ASUS XG32VQ

Interlace pattern artifacts

Some monitors suffer from visual artifacts which become most apparent when observing rapid motion of lighter shades on the screen. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but they may also be called ‘inversion artifacts’ by some users. They are particularly common or perhaps more readily noticed on high refresh rate models. Sometimes these artifacts manifest themselves as an interference pattern or a mesh of interlaced lines, with the lines alternating between a slightly lighter and slightly darker variant of the intended shade. These are often most eye-catching where they are dynamic, particularly easy to observe with lighter shades such as an explosion or smoke effect in a game.

We observed dynamic interlace pattern artifacts, with some shades appearing to break up into a very fine and faint polygonal mesh during motion. Most users wouldn’t notice this and wouldn’t find it distracting as it is quite faint and unobtrusive. It became courser and more obvious at lower refresh rates, though, particularly below 60Hz and if sitting relatively close to the screen. We also observed some static interlacing artifacts, most noticeably towards the bottom left of the screen but also visible in other regions. Some shades appeared to be ‘broken up’ into faint horizontal bands of a slightly darker and slightly lighter variant of the intended shade. These bands are fairly faint so not everyone would notice them, but again we’re just noting them for completeness. Note that they occur regardless of FreeSync being active and are visible at any refresh rate.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the XG32VQ, with over 30 repeat readings taken to maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 4.18ms (under 2/3rds of a frame at 144Hz) of input lag. This value is is influenced by the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and also the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay, which helped contribute to an excellent ‘connected feel’ at high frame rates, as we explore shortly. Note that we have no way to accurately measure input lag in the variable refresh rate and frame range environment under which FreeSync is active.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our responsiveness article we explore the key factors affecting the responsiveness of a monitor. One of the key concepts explored here is ‘perceived blur’, which is caused predominantly by the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. It is also influenced by pixel responsiveness. We also explore ‘pursuit photography’, which is a photography technique that uses a moving camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both of these elements of perceived blur. This is something that normal static photography or video can’t capture.

The following images are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at its default speed of 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed for such photographs and highlights both elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The monitor was set to 60Hz and 144Hz with all of its ‘OD’ (Overdrive) settings; ‘Level 0’, ‘Level 1’, ‘Level 2’, ‘Level 3’, ‘Level 4’ and ‘Level 5’. All rows of the test were examined, which includes a dark (top), medium (middle) and light (bottom) background shade. The final column shows reference shots, namely a Dell S2417DG set to 60Hz and 144Hz. This model offers very fast pixel responsiveness and well-tuned pixel overdrive, so shows what things should look like in this test where response time is not really a limiting factor.

At 60Hz you can see that the object itself looks relatively soft and unfocused, reflecting a high degree of perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement. You can also see trailing behind the object, down to the pixel transitions not being performed at an ideal speed. This is most noticeable with ‘OD’ set to ‘Level 0’. It is reduced significantly by increasing this to ‘Level 1’, but still quite bold for the dark background in particular. The changes beyond that are quite subtle, with ‘Level 3’ decreasing trailing for the dark background and also light background, although introducing a bit of overshoot (inverse ghosting) for the medium and light backgrounds. You can see this as a sort of ‘glow’ behind the object, although it’s not particularly strong in these examples. ‘Level 4’ intensifies this, with the overshoot becoming a bit brighter – but there is no clear advantage elsewhere as the trailing is the conventional trailing levels are similar. ‘Level 5’ uses a very aggressive pixel overdrive impulse and results in obvious overshoot, with colourful trails behind the objects.

At 144Hz the object itself becomes narrower and more sharply focused, with better fine details visible. This indicates a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye (camera) movement. There is again noticeable trailing behind the object, which is most pronounced for the dark background and particularly bold with ‘OD’ set to ‘Level 0’. The improvements beyond ‘Level 1’ are fairly subtle, although ‘Level 2’ makes the trail behind the object for the medium background slightly less bold whilst ‘Level 3’ reduces this again. The differences between ‘Level 3’ and ‘Level 4’ are not clear, whereas ‘Level 5’ bumps the acceleration up too much and introduces noticeable overshoot with a halo trail behind the object for the medium and light backgrounds in particular.

