[PCM2]

Our review of the ASUS ROG Strix OLED XG32UCWG is now live. This is a 31.5″ 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) WOLED monitor with glossy ‘TrueBlack’ screen and 165Hz refresh rate (330Hz FHD using ‘Frame Rate Boost’). There’s a 240Hz (480Hz FHD) variant that’s very similar aside from refresh rates supported, the XG32UCWMG. The ‘TrueBlack’ screen surface is arguably the most interesting feature as it avoids lightening up in the same way as QD-OLEDs in brighter conditions. But it’s also significantly more reflective. Aside from that you get your usual WOLED performance. Consistent and vibrant colour output (though with a narrower gamut than QD-OLED), exceptional contrast and responsiveness characteristics. ASUS provided a competent calibration under both SDR and HDR and included ‘OLED Anti-Flicker 2.0’ to help mitigate a key issue with VRR – but it does not eliminate that issue.

Monitors are very subjective and I still personally find myself swayed a little more into the QD-OLED camp. So something like the MSI MAG 321UP QD-OLED or newer MAG 322UP QD-OLED E16, competing 165Hz QD-OLEDs. Some thoughts on how this screen compares to QD-OLED more broadly:

– I certainly enjoyed the lack of significant lightening up of the screen surface in moderately bright rooms and the lack of strong colourful tints that can also be imparted, which goes with the territory on QD-OLEDs.

– I also found the reflectivity of this screen a bit higher than ideal, with QD-OLEDs offering significantly improved anti-reflective properties. I have relatively good control over my room lighting, but I found I had to make more compromises to make the room a bit darker at times than I would with QD-OLEDs to avoid potentially distracting reflections.

– I’m not talking about making sure I don’t have bright direct light striking the screen as that’s fatal to the experience on either option. But things like closing a door to the side a bit more or dimming ambient lighting some distance from the monitor to ensure the walls behind me weren’t brightened up too much to cause obvious reflections. Or it could even be lighter coloured clothes I’m wearing, my bright coloured keyboard or headphones or even a glass of water on my desk.

– With that said, I certainly got more used to the increased reflections after using the monitor for a few weeks and it was certainly still preferable to an untreated glossy surface.

– On a different note I also find the ~32” ‘4K’ UHD QD-OLED have a slight edge in less noticeable fringing, but it’s ultimately quite subjective and the improvements from the original WOLED subpixel structure and pixel density certainly help minimise that on the ASUS.

– I also have a keen eye for colour and find myself noticing the lower HDR colour volume (or inability for a given element to be both bright and heavily saturated) quite a lot.

– But on the flipside, the good handling of bright scenes under HDR without medium shade dimming – plus the same HDR mode simultaneously representing dark shades nicely – goes in this WOLED ASUS’s favour.

– Ultimately, I’m very happy to see this monitor (and its 240Hz or 480Hz Dual Mode) counterpart on the market. I know this is the sort of display some people have been waiting for and they’re really going to love the experience offered here.

[Lockjaw333]

Hey Adam,

Thanks for the review, thorough and excellent as usual.

Out of curiosity, are you still using the AW3225QF as your main display? I am wondering how this glossy WOLED compares to the Alienware.

I’m still using the MSI MPG 321URX. I compared it to the AW3225QF and ended up keeping the MSI, as I experienced some issues with near black tones and calibrated drift due to heat with the Alienware. Does this Asus handle near black tones more consistently? I did see the variability in near black gamma compared to refresh- is that typical of WOLED in your experience?

Thanks in advance and keep up the awesome work.

[PCM2]

Glad you liked the review. It’s a very good question and quite appropriate for me as I’m currently using both the AW3225QF and XG32UCWG as my main monitors. Switching between them because the experience is quite different on both and I like the variety! Ultimately I don’t really have space to keep all the monitors I currently have (plus ones for ongoing reviews) and I’m currently evaluating whether to sell the Alienware. I’m not in a position to sell the ASUS as it was provided more on a long-term loan basis for my own evaluation, whereas I can do what I want with the Alienware. Some thoughts:

– I prefer 240Hz to 165Hz (obviously), but in a way it makes using higher refresh rate models I’m reviewing more interesting and special if my own monitor is only 165Hz.

– The QD-OLED preferences I personally have and listed above still apply, but I still really enjoy using the ASUS True Black Glossy WOLED.

