Asus ROG Strix XG27JCG 27-inch 5K gaming monitor review: Performance that raises the bar

The Asus ROG Strix XG27JCG is a 27-inch 5K 5120x2880 IPS gaming monitor with 180 Hz, 330 Hz in QHD, Adaptive-Sync, ELMB Sync, HDR600 and wide gamut color.

Asus ROG Strix XG27JCG
Editor's Choice
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Tom's Hardware Verdict

The Asus ROG Strix XG27JCG delivers one of the sharpest and most colorful images you’ll find from a 27-inch LCD gaming monitor. It also has best-in-class video processing and a truly useful dual-refresh feature that turns it into a competition weapon.

Reasons to buy

  • +

    Incredibly sharp and bright image

  • +

    Bright and colorful HDR

  • +

    Unfailingly smooth video processing for 5K and QHD modes

  • +

    Responsive panel with low input lag

  • +

    Accurate color out of the box

  • +

    USB ports and KVM feature

Reasons to avoid

  • -

    Stand could be taller

  • -

    No internal speakers-

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.

If you’re shopping for the best gaming monitors, you know that there is a compromise between frame rates and pixel density. When more pixels nust be moved, the refresh rate must fall. If you want to get over 200 Hz in 4K, for example, you’ll need to spend north of $1,000 on a 240 Hz OLED display. But there is another way.

I’ve recently begun reviewing dual-mode monitors as an emerging category. These screens typically run natively at 3840x2160 pixels, with a switch to 1920x1080 that doubles the refresh rate. They offer flexibility for users who want smooth action for twitchy shooters and high pixel density for more laid-back adventures in the virtual world. But if you’d rather not settle for FHD, Asus has a monitor for you.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
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.

  • dschaub
    So is the conclusion:

    The Asus ROG Strix XG27JCG embarrasses the Apple Studio Display at half the price?
    Reply
  • Icepilot
    Serious question - Why 5K on a 27" screen? At any normal distance from the screen, you can't see the difference if it's 4K, or even 2K.
    I have 4K on a 55" screen - I can see the pixels at a distance of about 2 feet. At 3 feet, neither 5K or 8K would change a thing.
    Reply
  • dschaub
    Icepilot said:
    Serious question - Why 5K on a 27" screen? At any normal distance from the screen, you can't see the difference if it's 4K, or even 2K.
    I have 4K on a 55" screen - I can see the pixels at a distance of about 2 feet. At 3 feet, neither 5K or 8K would change a thing.
    Different people have different eyes, but the rule of thumb is use was coined by the same doctor who helped come up the modern eye chart.

    The rule of thumb is, -- from the work of Herman Snellen, who developed the standard letter vision wall test -- if details are closer than 1/60th of a degree (i.e. one arc minute), the average person with good vision won't be able to differentiate them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snellen_chart).

    This rule is for "distinguishing features of the optotype", which isn't quite the same a "seeing a jaggy line", but is still the best bar we have. So a bit more density would help make things smoother, but it is approximately the point of diminishing returns for increasing resolution.

    I have a web page for calculating such things: https://dpi.froods.ca/
    On a 27" screen, 218 DPI means if you are over 1.3 feet away, pretty much nobody will be able to differentiate the pixels.
    Reply
  • Notton
    Icepilot said:
    Serious question - Why 5K on a 27" screen? At any normal distance from the screen, you can't see the difference if it's 4K, or even 2K.
    I have 4K on a 55" screen - I can see the pixels at a distance of about 2 feet. At 3 feet, neither 5K or 8K would change a thing.
    Sometimes I want to have a ton of stuff on screen at the same time without any of them having being blurry from image scaling.

    Like if you are a streamer and you split the screen into quadrants
    OBS in one corner
    Youtube/Twitch in another corner
    The associated chatbox in another corner
    The game you are playing in the last corner at 1440p/180Hz
    All of them might be small at 13.5", but no squishing, and it's all condensed into a small area that can be seen together.

    Of course, the same can be accomplished with multiple monitors, but that takes up space and require some head swiveling.

    As a person who uses a 1x 27" 1440p + 1x 14" 1200p multi-monitor setup, I can see the appeal of having 4x the screen pixel space to work with.

    In some countries, the electronics disposal fee is tied to the screen size, and under 28" is a whole lot cheaper than 32" or larger. The fee is also not cheap.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    I think infinitely more usable than the 4k/1080p version. I love 1440p and would like to have a 5k display.
    Reply
  • Mystic Mano
    Icepilot said:
    Serious question - Why 5K on a 27" screen? At any normal distance from the screen, you can't see the difference if it's 4K, or even 2K.
    I have 4K on a 55" screen - I can see the pixels at a distance of about 2 feet. At 3 feet, neither 5K or 8K would change a thing.
    I can definitely see the difference between FullHD, 1440p, and 4K on a 27" screen. Text is much sharper on higher resolutions. Difference between 4K and 5K is also there, but especially for Mac users, there is a more practical reason for using 5K. The UI elements on macOS was initially designed for 1440p back in the day. When the first Apple “Retina” displays became available for the MacBooks and the iMac, like with the iPhone and iPad, the resolution was doubled vertically as well as horizontally. So that means natively 5K (2880p) is the retina equivalent of 1440p. Running the OS in a non-native resolution will have scaling and performance issues (especially when using 3D graphics software like Blender). One can run macOS natively on a 4K display, but then the UI looks rather large (about 33% larger).
    Reply