We analysed a broader range of pixel transitions, both using this test but also more broadly by using a range of game titles (including those assessed below). ‘Level 3’ and ‘Level 4’ seemed very similar, although ‘Level 4’ introduced a little bit of extra overshoot at lower refresh rates in particular. So we simply stuck with the default of ‘Level 3’ for our testing. It is also interesting to compare the results here to the AOC AG322QCX. Focusing in particular on 144Hz performance, using the optimal ‘Medium’ setting on the AOC, things look fairly similar. Although the AOC seems to offer a bit less conventional trailing at the expense of more overshoot, particularly if you consider the medium cyan background here. Considering a broader range of pixel transitions, though, we found both models largely similar in terms of pixel responsiveness. It’s also worth bearing in mind that these models were not performing exactly the same pixel transitions in this test, because their gamma handling is slightly different and so is their general colour setup. They weren’t calibrated in exactly the same way.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1) the monitor delivered a very fluid experience, where the frame rate kept pace with the 144Hz refresh rate. It gave exactly the sort of ‘connected feel’ you’d hope for from a low latency 144Hz monitor running at a high frame rate. Interactions with the character and the game environment had a certain instantaneous feel and precision that simply isn’t captured on lower refresh rate models, regardless of their input lag. The monitor outputs 2.4 times as much visual information as a 60Hz monitor (at 60fps) could provide, helping provide this level of responsive feedback. Another advantage of this is a significant reduction in perceived blur, which is something we touched upon earlier with the ‘Test UFO’ pursuit photographs and explored in detail in our responsiveness article. This helps give a superior level of clarity to the moving image, aiding the tracking and engagement of enemies and making the experience visually more comfortable for users who are sensitive to that sort of thing. It’s also important that pixel responsiveness are sufficiently fast as to avoid increasing perceived blur via obvious trailing, too. For the most part that was the case on the XG32VQ. Many of the pixel transitions were fast enough to avoid significantly adding to perceived blur, adding at most a faint powdery trail if any visible trailing at all.

However; there were some pixel transitions which were significantly slower than optimal. The most sluggish transitions occur where dark shades are involved in the transitions – not necessarily pure black, but shades that crop up on BF1 at night, in shaded areas or simply where dark elements are being displayed on objects. This is something that affects all VA models, to various degrees. On the XG32VQ there was a degree of ‘smeary’ trailing in places, with some of the weakest pixel transitions causing what we refer to as ‘break-up’ trailing. Many of the darkest shades have tints to them that, for example dark wooden window shutters might have brown or red tones in them. These tints appear subtle on the object itself, but during motion where ‘break-up’ trailing occurs the colours appear to leach out in a more noticeable way. A bit like smearing fountain pen ink with water. The video below shows some examples of this ‘break-up’ trailing and also shows that changing the ‘OD’ (Overdrive) setting does not yield improvement. In fact the strongest, ‘Level 5’, simply introduces obvious overshoot.

These problematic transitions were not particularly common on Battlefield 1, but were still found here and there in various situations. These high-contrast transitions are more common on some titles, particularly those designed to be deep, dark and atmospheric. On Dirt Rally, for example, these transitions were common when driving at night due to the fact the night driving experience is designed to be very dark with poor visibility. You could see a smeary quality and some breaking up of mountains and tree tops set against a somewhat brighter night sky. Some people wouldn’t really notice this and it’s not something everybody will find bothersome, so they can instead enjoy the benefits of the 144Hz refresh rate at high frame rates. Others would find it bothersome. It wasn’t as extensive or widespread as we’ve seen on some other VA models recently, such as the Philips BDM4037UW or AOC Q3279VWF. On both BF1 and Dirt Rally, there was occasional overshoot. But it was relatively faint and unobtrusive, certainly worth less attention than those slow pixel transitions we feel. It occurred during certain medium and lighter transitions whereby the trailing appeared a bit brighter than either the background or object colour. A sort of ‘snail-slime’ or semi-transparent trailing, but it was not particularly bright or colourful nor deep and dirty in its appearance. It was therefore fairly faint, although intensified at lower refresh rates as we explore in the FreeSync section.