– Although I have to be a bit more careful with my lighting due to reflectivity, I kind of like the ‘wet look’ or magazine print true glossy quality of the ASUS. The lack of that QD-OLED lightening up is a nice bonus and I know some people absolutely hate that. I can control my lighting well enough to minimise it, but it still occurs and I frequently enjoy using my monitors with some daylight in the room.

– Because I have an RTX 5090, it’s common for fluctuations in frame rate to be mild for me in most games. These dips don’t cause noticeable VRR flickering on the WOLED but they still can on the QD-OLED. The WOLED flickering is directly linked to the magnitude of the refresh rate change whereas for QD-OLED it can occur to a degree that can still be noticed at times even with more minor fluctuations.

– To address your question; it’s very common for WOLED gamma to change alongside refresh rate. Sometimes (though not often, in my experience) the manufacturer will calibrate static refresh rates so that 60Hz and the maximum refresh rate is pretty much the same, but when refresh rate changes under VRR the gamma behaviour always changes. I’m sure if a manufacturer could be bothered they could address this in a better way, but even the anti-flicker technologies currently used don’t fully counteract this behaviour.

– I’m playing quite a lot of single player HDR at the moment with bright scenes. Yes I prefer the QD-OLED colour representation for reasons noted earlier, but it’s still very nice on the WOLED and most elements are just bright without trying to be colourful. So they don’t clearly show the colour volume issues of WOLED, whilst I can appreciate the improved bright scene performance on the WOLED on quite a few scenes.

[Lockjaw333]

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with most of what you wrote. I currently main an LG C2 42″, and the MSI MPG 321urx is my side monitor (used for gaming and work on the days I work from home). I do notice the difference in color volume and intensity between the two- the QD-OLED definitely has more intense color, and in particular is able to show some red shades that the WOLED simply isn’t capable of (this is with both in “accurate” modes, not comparing wide gamut in SDR or something).

Having said that, the lack of a polarizing layer on QD-OLED is a real issue, and its not just relegated to brighter lit environments. Even in controlled lighting or in a dark environment, the QD-OLED still exhibits a higher apparent black level vs the glossy C2 WOLED. For that reason I feel like the WOLED has a stronger apparent contrast in pretty much all scenarios, and as you mentioned towards the end I don’t really notice or care about the difference in color volume/intensity when using it. I definitely prefer the C2 WOLED overall, so I could definitely see how you might be swayed to keep the Asus, if only just for variety’s sake.

Also for me personally, the difference in refresh rate has never been that big of a deal. I do notice a difference between playing at 120 hz vs 240 hz (or as close in performance as I can get with my 5080), but anything over 100hz typically feels like “enough” for me. I do think that 165hz is more than enough, at least for my aged eyes lol (early 40s). I do play Battlefield, a series you also seem to enjoy, but outside of that I play mostly single player games where I’m not hitting near the 240hz refresh rate unless I use 4x frame generation or something.

On the topic of frame generation, it starts to become important if you have a 50 series card and intend to use frame gen a lot. With the C2, with 2x frame gen at 120hz you’re basically getting input lag similar to a 60 fps experience. Similarly with a 165 hz monitor that improves to ~80 fps, and with 240 hz to ~ 120 fps (provided you are able to get a locked max refresh experience on each). From my experience in BF games you can certainly feel these differences, although its not like its unplayable at 60. For this reason though, I would really like to get the 240hz Asus WOLED. I also saw that there is an LG version of the 165hz model now (32gx850-a), wondering if they will also have a 240hz version- know anything of that?

Also if I could ask one more thing, have you experienced any image retention issues? I have seen several reports of this on reddit, and it seems to possibly be due to a firmware issue. They have released a few firmware updates but users seem to be having trouble getting the firmware updater to work. Have you experienced any of this with the Asus?

Thanks in advance!

[PCM2]

I’m not sure if LG will have a 240Hz version of the 32GX850A. It’s certainly possible, given they have a 27″ 240Hz version. My concern with LG’s own models is that many of their models have certain OLED care features that can’t be disabled, such as CPC (Convex Power Control). This creates annoying vignetting at times and is a feature ASUS kindly allows you to disable as the ‘Screen Saver’ option in their OLED Care menu.

