Asus ROG Strix XG27ACDNG 360 Hz OLED gaming monitor review: Lighting-fast with pro-level color accuracy

Asus’ XG27ACDNG is a 27-inch QHD QD-OLED display with 360 Hz, Adaptive-Sync, HDR400, and wide gamut color.

Reviews
By published
Asus XG27ACDNG
Editor's Choice
(Image: © Tom's Hardware)

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.

With new speedy OLED gaming monitors appearing on almost a weekly basis, you’d think prices would drop more quickly. Sadly, this hasn’t happened but that doesn’t mean the category lacks value. The image quality and gaming performance offered is simply next level. The only thing other technologies can boast is higher brightness, but nothing can beat OLED’s black levels and contrast.

LCD can’t match OLED’s video processing smoothness and low input lag either. All the examples I’ve tested were super smooth and had no perceptible delays in control response. And you don’t need to run at dizzying frame rates to eliminate motion blur. 360 Hz is more than enough. The Asus ROG Strix XG27ACDNG stands above the 240 Hz rank and file with its 360 Hz and perfect Adaptive-Sync. And it offers the options of ELMB strobing and OLED Flicker compensation.

Asus XG27ACDNG

(Image credit: Asus)

To this wonderful goodness, it adds some of the best color I’ve ever seen. Not only does it cover 111% of DCI-P3, making it the most colorful OLED I’ve yet tested, it’s unfailingly accurate as well, as in equal to or better than any professional screen. And it nailed those numbers right out of the box, no calibration needed. It’s so good that I couldn’t make even the smallest improvement.

(Image credit: Future)

So, you’ve got a stunning image, unparalleled gaming performance and perfect color. The Asus ROG Strix XG27ACDNG has no flaws of consequence. Does that make it expensive at $700? Compared to the broad scope of 27-inch gaming displays, yes. But you’re getting one of the best gaming monitors available and there are certainly more expensive examples that don’t perform as well. If you want the best in a 27-inch flat OLED, this one should be on your shortlist.

MORE: Best Gaming Monitors

MORE: How We Test PC Monitors

MORE: How to Buy a PC Monitor

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.

20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Mr Majestyk
    So who cares about colour accuracy for a gaming monitor? No way in hell I'd buy OLED for productivity.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    Mr Majestyk said:
    So who cares about colour accuracy for a gaming monitor? No way in hell I'd buy OLED for productivity.
    Color accuracy is arguably one of the most important parts of a monitor, regardless of intended use.
    Reply
  • HardwiredWireless
    Mr Majestyk said:
    So who cares about colour accuracy for a gaming monitor? No way in hell I'd buy OLED for productivity.
    Exactly. The dinky little screen is a major drawback for gaming or productivity for me. After using an ultra wide curved screen this little thing is unusable regardless of it's claimed features. Instead of the old OLED screens the better looking and newer tech is using individually lighted LEDs which eliminated the overnighting in darker areas but still allows for a much brighter picture that is the Hallmark of traditional LED screens. I'm more interested in the area of the screen that are showing an image than the areas that are turned off anyways to be honest, but for the folks that like the non image darkness the new systems offer that too.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    HardwiredWireless said:
    Exactly. The dinky little screen is a major drawback for gaming or productivity for me. After using an ultra wide curved screen this little thing is unusable regardless of it's claimed features. Instead of the old OLED screens the better looking and newer tech is using individually lighted LEDs which eliminated the overnighting in darker areas but still allows for a much brighter picture that is the Hallmark of traditional LED screens. I'm more interested in the area of the screen that are showing an image than the areas that are turned off anyways to be honest, but for the folks that like the non image darkness the new systems offer that too.
    MicroLED and QDEL are unlikely to be on the market anytime soon. Also, ultrawides and this monitor serve entirely different gaming demographics. One is for immersion across most games and the other is primarily aimed at FPS. But ultimately caring about color accuracy isn't just a productivity thing, it makes anything you interact with look better.
    Reply
  • HardwiredWireless
    UnforcedERROR said:
    MicroLED and QDEL are unlikely to be on the market anytime soon. Also, ultrawides and this monitor serve entirely different gaming demographics. One is for immersion across most games and the other is primarily aimed at FPS. But ultimately caring about color accuracy isn't just a productivity thing, it makes anything you interact with look better.
    More accurate color representation doesn't necessarily look better It just looks more accurate It might look better to a person if they switch to hue slightly to lower or to the redder. What looks better is subjective what looks more accurate is objective.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    HardwiredWireless said:
    More accurate color representation doesn't necessarily look better It just looks more accurate It might look better to a person if they switch to hue slightly to lower or to the redder. What looks better is subjective what looks more accurate is objective.
    Yes, but what you're failing to understand is that if you start with accurate, and you don't like it, it's easier to adjust to your preferences. When something is wildly out of spec it's not only harder to correct, it may be impossible depending on the error variance. You always want to start with the best possible outcome, not the worst.
    Reply
  • HardwiredWireless
    UnforcedERROR said:
    Yes, but what you're failing to understand is that if you start with accurate, and you don't like it, it's easier to adjust to your preferences. When something is wildly out of spec it's not only harder to correct, it may be impossible depending on the error variance. You always want to start with the best possible outcome, not the worst.
    The starting point has nothing to do with the ease of changing the settings.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    HardwiredWireless said:
    The starting point has nothing to do with the ease of changing the settings.
    Doesn't it? Does inaccuracy make changing them easier? What exactly is your point supposed to be? If you don't have to adjust for accuracy out of the box is that not easier at a base level than if you want that performance and it can't achieve it? Even if you prefer it inaccurate, that initial built-in inaccuracy may not be to your liking, which makes the situation even more convoluted.