Finally, we made some observations on the Blu-ray film titles we tested. As these were limited to 24fps it didn’t really give the monitor a chance to shine in terms of responsiveness. Nor did these titles expose any obvious weaknesses. Compared to a 60Hz monitor there was some advantage to be gained by the fact 24fps divides evenly into the 144Hz frame rate, which reduces juddering. Some content is of course a different frame rate (sometimes 50fps or 60fps), with higher frame rate content exposing a few of the weaknesses we noted in our game testing. Overall we found the monitor perfectly decent for watching film and TV content at a range of frame rates (including as high as 60fps on Netflix and YouTube), but individual sensitivity to the aforementioned weaknesses does vary.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. The monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU, where possible. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce used in our test system. There is a list of GPUs which support the technology here, with the expectation that future AMD GPUs will support the feature too. The monitor itself must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The XG32VQ supports FreeSync via (m)DP 1.2a (‘DP 1.2a+’) as well as HDMI 2.0 on compatible GPUs. AMD’s recent drivers include Radeon Settings, which makes activation of the technology very simple. So simple, in fact, that it should be automatically enabled once the monitor is connected and ‘Adaptive-Sync/FreeSync’ is set to ‘ON’ in the ‘Image’ section of the OSD. You can check its status by opening ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and clicking on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. Note that the image below is for a different monitor and is just used as an example here.



The ASUS supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 144Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 144fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 144fps, the monitor will stay at 144Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 144fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >144fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 32fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 64Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. You can either configure this globally under ‘Global Settings’ or for each game individually. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. The fifth and final option, ‘Enhanced Sync’, is a new addition which is similar to Nvidia’s ‘Fast Sync’. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We tested this only briefly, as it’s more of a GPU feature than a monitor feature, but we found it worked well at frame rates close to or exceeding 200fps.



Note that this monitor does not provide any obvious ‘at a glance’ indication that FreeSync is active, such as a change of power LED colour. However; the top right of the OSD displays the current refresh rate of the display. This updates in real-time (or close enough) to reflect changes in the frame rate, so with FreeSync active you’ll see this constantly changing along with frame rate rather than just displaying ‘144Hz’ or whatever static refresh rate you had selected. You will also be able to observe the refresh rate sticking to double the frame rate once LFC kicks in below 48fps (48Hz). This information can also be displayed by enabling the ‘FPS Counter’ feature, which as per the OSD video actually displays the refresh rate of the display and is therefore dependent on FreeSync being active. Finally, it’s worth remembering FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory.

FreeSync – the experience

We ran many titles on this monitor with FreeSync enabled and found it worked in much the same way across all of them. If any issues did occur on some titles but not others, that would be a GPU or GPU driver issue rather than an issue with the monitor, anyway. We will be focusing on Battlefield 1 (BF1) for this section. The flexible graphics options allowed us to assess a full range of frame rates with FreeSync active and therefore a full range of refresh rates for the monitor itself. Using settings we were happy to use on our Radeon R9 290 (i.e. ones where the game looked decent but frame rate remained relatively high), the game generally ran at triple digit frame rates. There was considerable fluctuation, particularly where battles intensified or simply the objects or scenes being rendered were inherently more detailed. As a result of this, it was common for the frame rate to dip below 144fps. Without FreeSync enabled, such dips result in tearing and juddering (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). Sensitivity to this sort of thing varies, but it’s something we find rather jarring and noticeable even at these relatively high triple-digit frame rates. With FreeSync active and the monitor’s refresh rate matching the frame rate of the game, these imperfections were eliminated and things ‘flowed’ much better.

