Gigabyte AORUS FI27Q-X

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively those with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern, mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade.

We did not observe any static interlace patterns on this model. We observed some dynamic ‘interlace pattern artifacts’, fine interlaced vertical lines during movement or when scanning our eyes across the screen in a certain way. Mainly observed for brighter shades. They were quite easy to notice at low refresh rates, double digits and particularly closing in to ~60Hz. Here, they tended to catch the eye even when simply viewing static content and moving your eyes a little. They were relatively faint at higher refresh rates – by 100Hz or so most users would find them difficult to spot as they’re well-blended. Much above that they become too faint to be noticed by most users. They’re certainly not something everyone will notice or find bothersome from a normal viewing distance (60cm+), particularly at higher refresh rates. These are very tricky to accurately capture on camera, especially as moiré tends to dominate. But the image below demonstrates the static interlace patterns (vertical stripes). This was captured at 60Hz on The Outer Worlds.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the FI27Q-X, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 2.46ms (under 2/3rd of a frame at 240Hz) of input lag. We measured a marginally higher but still very respectable input lag of 3.35ms at 60Hz. The input lag measured here is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a very low signal delay which even sensitive users shouldn’t find bothersome. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a variable refresh rate environment or with HDR active in an HDR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on the topic explores various concepts related to monitor responsiveness, including perceived blur. This is contributed to by both the pixel responses of the monitor and the movement of your eyes as you observe motion on the screen. This second factor is dominant on modern monitors, but both factors are important. A photography technique known as ‘pursuit photography’ is also explored. Using a moving rather than stationary camera to capture motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both key elements of perceived blur.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the UFO moving across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The test is set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a good practical speed for such photographs highlights weaknesses well. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 144Hz, 200Hz and 240Hz using all ‘Overdrive’ pixel response time settings; ‘Picture Quality’, ‘Balance’ and ‘Speed’. Intermediate refresh rates such as 120Hz and 165Hz were not included but were observed and performed some way between the tested refresh rates as you might expect. All rows of the UFO Motion Test were used, highlighting a range of pixel transitions between various shades. The final columns show some reference screens for comparison, using what we deem to be their optimal pixel response time settings. The first reference screen is the Dell Alienware AW2521HF using a fast AUO AHVA (IPS-type) panel and the second is the Acer XN253Q X using a very responsive TN panel.

At 60Hz, shown above, the UFO appears relatively broad without clear internal detailing. This reflects a significant degree of perceived blur due to eye movement and is tied to the 60Hz refresh rate. Varying levels of trailing can be seen behind the UFO due to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. The ‘Picture Quality’ setting shows just a small whiff of ‘powdery’ trailing in places, behind the UFO for the dark background (top row) and medium background (middle row). The light background (bottom row) has an apparent ‘glow’ in the image around the UFO cockpit, but this wasn’t observed by eye. There was a little bit of overshoot (inverse ghosting) but nothing as distinct as the image might suggest. The ‘Balance’ setting gets rid of the already faint ‘powdery’ trailing and replaces it with moderate amounts of overshoot. With some bright and colourful elements visible – some ‘halo’ trailing that stands out due to being brighter than the object or background. The ‘Speed’ setting intensifies this overshoot, with it taking on a rather bright and colourful appearance, particularly for the dark and medium backgrounds. We consider the ‘Picture Quality’ setting optimal here, largely similar to the reference screens and quite well-tuned for 60Hz really. The pursuit photographs below show how things looked with refresh rate increased significantly to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, shown above, the UFO now appears significantly narrower with internal detailing more clearly visible. This indicates a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are again varying degrees of trailing behind the UFOs. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance are significantly increased now, with the ‘powdery’ trailing more visible with the ‘Picture Quality’ setting. The ‘Balance’ setting reduces this rather effectively, without introducing the sort of overshoot visible at 60Hz. There is still a bit of overshoot, particularly for the light background and behind the UFO legs for the dark background. Overall results are quite similar to the AW2521HF and not too far from the XN253Q X for the transitions shown. The Acer performs particularly well and ‘cleanly’ for the dark background, but shows a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing of its own behind the UFO cockpit with the medium background. We consider the ‘Balance’ setting optimal for the AORUS, although the ‘Picture Quality’ setting could be preferred by those sensitive to overshoot. The pursuit photographs below show how things looked with refresh rate bumped up to 200Hz.

