy QD-OLED in the slide apparently. The DELL AW3225QF came with one. It's more of an optional Glass that features along within 1700R Curvature than the standard "Full-Glossy" i'd call like Eve Spectrum Black ES07D03's Gorilla Glass.
GLOSSY-WOLED-ASUS.jpg
images - 2024-05-22T185044.671.jpeg
 
The Dell AW3225QF like all other current QD-OLED monitors has the semi-glossy coating covered on their comparison. It doesn’t have any additional glass cover or anything

Dough do have a version of the 27” 240Hz WOLED panel where they’ve added a custom gorilla glass finish which will be different to the three options shown there though.
 
MistaSparkul said:
For me personally I just don't see much reason to go back to 1440p when I've been on 4K for years already. Upscaling has sort of rendered the whole argument that 4K is "too demanding" as obsolete. Upscaling is found in nearly all new releases these days so you can always just fine tune your DLSS level to get to your desired performance targets. DLSS in Performance mode on a 4K screen actually looks better than a native 1440p screen running at 1440p to me at least while not performing a whole lot worst. So rather than playing at 1440p instead of 4K in order to save on performance, I'd rather just play on a 4K screen and use DLSS Performance mode.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah if you're on 4k this probably isn't the monitor for you. Yeah, Upscaling helps out for sure. But i'm still not impressed with any of the current cards at 4k.
 
Geforcepat said:
Well, yeah if you're on 4k this probably isn't the monitor for you. Yeah, Upscaling helps out for sure. But i'm still not impressed with any of the current cards at 4k.
Click to expand...

Well in the most recent techpowerup GPU review, the 4090 is averaging 118fps at 4K without any upscaling. Is that still not impressive enough?

1716399490677.png
 
MistaSparkul said:
Well in the most recent techpowerup GPU review, the 4090 is averaging 118fps at 4K without any upscaling. Is that still not impressive enough?
Click to expand...
Nope, I Need to see 120hz:D I'll leave it there for now as i don't want to derail this thread. I'll end it with this. Check out wizzards latest performance analyst.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Well in the most recent techpowerup GPU review, the 4090 is averaging 118fps at 4K without any upscaling. Is that still not impressive enough?

View attachment 655289
Click to expand...
That's a bit misleading, because they include some E-Sports and easy to run titles.

In current titles with heavy graphics at 4k max settings, 4090 is more like an 75 fps card.
 
chameleoneel said:
That's a bit misleading, because they include some E-Sports and easy to run titles.

In current titles with heavy graphics at 4k max settings, 4090 is more like an 75 fps card.
Click to expand...

Well again this is where DLSS comes into play. I never play at native 4K anymore, it's always with DLSS as it's gotten so good with version 3.7 that even Performance mode now looks great while in the past only Quality mode was acceptable to me.
 
Asus has confirmed this is a 3rd gen panel, which means it has Meta, and the new pixel structure.

However, both HDMI ports are only 2.0

They really pinched on Inputs and refresh rate, to maximize margins on a display which should otherwise be an attractive option.
 
chameleoneel said:
Asus has confirmed this is a 3rd gen panel, which means it has Meta, and the new pixel structure.

However, both HDMI ports are only 2.0

They really pinched on Inputs and refresh rate, to maximize margins on a display which should otherwise be an attractive option.
Click to expand...
Did Asus actually state it has the new sub pixel structure that I missed or is this an assumption?

This panel is likely based on the new refreshed model LG 27GS95QE 27 inch 1440 240hz that launched this year. It had the new MLA and brightness crap but did not have the new pixel structure.

I hope it does have the new pixel layout but unless they specifically said it does I wouldn't really bet on it.
 
It doesn’t have the new pixel layout as confirmed by TFT central. that’s only applicable on the upcoming 27” 480Hz panel later in the year and the new 32” 4K panel
 
So WOLED does not suffer from crazy dimming in mid APL like QD OLED does. Combine that with a glossy coating that doesn't have raised blacks and a lower price point I think this is the option to get if you want 1440p.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1104.png
    IMG_1104.png
    1,022.1 KB · Views: 0
Bummer it's not the new pixel layout. And IMO, ridiculous that an expensive monitor like this doesn't have at least one HDMI 2.1 port, to support 4k/120 downscaled for consoles, etc.
 
I've watched a few of these review vids on this monitor this morning and these Jabronis are making me laugh again on how wildly different all of their test results are.