I haven’t observed any image retention issue on the ASUS, thankfully. I don’t really take an overly cautious approach to avoid it, either. I don’t always run the cleaning cycles as often as I could and don’t have all of the OLED care features active, either. I just run at a moderate brightness most of the time (as with my ‘Test Settings’, targeting around 160 nits for SDR) and make sure it’s not left on for too long when I’m not using it. The Neo Proximity sensor is very helpful in that respect.

[Lockjaw333]

That’s good to hear. It does appear to be a firmware bug with pixel refresh when in standby and not affecting all units.

One other negative of the LG models is that they typically use a fan for cooling, vs the heatsink design of the Asus. Alienware also uses fans, which at least with the AW3225qf caused issues with calibration drift due to heat- in particular near black tones become lifted after the monitor is on for a while and heats up. This is also present on the MSI I have but to a MUCH smaller degree to the point that its barely noticeable and can really only be seen in test patterns. I believe the manufacturers that use a heat sink are able to mitigate the issue much better vs those with a fan.

The XG32UCWG 165hz version has a $100 coupon code on Amazon US right now, bringing the price from $999 down to $899 (coincidentally this was supposed to be the launch price!). The 240hz version has a product listing but is not available yet. I’m trying to hold out for the 240hz version- do you think that’s a good idea, or would you go for the reduced price and the 165hz version?

Thanks again for the discussion. Its fun to nerd out about this stuff with someone. Doesn’t really make a good conversation starter with people in my day-to-day haha.

[PCM2]

Yeah, the graphene film heatsinks are simply a better and more efficient way of dealing with the heat than a quiet little low-power cooling fan. I mean a more powerful fan would work or they could run them at higher RPM, but then it would be annoyingly loud so it’s not really an option.

Given what you’ve said about not really noticing things beyond 165Hz, I suspect you’d find the XG32UCWG just fine and the 240Hz XG32UCWMG would be overkill. You could run your MPG 321URX at 180Hz (roughly equivalent and supported refresh rate on that model) for a bit just to make sure it feels fine when gaming and even just on the desktop.

And I’m happy to be an outlet and willing participant in the nerding out. 😉

[pleiades1202]

Hey! First time commenter, I really like your reviews. It’s nice to hear a detailed and structured subjective analysis to go alongside the more numbers driven reviews out there.

How noticeable is gamma shift on the XG32UCWG at 165 Hz compared to say 60 Hz? If I am playing a game where all I can achieve is around 60 Hz (stable to avoid flickering), will the shift cause a degraded experience or is it more subtle?

Thanks!

[PCM2]

Glad you like the reviews!

On my unit the gamma was uplifted a bit for very dark shades, but it didn’t quite fall to ‘2.0’ (2.04) there at 60Hz on my unit under my ‘Test Settings’. So it’s hardly a massive uplift and doesn’t have the same effect as sRGB gamma tracking where there’s a more significant and widespread uplift. You wouldn’t actually notice this at all in some scenes and it depends on the lighting in your room. So I wouldn’t really worry about this particular aspect.

[sblantipodi]

I feel a bit silly for buying a PG32UCDM now that the new tandem OLEDs are out.
They seem brighter and less prone to burn-in,
but I just can’t stand the fact that they can’t fully saturate colors at high brightness levels.

I’m not sure how an SK6812 LED can really compare to a high-end monitor — probably very few can —
but having a lot of experience programming WRGB LEDs, I completely agree that the white LED is a real disappointment when it comes to color accuracy at high brightness.

From my experience with WRGB LEDs, I’ve noticed two major issues:
1) They can’t be both bright and saturated at the same time.
2) Faint colors appear white (or too white) at high brightness, resulting in inaccurate color reproduction.

Do you agree with the second point?

[PCM2]

Yes, I agree with both those points and this issue still persists on Primary RGB Tandem OLEDs to a fair degree. The unfiltered white subpixel is used heavily at higher brightness levels, which has a dilutive effect on any colour produced by the colour-filtered (R,G,B) subpixels. That will reduce saturation potential (colour volume) significantly where high brightness is required. It will also drown out the relatively faint light emission from the coloured subpixels quite readily if the monitor is trying to display a weakly saturated or pastel shade at high brightness.

[sblantipodi]

Thanks Adam, you are our bright LED on this industry.