At 200Hz, shown above, the UFOs appear somewhat narrower and a bit more sharply focused. This indicates a further decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The pixel response requirements are further increased. The overall trailing characteristics are quite similar to at 144Hz, with the ‘powdery’ trailing extending a little further back and being a bit bolder in places, especially with the ‘Picture Quality’ setting. The ‘Balance’ setting is good at minimising this without introducing obvious overshoot. The ‘Speed’ setting essentially removes any ‘powdery’ trailing for the transitions shown but introduces moderate overshoot. It’s less obvious than at lower refresh rates but some users would find it quite eye-catching still. We consider ‘Balance’ optimal here. The pursuit photographs below show things with a further increase in refresh rate, to 240Hz.

At 240Hz, shown above, the UFO appears narrower again with clearer internal detailing. The segmentation is clearer to the eye than it appears in the image, with bolder black lines – the brightness and saturation affected how the camera captured this. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance are further increased here, so the slight weaknesses such as ‘powdery’ trailing become more apparent. This is again decreased going from ‘Picture Quality’ to ‘Balance’. Performance with the ‘Balance’ setting is largely similar to the AW2521HF for the transitions shown. Slightly slower for some transitions (dark background), a touch faster elsewhere (medium background). Importantly, the AW2521HF is running with its ‘Extreme’ overdrive setting here and that requires Adaptive-Sync is enabled. And that the frame rate (and hence refresh rate) remains very high to avoid obvious overshoot. The AORUS with its ‘Balance’ setting is much more forgiving, offering similar pixel response tuning with Adaptive-Sync disabled or enabled. And providing more reasonable overshoot levels during refresh rate dips.

The ‘Speed’ setting still shows some overshoot, particularly for the dark background where a reasonably bright ‘halo’ trail is visible behind the UFO. But this is less noticeable than the overshoot using this setting at lower refresh rates. The XN253Q X again shows a rather clean performance in comparison, especially for the dark background. We consider ‘Balance’ optimal and nicely balanced in terms of rapid pixel responses without obvious overshoot. But if you can tolerate a bit of overshoot for some transitions, the ‘Speed’ setting may be of interest.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, an alternative way to minimise this can be found in the form of the Aim Stabilizer strobe backlight setting. With this enabled, the backlight pulses at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – either 120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz, 200Hz or 240Hz. Sensitivity to this flickering varies and some may find it bothersome whilst others will notice accelerated eye fatigue when using the setting, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 120Hz using Aim Stabilizer. The ‘Overdrive’ settings are greyed out with this active and set to a high level, whilst the brightness control is also inaccessible and HDR can’t be used. A few reference screens are also shown for comparison using their respective strobe backlight settings at 120Hz. The AOC C24G1 using MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) and set to what we consider its optimal setting for that. And the Dell S2417DG using ULMB (‘Ultra Low Motion Blur’).

With Aim Stabilizer active at 120Hz, above, the UFO appears narrowly focused with more distinct segmentation and internal detailing. This reflects a solid decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are various ‘visual distractions’ to be aware of as you can no doubt see in the image. First and foremost, there’s a huge amount of overshoot behind the UFOs. Very bright and colourful. This is split into multiple distinct fragments due to the strobe nature of the background. There’s also a repetition of the object in front of the object, particularly for the dark background. The all-encompassing term ‘strobe crosstalk’ is used to describe this sort of repetition of the object. The KSF phosphors used for the backlight also introduce a colourful (magenta to red) fringe to the crosstalk in this example, due to their relatively slow decay rate. The reference shots are free from such clear strobe crosstalk, strong overshoot or colourful fringes. The image set below shows results with a bump up in refresh rate to 240Hz, Aim Stabilizer again active. Note we didn’t include results for intermediate refresh rates here as they didn’t show any novel behaviour. They just appeared some way between what is shown at 120Hz and 240Hz.