    There's no logic to the point you're making.

    EDIT: Also who was even talking about ease of changing settings? I'm talking strictly about color accuracy, not functionality. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just find it to be non-correlative to the discussion.
    Reply
  • HardwiredWireless
    UnforcedERROR said:
    Doesn't it? Does inaccuracy make changing them easier? What exactly is your point supposed to be? If you don't have to adjust for accuracy out of the box is that not easier at a base level than if you want that performance and it can't achieve it? Even if you prefer it inaccurate, that initial built-in inaccuracy may not be to your liking, which makes the situation even more convoluted.

    There's no logic to the point you're making.

    EDIT: Also who was even talking about ease of changing settings? I'm talking strictly about color accuracy, not functionality. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just find it to be non-correlative to the discussion.
    The point I'm making is if I want my screen to be purple I still have to make the same adjustments whether it's slightly green slightly blue slightly orange or dead on perfect to start with. There's also a huge difference between transmitted light and color and reflected light and color which you would understand if you've ever done any printing. What you see on the screen does not really look like what it is when it's printed out. A Pantone color on the screen looks far different than a Pantone color in the book.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    HardwiredWireless said:
    The point I'm making is if I want my screen to be purple I still have to make the same adjustments whether it's slightly green slightly blue slightly orange or dead on perfect to start with. There's also a huge difference between transmitted light and color and reflected light and color which you would understand if you've ever done any printing. What you see on the screen does not really look like what it is when it's printed out. A Pantone color on the screen looks far different than a Pantone color in the book.
    But your point makes no sense: what if the color cannot be calibrated to your preference because the errors are too present to properly correct? This can be a problem to some degree, depending on the quality of display. Again, starting from perfect and adjusting to preference will always be better than starting in error and adjusting to preference. Obviously you can use calibration tools to get closer to a preferred spec, but not everyone has access to those (and, again, it may not be able to fully correct for errors depending on severity).

    Also, you don't have to lecture me on the difference between print and screen. I'm a professional designer as well as a trained lithographer and fine artist. There is very little I don't know about color theory. Trust me, I'm keenly aware that you want a Pantone book to properly match colors if you're not working in CMYK (and if you're in CMYK between printers you should press-check). All that said, color accuracy extends into film media, it's not just about professional use.
    Reply