Asus ROG Strix XG35VQ Monitor Review: A Prime, Curved Pick for FreeSync Gaming

Grayscale, Gamma & Color

Like all Asus ROG displays, we start our tests in the default Racing mode. Results of late have been mixed, but the ROG Strix XG35VQ does a little better than others before calibration. We wouldn’t quite say it doesn’t need adjustment, but if you’d rather not tweak, accuracy is good. As you’ll see below, there is some serious potential to unlock here.

Grayscale Tracking

Our grayscale and gamma tests are described in detail here.

Racing mode offers a slightly blue white point with errors that can be seen above the 50% brightness level. For real-world content, it's barely noticeable, but when one spends this much on a monitor, one should experience all the performance it can offer. sRGB mode delivers similar accuracy, but now the white point is a bit red. Errors are slightly higher and cross the visible threshold at 40% brightness. After reducing the blue slider by six clicks (red and green were left unchanged), we generated an almost picture-perfect chart. Every single value is less than 1dE. Very few monitors measure this well, even expensive professional displays. This is impressive performance, especially from a gaming screen.

Comparisons

A default grayscale average error of 3.59dE is good but not great; four of the monitors score better. While this is something of a nit-pick, we hold premium screens to a high standard. Once calibrated, though, the XG35VQ shoots right to the top. 0.51dE is one of the lowest grayscale error results we’ve ever recorded. And we can’t help but point out that sitting in a close second place is Asus’ XG32V. Of course, none of these monitors has any serious color issues.

Gamma Response

The XG35VQ’s gamma tracking tests proved interesting. In Racing mode, the trace rides just barely under 2.2. This isn’t a problem by any stretch, but we’d rather see it just over the line. VA monitors, with their extra contrast, sometimes benefit from a slightly darker gamma. It enhances depth and color saturation subtly, while improving image quality. To that end, we tried using the 2.5 preset in the OSD. It produces numbers around the 2.4 level, which is fine, but unfortunately has a negative impact on color accuracy. We’ll show you that result below. Bottom line: Stick with Racing and the 2.2 preset for the best picture.

Comparisons

The XG35VQ’s gamma tracking is the tightest of the bunch, but its 2.11 average value pulls it to last place in the second chart. All the monitors are quite close in performance, and visual differences from bottom to top are small. We have no issues with any of them. Our only wish is for a preset between 2.2 and 2.5. Then, we could have a slightly darker gamma (say, around 2.3) with better color saturation and luminance.

Color Gamut & Luminance

For details on our color gamut testing and volume calculations, please click here.

Racing and sRGB post very similar gamut and luminance results. The only choice to make is whether you want a slightly cool or slightly warm presentation. Otherwise, color is nearly identical in accuracy. Calibrating the User mode, however, takes things to another level. A 1.35dE average is easily in pro-display territory. All we had to do was lower the blue slider from 100 to 94 to achieve this. Asus has done a superb job with the ROG Strix XG35VQ’s color.

You can see the results of our gamma experiment in the final two charts. Upping the preset to 2.5 adds some depth to the image, but color accuracy suffers a bit. And we do mean just a bit; the visual difference is quite small. But you can see that mid-tones are oversaturated, while luminance levels have dropped somewhat. It comes down to personal preference, and some users may prefer the higher gamma setting. Since it doesn’t interact with other image parameters, it’s worth trying both to see which you like better.

Comparisons

The XG35VQ has excellent color accuracy, and so do all the monitors in this group. We chose them based on size and screen type, but it turns out that they’re all very well-engineered and precise. Most gamers aren’t too concerned with the finer points of image fidelity. (Reader comments trend more in the direction of resolution and refresh rates.) But we think color accuracy should be a top priority in any monitor purchase, regardless of intended use. Asus checks all the boxes with this monitor.

Gamut volume is slightly larger than 100% sRGB, which, in our opinion, is a good thing. All three primaries pass the limit by the same amount, so the result is rich, saturated color that stays in touch with the standard. And if one wants to hit the marks perfectly, a custom profile can accomplish that. It’s always easy to reduce color when there’s too much, but you can’t add hues that aren’t there, if a gamut falls short of the target.

MORE: Best Gaming Monitors

MORE: Best Professional Monitors

MORE: How We Test Monitors

MORE: How To Choose A Monitor

MORE: All Monitor Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
18 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • shallots
    Actually LFC works with any Adaptive Sync panel with more than 2:1 highest to lowest now (initially they said 2.5:1). So this screen supports LFC.