With Aim Stabilizer active at 240Hz, above, the UFO shows very distinct internal detailing. Segments and notches on the UFO body are clearly visible and the object appears very much like its original static source image. The fragments of overshoot and strobe crosstalk in front are much narrower due to the increased strobe frequency. The overshoot is just a touch weaker, but still very strong and eye-catching. Note that not all areas of the screen refresh simultaneously. So the strobe crosstalk, which can be seen most clearly here slightly in front of the UFO cockpit with the dark background, appears differently depending on how far up or down the screen the movement is observed. The images below show pursuit photographs running from the top to bottom regions of the screen, with the screen set to 240Hz and Aim Stabilizer active. Strobe crosstalk variation at different points was also observed at lower refresh rate and it was broadly similar, so we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations.

Further up the screen the screen strobe crosstalk appears in front of the object. This becomes fainter and eventually disappears a bit further down. For the central regions it isn’t visible, at least for the transitions being performed here. That’s where your attention mainly focuses when immersed into a competitive FPS title where this sort of setting might be of particular interest. Lower down the screen the strobe crosstalk is displaced so it’s behind the UFO. It’s difficult to see in the image, but the UFO actually appears doubled up lower down the screen. The clear overshoot is present throughout the screen regardless of this strobe crosstalk behaviour – we explore this, other visual distractions and our overall feelings using this setting in our subjective testing a little later on.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V, with the frame rate keeping pace with refresh rate, the monitor put in a solid 240Hz performance overall. The monitor is outputting up to 4 times as much visual information every second compared to 60Hz. This improves the ‘connected feel’, which describes the precision and fluidity you feel when interacting with the game environment. This is also aided by the very low signal delay of the screen. This high refresh rate at suitably high frame rates significantly reduces perceived blur due to eye movement. This was demonstrated earlier using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting. Compared to 144Hz (at 144fps), the bump up isn’t as dramatic as when coming going from 60Hz to 144Hz. But the improvement in ‘connected feel’ and reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement was still something we noticed. And some users will readily appreciate this.

It’s also important to consider pixel responsiveness. And in that respect the monitor put in a pretty pleasing performance, with only minor weaknesses for some transitions. Most transitions were performed fast enough for a convincing 240Hz performance. The weaknesses manifested as faint ‘powdery’ trailing which stuck very close to the object and was significantly fainter than the object itself. As such the impact on perceived blur from these minor weaknesses was not too pronounced. This was most readily observed for very dark or very bright shades against a contrasting background, but even then it was quite restrained. And there was really nothing in the way of overshoot to complain about – slight traces in places but nothing that caught the eye. The ‘Speed’ setting cuts down on much of this ‘powdery’ trailing, although does not entirely eliminate it. And it introduces some overshoot in places. There are some good examples of this in the section of the video review highlighted below. As noted there it isn’t all that widespread or too strong at high refresh rates such as 240Hz so it may be the preferred setting for competitive play. But some will be perfectly satisfied with the less aggressive ‘Balance’ setting, even if gaming competitively.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider told a similar story. And that is one of a pretty solid high frame rate 240Hz performance, with only minor weaknesses. The competitive edge the high frame rate and refresh rate combination brings to this title is really of limited consequence. As a single player action-adventure game. Nonetheless, the fluidity was there to appreciate with a nice reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement, compared to lower frame rates or refresh rates. And an excellent ‘connected feel’ to go with it. There were no major pixel response time weaknesses, again some ‘powdery’ trailing which was most pronounced but still on the minor side for very bright or dark shades with a contrasting background. Quite common on this title, in fact. There was nothing significant in the way of overshoot to complain about, with very good pixel overdrive tuning in that respect.