Although FreeSync eliminates these imperfections related to frame rate and refresh rate mismatches, it doesn’t compensate for low frame rates. The ‘connected feel’ and levels of perceived blur were noticeably improved at the upper end (~144fps) compared to lower triple-digit frame rates (~100fps). But it’s fair to say both elements remained pretty strong even at this lower end. If we increased the graphics settings and stressed out our poor little Radeon R9 290, frame rates dipped further. As they did so, the ‘connected feel’ worsened and the levels of perceived blur noticeably increased. Again, this occurred regardless of FreeSync. It was still nice to have FreeSync active, though, to get rid of tearing or stuttering. And at these relatively low frame rates, tearing and stuttering are even more noticeable than at higher frame rates. We observed LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kick in as intended below 48fps (48Hz), with 47fps for example bumping the monitor up to 94Hz. This kept tearing and stuttering at bay very effectively. When we say ‘kick in’, that makes it sound a lot more abrupt than actually was – the transition between normal FreeSync operation and LFC was entirely seamless.

It’s important to note, though, that at such low frame rates the ‘connected feel’ was really quite abysmal and the levels of perceived blur considerably higher than we’d like. We can’t deny that it is nicer to have FreeSync than not have it in such situations, but it is still a huge waste of potential on a monitor like this. At very low frame rates the nature of the motion appeared inherently ‘juddery’ and unsmooth anyway – even if this wasn’t due to refresh rate and frame rate mismatches. It’s really not where you should be aiming to be with a 144Hz monitor. As we almost always observe on FreeSync models, overshoot (inverse ghosting) became more noticeable at reduced frame rates as well. If FreeSync is disabled this isn’t an issue as it’s linked to refresh rate, which stays at 144Hz. The pixel overdrive seems to be optimised for 144Hz and it should really be slackened off for lower refresh rates. G-SYNC models have specific tuning for a wide range or refresh rates and tend to handle this better, whereas FreeSync models are generally just optimised for the upper end. Thankfully the overshoot, although increasingly obvious as refresh rate decreased, was never as bright and ‘in your face’ as we’ve seen on some FreeSync models. Some models become almost disco-like below ~60fps due to overshoot, whereas on this model it remained reasonably constrained overall.

A final note on FreeSync is that it can bring some advantages to the video watching experience, too. When watching videos full screen using video software or certain web browsers, the monitor will set its refresh rate to either match or conform to a multiple of the frame rate of the content. This helps smooth out the juddering (stuttering) that results from the two not aligning in this way. You don’t need to keep manually adjusting your refresh rate depending on whether the content was 24fps, 30fps, 50fps or 60fps etc. to minimise juddering. We can confirm that this worked with Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome, but not on Mozilla Firefox. This could depend on the version of the web browsers used, however.

The 31.5″ 2560 x 1440 curved experience

With a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution and 31.5” screen size, the ASUS XG32VQ yields a pixel density of 93.24 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). This is somewhat lower than the 108.79 PPI yielded by 27” WQHD models, meaning the clarity and detail potential is not as good. However; it’s a similar pixel density to a 23 – 24” Full HD monitor. Many users find this comfortable for text viewing, without scaling, whilst the clarity and detail it brings is still pretty decent. The sheer size of the 31.5” screen is itself a draw to many users – and it does make for an immersive experience, one that might be a bit overwhelming at first but which we feel is fairly easy to adapt to. The images below show the ‘desktop real-estate’ and multi-tasking potential offered by the monitor. They’re just for illustrative purposes and don’t really reflect the sheer size of the monitor or how it is to witness first hand.