    And the Sammy CF791 has a 1500R curve, so this isn't the tightest curve available.

    This looks a lot like my ASUS MX34V which I purchased over 12 months ago... Which is also pretty good.
  • loki1944
    Bit of a late review; this panel has been out for about 4 months now. I bought mine mid-February 2018; fantastic colors. Replaced my Rog Swift (TN); will not ever touch another TN panel and I'm not a fan of over-bright IPS either. This is the best monitor I've ever had out of all my TN/IPS/VA panels.
  • Ninjawithagun
    Unfortunately, it's been proven by sales numbers from multiple manufacturers that the FreeSync monitors have horrible return in revenue. In other words, they just don't sell very well. G-Sync monitors are significantly outselling FreeSync monitors. The plain fact of the matter is G-Sync is more expensive, but works better than FreeSync. The two main superior factors of G-Sync over FreeSync are higher refresh rates and wider range in which the dynamic refresh rate works. The one and only advantage FreeSync has is it is cheaper, but that's it.
  • shallots
    Gsync is only better if you can't understand a spec sheet and need someone to spoon feed you information.
    Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can on the top end. It can run on the best HDR panels with the best colours, and the highest and widest range of refresh rates. But Freesync also provides advantages to mid and low end monitors, so it's much more versatile.
    And people say Gsync is better when Freesync can do the same and more (for $less), lol.
  • zyh1987
    can you still call it rog if it’s freesync, or ROG monitor will be strictly fixed refresh rate plus vsync under the whole gpp thing. And Arez Strix for all free sync stuff.
  • Valantar
    This is SO ******* close to being perfect, it kind of pisses me off. The real deal breaker is the huge stand and lack of VESA mount option - that thing will never, ever fit on the raised monitor shelf on my desk, and I won't go back to the hell of neck pain that living without it was. Such a shame, as the size, curvature, panel type, resolution, refresh rate, color accuracy and feature set is entirely spot on, ticking every single box.*


    *Except for: an external power brick? Seriously? Asus expects us to pay almost $800 for a monitor and still deal with an unmanageable and annoying lump on the power cord, making the setup messy and impractical no matter the effort? Really? At least I'd expect it to be high enough quality to not fail in an expensive monitor like this, but in general I don't trust external monitor power bricks - using an external generally means the OEM is cheaping out compared to spending a few bucks extra for heat-resistant components required for an internal one, and I expect them to die within ~3 years.
  • shallots
    It does have a VESA mount I think. It's hidden in the circle on the back.
  • Co BIY
    I think the lack of AMD video card availability has to be hurting Freesync monitor sales. Although overpriced nvidia cards are at least for sale.

    What are the best cards to drive a monitor like this up to it's potential?
  • Kaziel
    Do these have the same panels as Samsung's curved VA's with all the issues that come with them?
  • Valantar
    2708354 said:
    It does have a VESA mount I think. It's hidden in the circle on the back.


    Hm. The spec sheet does indeed say 100x100 VESA mount, but I've never seen that on these LED projector-equipped monstrosities before. Intriguing.

    Review staff: would you mind looking into this? Is there some way to unscrew the upright?
  • Ninjawithagun
    2708354 said:
    Gsync is only better if you can't understand a spec sheet and need someone to spoon feed you information. Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can on the top end. It can run on the best HDR panels with the best colours, and the highest and widest range of refresh rates. But Freesync also provides advantages to mid and low end monitors, so it's much more versatile. And people say Gsync is better when Freesync can do the same and more (for $less), lol.


    Incorrect. G-Sync is still superior in all areas. Guess you can't read a spec sheet. Silly peasant fan boys, when will they ever learn? Cheaper is not always better. Oh, and you are getting confused between FreeSync and Adaptive Sync. Easy mistake for you I'm sure ;-)
  • Ninjawithagun
    2012116 said:
    I think the lack of AMD video card availability has to be hurting Freesync monitor sales. Although overpriced nvidia cards are at least for sale. What are the best cards to drive a monitor like this up to it's potential?