We also observed a range of video content, including ~24-30fps movie content on platforms including Netflix. And 60fps YouTube videos. The monitor performed very well in both cases, without clear weaknesses from pixel responses or noticeable overshoot. The much lower frame rate certainly doesn’t let a monitor like this stretch its legs and the pixel response requirements for optimal performance are greatly reduced compared to the much higher frame rates observed during gameplay. The even division of 24fps, 30fps and indeed 60fps into 240Hz might also be appreciated by some for its even division, reducing juddering. But the low frame rates themselves still impart some juddering, especially during rapid pans of the camera – not a fault of the monitor.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

Aim Stabilizer

We’ve already introduced the Aim Stabilizer feature, its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using Aim Stabilizer or any strobe backlight feature, it’s vital that your frame rate matches the refresh rate of the display exactly. Otherwise you’re left with very clear stuttering or juddering. This is because there’s very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. As is often the case with strobe backlight technologies, you can’t use Adaptive-Sync at the same time. HDR can’t be activated, either. We demonstrated earlier using UFO Motion Test for ghosting that activating this feature significantly reduces perceived blur due to eye movement. We used the feature on a range of game titles but will simply focus on Battlefield V running at a constant 240fps @240Hz with the feature active. The overriding observations were similar when using this model at lower refresh rates, although overshoot and flickering was intensified at reduced refresh rates. The setting certainly achieved its main aim of significantly reducing perceived blur due to eye movement. And the clarity of objects during motion was clearer as a result. During even the most rapid movement, including turning in a vehicle or rapidly turning your character, the game environment maintained sharp detail. This makes tracking and engaging enemies potentially a bit easier and can provide a competitive edge.

This was far from the cleanest strobe backlight experience, though. There was strong, colourful and inky-looking overshoot across a broad range of transitions. This occurred throughout the screen. There were secondary distractions to consider such as strobe crosstalk at some sections of the screen, but as demonstrated earlier the centre of the screen did not really suffer from this. Only higher up and lower down – and it’s the central band where you mainly focus during competitive play. For very bright shades we did actually observe strong crosstalk centrally as well and this showed some magenta to red fringing due to the KSF phosphors of the backlight. We also observed some colourful flashes, including cyan and magenta, when observing slender bright objects in particular. This is quite common on wide gamut models but quite noticeable in this case – although reduced at 240Hz compared to significantly lower refresh rates. The ‘dynamic interlace pattern artifacts’ we covered earlier become more noticeable with the feature active, too. Given these visual distractions, the locked brightness and inability to use Adaptive-Sync we see this as a setting with quite limited appeal really. Even many competitive gamers will find the regular operation of the monitor at 240Hz and suitably high refresh rates very good in terms of low perceived blur. And with far fewer visual distractions.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. Where possible, the monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. 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 Radeon RX 580 used in our test system. The monitor must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The Gigabyte FI27Q-X supports FreeSync Premium via DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 on compatible GPUs and systems. Note that HDR can be activated (at the same time as FreeSync) as well. You need to make sure ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ is set to ‘ON’ in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Radeon Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP and the bottom image by HDMI. The setting is referred to as ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in both cases, although the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The AORUS supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 240Hz (144Hz max via HDMI). That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 240fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 240fps, the monitor will stay at 240Hz 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 240fps, 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 >240fps). 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 35fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 70Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. LFC sometimes seemed to activate at slightly higher refresh rates, closer to 52Hz (52fps) or so, but this makes little difference in practice. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

To configure VSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Software’. Click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click ‘Graphics’. The setting is listed as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This configures it globally, but if you wish to configure it for individual games click ‘Game Graphics’ towards the top right. 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. Above this dropdown list there’s a toggle for ‘Radeon Enhanced 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 won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature rather than a monitor feature.