You will also notice from the images above and it being mentioned at various points already, that the screen has a 1800R curve. This is a relatively steep curve, at least ‘on paper’ (lower ‘R’ values = steeper curves). In practice we feel that users are unnecessarily intimidated by the prospect of having a curved monitor. They think it will make things look unnatural, distorted and make for an unwieldy and uncomfortable viewing experience. Sometimes this opinion is reinforced by looking at images where the curve and its effect on the image appears exaggerated or particularly easy to focus on in an unrealistic and artificially constrained way. In reality; the experience is the opposite of all of this. The curve is surprisingly subtle – noticeable, especially at first, but something that’s very easy to get used to. The viewing experience feels perfectly natural and comfortable, whilst you’re drawn in just a little bit more to the image. It gives an extra feeling of depth and immersion (particularly when gaming) that we quite enjoy. Manufacturers will point out that the more uniform viewing distance between the edges and centre of the screen is more comfortable to look at. It also minimises the viewing angle when viewing the peripheral sections of the screen, bringing some improvements to colour consistency from a normal viewing position. Designers or those who require geometric perfection will likely want to avoid curved screens, but everybody else should remain open-minded until they’ve experienced such models for themselves. The images below are again just for illustrative purposes and tend to exaggerate the curve, but they’re just there to show the monitor in action running some game titles.

Interpolation and upscaling

You may wish to run the monitor at a non-native resolution, if you’re connecting the screen to a games console perhaps. Or you’re playing an older game with limited resolution support or a title which your system can’t handle at 2560 x 1440 (WQHD). The monitor provides some scaling functionality over HDMI and DP (plus mDP), which allows it to use an interpolation process to display the non-native resolution (such as 1920 x 1080 Full HD) using all its pixels. This is primarily designed for connecting devices such as games consoles or Blu-ray players that are limited to resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or ‘1080p’). As such, the monitor only supports interpolation at 60Hz, 59Hz or 50Hz. PC users can use the GPU’s scaling process at higher refresh rates if required, but if you want to ensure the monitor is handling the interpolation process you need to be running it at a supported refresh rate. You also need to ensure the GPU driver is correctly configured so that the GPU doesn’t take over with its own scaling process. For AMD users the driver is set up correctly by default to allow the monitor to interpolate where possible. Nvidia users should open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. Ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown in the following image.

The interpolation process used by the XG32VQ is actually quite good. It gives a bit of softness to the image that you wouldn’t get when running a native display of similar size (for example a ~32” Full HD display) and textures don’t appear quite as detailed or crisp as a result. Nonetheless, the image didn’t look as soft as we often see from interpolation processes. It was clear that a fairly effective sharpness filter was being applied and actually things looked slightly too sharp in places, but preferable we feel to the overly soft alternative that’s quite common. If you’re sitting some distance from the monitor, beyond arm’s length perhaps, the imperfections in the interpolation process aren’t all that obvious. It’s therefore quite a decent screen to use for games consoles or other devices at 1920 x 1080, as a secondary use.

As usual, If you’re running the monitor at 2560 x 1440 and viewing 1920 x 1080 content (for example a video over the internet or a Blu-ray, using movie software) then it is the GPU and software that handles the upscaling. That’s got nothing to do with the monitor itself – there is a little bit of softening to the image compared to viewing such content on a native Full HD monitor, but it’s not extreme and shouldn’t bother most users.

Conclusion

For some users, ‘bigger is better’. They want to be drawn into the gaming experience or engrossed in films and websites. The 31.5” screen size of the XG32VQ is certainly good for delivering for such an immersive experience. The 1800R curvature also helped draw you in a bit, although proved to be quite a natural and un-distracting addition that we found very easy to adapt to. In terms of pixel density, this model is not outstanding by any measure, but it delivers a decent enough pixel density to satisfy many users. The 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution itself is also one that affords a good amount of desktop ‘real-estate’ whilst providing reasonable levels of clarity and detail for images and games, on a screen of this size.