    Your generalization is wrong, but that's okay. Just go to Amazon for a quick reminder of reality. Bottom line, all Nvidia and AMD mid and high end graphics cards are overpriced right now thanks to crypto currency mining extravaganza. To answer your actual question, the best AMD card for use of the Asus ROG XG35V would be a RX Vega 56 or RX Vega 64 card. ~5 million pixels (3440 x 1440 = 4,953,600 pixels) with graphics settings turned to medium or high requires a lot of brute force power from a GPU. Of course, you could choose to use Cross Fire, but micro stutter is something I am no fan of when gaming.
  • shallots
    146263 said:
    2708354 said:
    Gsync is only better if you can't understand a spec sheet and need someone to spoon feed you information. Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can on the top end. It can run on the best HDR panels with the best colours, and the highest and widest range of refresh rates. But Freesync also provides advantages to mid and low end monitors, so it's much more versatile. And people say Gsync is better when Freesync can do the same and more (for $less), lol.
    Incorrect. G-Sync is still superior in all areas. Guess you can't read a spec sheet. Silly peasant fan boys, when will they ever learn? Cheaper is not always better. Oh, and you are getting confused between FreeSync and Adaptive Sync. Easy mistake for you I'm sure ;-)


    Lol you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're the one confusing Adaptive Sync, it doesn't do stuff like LFC which helps even the playing field with Gsync. Nice try though.

    Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can and more. I guess you got confused because there are some low and mid range panels which also work with Freesync. Shame on Freesync for also making them better!!?
  • Ninjawithagun
    2708354 said:
    146263 said:
    2708354 said:
    Gsync is only better if you can't understand a spec sheet and need someone to spoon feed you information. Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can on the top end. It can run on the best HDR panels with the best colours, and the highest and widest range of refresh rates. But Freesync also provides advantages to mid and low end monitors, so it's much more versatile. And people say Gsync is better when Freesync can do the same and more (for $less), lol.
    Incorrect. G-Sync is still superior in all areas. Guess you can't read a spec sheet. Silly peasant fan boys, when will they ever learn? Cheaper is not always better. Oh, and you are getting confused between FreeSync and Adaptive Sync. Easy mistake for you I'm sure ;-)
    Lol you have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're the one confusing Adaptive Sync, it doesn't do stuff like LFC which helps even the playing field with Gsync. Nice try though. Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can and more. I guess you got confused because there are some low and mid range panels which also work with Freesync. Shame on Freesync for also making them better!!?


    Bla bla bla. You have already lost credibility of any kind. Go back into your troll hole.
  • shallots
    146263 said:
    Bla bla bla. You have already lost credibility of any kind. Go back into your troll hole.


    Sure... I guess you proved me a troll by calling me names and deflecting from the facts...

    *slow clap*
  • g-unit1111
    Ninjawithagun - watch the language and name calling or you will be taking a short vacation from the forums. Keep it civil or you will be taking a break. Consider this your only warning in this thread.
  • mossberg
    146263 said:
    Unfortunately, it's been proven by sales numbers from multiple manufacturers that the FreeSync monitors have horrible return in revenue. In other words, they just don't sell very well. G-Sync monitors are significantly outselling FreeSync monitors. The plain fact of the matter is G-Sync is more expensive, but works better than FreeSync. The two main superior factors of G-Sync over FreeSync are higher refresh rates and wider range in which the dynamic refresh rate works. The one and only advantage FreeSync has is it is cheaper, but that's it.


    Nvidia commands most of the market share, on GPU's. G-sync only works with Nvidia cards. Freesync only works with AMD cards. Kinda a no brainer why G-sync is selling more.

    Also real ninjas don't use guns.
  • barryv88
    146263 said:
    2708354 said:
    Gsync is only better if you can't understand a spec sheet and need someone to spoon feed you information. Freesync can basically do everything Gsync can on the top end. It can run on the best HDR panels with the best colours, and the highest and widest range of refresh rates. But Freesync also provides advantages to mid and low end monitors, so it's much more versatile. And people say Gsync is better when Freesync can do the same and more (for $less), lol.
    Incorrect. G-Sync is still superior in all areas. Guess you can't read a spec sheet. Silly peasant fan boys, when will they ever learn? Cheaper is not always better. Oh, and you are getting confused between FreeSync and Adaptive Sync. Easy mistake for you I'm sure ;-)


    Superior in all areas? HardOCP actually did a vid on YT, the conclusion being that all those people saw minimal differences and all of them agreed (as most gamers world wide) that paying $200 for the one isn't justifiable.
    I've actually seen some Gsync screens cost as much as $300 more than the FS equivalent ones. THAT right there is the dealbreaker - that kinda cash could easily have gone towards an even beefier GPU. I guess us 'peasant' boys are just wrong about everything hey?