I keep telling myself I should wait for "real reviews from actual users" before I buy shit buuuuut I bought this monitor this morning haha, scheduled to arrive Tues-Wed next week. 🫠
 
Hypez said:
I've watched a few of these review vids on this monitor this morning and these Jabronis are making me laugh again on how wildly different all of their test results are.

I keep telling myself I should wait for "real reviews from actual users" before I buy shit buuuuut I bought this monitor this morning haha, scheduled to arrive Tues-Wed next week. 🫠
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing multiple review vids at? I can only find 2 when googling it.

1717088781450.png
 
MistaSparkul said:
Where are you seeing multiple review vids at? I can only find 2 when googling it.
Click to expand...
The three I am referencing is Tech Testers, Monitors Unboxed and Spawnpoint.

Tech Testers for example only recorded a peak brightness of 820 nits in HDR compared to Tim's 1200ish. Tim's sounds more accurate but just found it funny how wildly different those 2 specifically where in most of their test results.

Spawnpoint also claimed his was dim compared to QD options but according to Tim's real scene tests and charts that doesn't line up either?
 
Hypez said:
The three I am referencing is Tech Testers, Monitors Unboxed and Spawnpoint.

Tech Testers for example only recorded a peak brightness of 820 nits in HDR compared to Tim's 1200ish. Tim's sounds more accurate but just found it funny how wildly different those 2 specifically where in most of their test results.

Spawnpoint also claimed his was dim compared to QD options but according to Tim's real scene tests and charts that doesn't line up either?
Click to expand...
Could be 1% window Vs. 2% or 5%. Might want to double check what each reviewer is testing for.
 
Hypez said:
The three I am referencing is Tech Testers, Monitors Unboxed and Spawnpoint.

Tech Testers for example only recorded a peak brightness of 820 nits in HDR compared to Tim's 1200ish. Tim's sounds more accurate but just found it funny how wildly different those 2 specifically where in most of their test results.

Spawnpoint also claimed his was dim compared to QD options but according to Tim's real scene tests and charts that doesn't line up either?
Click to expand...

Techtesters did not specify what window size she used for her measurement so we can't say that it doesn't add up vs MUB. She might not have even used test patterns for her measurements but instead used real scenes and if you look at MUB real scene results, the monitor gets nowhere near 1200 nits, it actually sits around a max of 800 so that adds up to Techtesters. As for Spawnpoint...I don't know man that guy is more of an impressions channels to me rather than a review channel because last I checked he doesn't actually provide any data/charts/graphs at all, no numbers just a bunch of "here's what it looks like to me" so unless he has actually started to do that now I won't bother watching his so called "reviews".
 
chameleoneel said:
Could be 1% window Vs. 2% or 5%. Might want to double check what each reviewer is testing for.
Click to expand...
In Tech Testers they don't really elaborate on their testing methodology. They claim peak 820 but never show as high as 820 in their table.

hdr.png
 
I got my monitor today and there's something little off about the glossy on the display. It's super hella reflective but it's not the same glossy look as my LG C2 TV and there is a little bit of a AR/grainy sparkle on a white screen.

Maybe it's just the innate properties of the panel itself as it was originally designed as a matte screen? It doesn't appear to be a true native glossy display like they are claiming.
 
Last edited:
Hypez said:
I got my monitor today and there's something little off about the glossy on the display. It's super hella reflective but it's not the same glossy look as my LG C2 TV and there is a little bit of a AR/grainy sparkle on a white screen.

Maybe it's just the innate properties of the panel itself as it was originally designed as a matte screen? It doesn't appear to be a true native glossy display like they are claiming.
Click to expand...

I literally just saw a thread on Reddit about this earlier today. Answer is the MLA apparently, people started noticing this change ever since the LG G3 which was the first one display to be glossy MLA.
 
MistaSparkul said:
I literally just saw a thread on Reddit about this earlier today. Answer is the MLA apparently, people started noticing this change ever since the LG G3 which was the first one display to be glossy MLA.
Click to expand...
Ahhh yeah didn't think of that but that is likely it. It has a AR like shimmer on brighter images a little bit but that being the MLA layer doing it's thang would explain why it looks that way.
 
Last edited:
MLA lenses embedded over each pixel in the panel are probably more noticeable up close. I also suspect thee LG Tvs still have a different and more expensive glossy AR coating than these monitors do.
 
sethk said:
MLA lenses embedded over each pixel in the panel are probably more noticeable up close. I also suspect thee LG Tvs still have a different and more expensive glossy AR coating than these monitors do.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfSd-OKNN1s

Vincent says it's the same glossy panel LG uses. Of course he's getting that info from Asus, but it would be weird for them to use something different instead of keeping it all the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top