‘Out of the box’ it was clear that the monitor was poorly calibrated, at least in terms of brightness (expected) and colour temperature. After some fiddling about in the OSD, we were left with an image that was nicely balanced and had a good vivid look overall. The usual VA colour consistency issues applied, with shades losing saturation lower down the screen and near the edges. But there were plenty of lively-looking shades, with a fairly generous colour gamut helping to deliver strong saturation in places. The use of ‘Quantum Dots’ for the backlight is one was of achieving this sort of colour gamut, although like the AOC AG322QCX this model achieves that sort of gamut without requiring such nanoscopic marvels. The lack of a circular pressure mark from the backlight was also nice, which was an issue we had with the AOC and the backlight design it uses.

Contrast was strong. Not as strong as we’ve seen on some VA models, but in line with expectation based on the specifications and our experience with other models using similar panels. Even after calibration, static contrast remained respectable and just a touch higher than what we’d recorded on the AOC version. This delivered a distinctive ‘VA’ quality to the image, with decent shade depth and distinctions between dark and light shades. There was a degree of lightening towards the bottom of the screen due to ‘VA glow’, but from our preferred viewing distance and position this was far less obtrusive than ‘IPS glow’ on a screen of this size. The overall atmosphere for dark scenes was preferable to what you’d see on any non-VA LCD panel type. The screen surface is also worth a not-so-casual mention, as the light anti-glare finish helped preserve clarity and vibrancy quite well whilst delivering effective glare-handling. The screen’s finish wasn’t as smooth as we’ve seen from some light matte anti-glare surfaces, but thankfully kept the image free from obvious smeary graininess.

As is always the case with VA models, responsiveness was a mixed bag. There were some weaknesses, which were not as widespread or extensive as those found on some models (such as the AOC Q3279VWF and Philips BDM4037UW), but would still bother some users. Some pixel transitions were slow enough to create ‘smeary’ trailing, some of which we refer to as ‘break-up’ trailing due to the leaching out of some of the colours contained within dark objects. On the plus side, the 144Hz refresh rate was combined with very low input lag to help deliver a very responsive feel to the experience. And with many of the pixel transitions fast enough for decent 144Hz performance, levels of perceived blur were noticeably reduced in many instances. The monitor also supports AMD FreeSync, which worked in much the way we’ve come to expect to remove tearing and stuttering from the frame rate and refresh rate mismatches that would otherwise occur. As usual, there were some imperfections in how things were tuned for lower refresh rates. Overshoot become more pronounced as refresh rate decreased, although this was less ‘in your face’ than we’ve seen on some models thankfully. There were also some ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ that were both static and dynamic in nature, with the dynamic ones becoming more noticeable at lower refresh rates. Not everybody will notice or be bothered by these, even at lower refresh rates.

Overall this monitor delivered an enjoyable gaming experience. There were some quirks, but that’s always the case with monitors. It’s all about weighing up what you want from the experience and which imperfections you feel you can tolerate. Some users love large screens, hate ‘IPS glow’ and want a high refresh rate even if there are some imperfections in terms of pixel responsiveness. That’s exactly the sort of experience that the XG32VQ delivers. It’s also worth mentioning other parts of the ‘package’, as this is a ROG Strix product that is proud of its gaming heritage. The design itself was both intriguing and solid, although we weren’t fans of how deep they’d made the stand. We also felt the additions were ‘cool’ but gimmicky (‘Light In Motion’ red projection and ‘Aura Sync’ lighting). A proper bias lighting or ambient lighting feature you can gain clear benefit from at the front of the monitor would be preferred to a distracting red projection and a ring of LEDs only the wall can admire. With its premium design and something that certain users would refer to as the ‘ROG tax’, you can expect it to demand a slight premium in its price compared to the likes of the AOC AG322QCX. Then again, availability out of the gate seems to be much more solid with this one, so acquiring the beast should be easier.

The bottom line; a large screen that delivers a rich and engaging experience at high refresh rates. With just a few quirks along the way.

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.