[Ronni-Revolution]

Interesting discussion here. From my own experience (current owner of the 32g81sf, xg27ucdmg, pg32ucdp, 32gx870a, 27gx790a, g27p6, and prior xg27aqdmg, and 27gr95qe owner), I strongly prefer woled monitors to qd oled ones because of their one size fits all hdr mode that lacks (the rather massive) medium shade dimming in bright scenes, while not overbrightening dark shades in dark scenes. The difference alone is a deal breaker for me, while every other difference (be it raised blacks, screen coating, color volume, etc) is rather minor in real world use.

Also, as far as LG vs ASUS goes, I strongly favor the LG 32” woleds for one reason: no abrupt abl of highlights in bright scenes. Abl transitions are typically rather unnoticable but for some reason on both the pg32ucdp and the xg32ucwmg/xg32ucwg there is an annoying, abrupt transition when the hdr brightness is set to anything above 80. Sadly, no reviews mention this and I’m sure asu could fix it if they wanted.
Sure the lg has cpc that can’t be (permanently) disabled, but I never notice it in day to day use and only rarely see it with side by side comparisons, so it’s a non issue for me. Also, the lg fan is silent—even if it can fail I’ll live with that fear over the hdr abl issue cited above.

My $0.02.

[PCM2]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, Ronni-Revolution. I can certainly understand why you’d prefer the more “stable” HDR experience provided on the WOLED side. I’ve noticed ASUS can get rather aggressive with their highlight (and medium-bright shade) overbrightening on some of their models when you enable adjustable HDR and up the brightness value. It could push them into a power-limited state (suddenly push them over the ABL threshold). The LG models are likely more conservative with their highlight brightness or could manage it by dimming peripheral areas (CPC style) rather than requiring abrupt and aggressive ABL.

[Ronni-Revolution]

Agree on the medium-bright shade over brightening issue on the ASUS as well and it was one of the first things I noticed on the panel. I actually reduce the gamma setting in the nvidia control panel (which supposedly adjusts “the brightness of mid-tones without affecting shadows and highlights” per Nvidia’s description) to 0.94 to address that issue and it looks quite correct with this adjustment to me by eye.

I notice that there’s a rather large drop off in the peak highlights on the ASUS 32″ models from the 10% window numbers to the 25/50% window numbers that LG WOLED’s and ASUS’s own 27″ WOLED models do not exhibit. Not sure how LG is working around this issue but even enabling the CPC equivalent on the ASUS panel doesn’t solve it. It’s not all that common, to be fair, but I see it a lot in Forza Horizon 5 (which I play a lot of) and have seen others noticing it in games like COD BO6/7, MW3, Uncharted 4, Dishonored, etc. so I feel compelled to bring it up when I see folks asking about how the models compare. Buyer beware.

[PCM2]

You’re quite right about the ABL behaviour kicking in very rapidly on the XG32UCW(M)G and it could be more of a perceived effect than one that could be easily measured. At least on the XG32UCWG specifically. It may end up dimming to the same end point, but it will very suddenly ramp up the ABL as the scene APL (Average Picture Level) increases. This means that certain scenarios can cause an almost flicker-like drop in brightness. Other monitors may dim a little more gradually so the effect is less jarring. And some monitors will be a bit gentler with their ABL ramp up as APL increases, perhaps giving more of a range of possible brightness levels between big ‘APL milestones’.

Based on a conversation I had with a keen-eyed user on YouTube coupled with data from the likes of TFTCentral and RTINGS, it appears that the 240Hz model is more aggressive with its ABL behaviour than the 165Hz models. There appears to be an ‘APL cliff’ ~50% white, where the monitor will suddenly dim to nearly its maximum level. Based on white window resizing with a black desktop background the cut-off seems to be perhaps ~75% on the 165Hz model. You can also see from the 49% readings I took (effectively 50%, but the test I use is for 49%) the brightness remains ~400 nits there whereas on the 240Hz model it has already dropped to ~300 nits. Very close to the 100% sustained reading.

I used to include a very unforgiving scene from Cyberpunk 2077 which gives a nice visual demonstration of ABL behaviour on monitors I review. It allowed people to get a feel for how it might look in some scenes in a way numbers won’t convey, so I think I’ll bring that or another scene like that back for future reviews. I always favour giving visual demonstrations for things, including ones that may be missed in data or because they aren’t something that bothers me personally. So thanks for drawing attention to this.

[Author]

Posts