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 237fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. If you go to ‘Game Assist’ and activate the ‘Refresh Rate’ feature, the monitor will display the refresh rate. This will coincide with the frame rate of the content if the monitor is within the main VRR window. The counter reacts very rapidly to changes in frame rate so it can be tricky to read the exact value. Finally, it’s worth noting that 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. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

FreeSync – the experience

As usual we used this monitor with a range of game titles using AMD FreeSync and found the experience similar in all cases. Any issues affecting one title but not another suggests a game or GPU driver issues rather than a monitor issue. We’ll therefore simply focus on Battlefield V for this section. The game offers excellent flexibility with its graphics settings, allowing a broad range of refresh rates to be tested. That said, the Radeon RX 580 used in our test system is far from a powerhouse and running a solid 240fps at the WQHD resolution is out of the question on this title. There were plenty of dips below this, but the technology worked well to ensure there wasn’t tearing or stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches. You’d usually see stuttering (VSync enabled) or tearing (VSync disabled) in such scenarios due to mismatches, without a VRR technology in use. Sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, but if you’re sensitive to such things it’s very nice having a VRR technology like FreeSync doing its thing.

The reduction in frame rate still negatively impacts ‘connected feel’ and increases perceived blur. Another consequence in reduced refresh rates is an increase in overshoot. The monitor doesn’t offer variable overdrive, so the pixel overdrive algorithm isn’t retuned as refresh rate changes. Into the double digits and especially by around 80Hz there was some fairly noticeable overshoot in places. Halo trailing that’s brighter than the object or background colour and sometimes includes some colourful (including blue to cyan) elements. This wasn’t all that widespread or as obnoxious as we sometimes see, so depending on tolerance the ‘Balance’ setting which we like to use for higher refresh rates could still make sense. Otherwise, the ‘Picture Quality’ setting might be of interest. It still provides a decent performance for these sorts of refresh rates where the pixel response requirements are reduced. And does so without any overshoot to speak of.

When frame rate dipped below the 48fps (48Hz) floor of operation, LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kicked in. This kept tearing and stuttering at bay by ensuring the refresh rate of the monitor stuck to a multiple of the frame rate. There was a bit of stuttering when LFC activated or deactivated, which is something we always observe with this technology. But if you’re only occasionally passing the boundary, it isn’t something to worry about. It could be annoying if you’re frequently passing the boundary, though.

Nvidia Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible’)

As noted earlier, AMD FreeSync makes use of Adaptive-Sync technology on a compatible monitor. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. The Gigabyte AORUS is amongst models which are specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means it has been tested by Nvidia and passes specific quality checks. With the FI27Q-X, you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort and enable ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD. This enables Adaptive-Sync on the monitor and will unlock the appropriate settings in Nvidia Control Panel. When you open up Nvidia Control Panel, you should then see ‘Set up G-SYNC’ listed in the ‘Display’ section. Ensure the ‘Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible’ checkbox and ‘Enable settings for the selected display model’ is checked as shown below and press ‘OK’. If you’ve enabled ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ and it was previously disabled, the monitor should re-establish its connection with the system and the technology should now be active.



As noted previously and as highlighted in Nvidia Control Panel, this model has been specifically tested and validated as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ by Nvidia. The experience using ‘G-Sync Compatible Mode’ on our RTX 3090 was very similar to the experience using AMD FreeSync on this model. A slight difference was the floor of operation, which was 60Hz if the monitor was set to 240Hz. 50Hz if it was set to 120Hz and between those values with intermediate refresh rates selected. An LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication technology was employed below that to keep tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. There was again a momentary stuttering as the boundary was crossed, as we observed with our AMD GPU as well.

Our suggestions regarding use of VSync also apply, but you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than AMD Radeon Software to control this. The setting is found in ‘Manage 3D settings’ under ‘Vertical sync’, where the final option (‘Fast’) is equivalent to AMD’s ‘Enhanced Sync’ setting. You’ll also notice ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ listed under ‘Monitor Technology’ in this section, as shown below. Make sure this is selected (it should be if you’ve set everything up correctly in ‘Set up G-SYNC’).



Finally, remember that you can use the ‘Refresh Rate’ feature in the ‘Game Assist’ section of the OSD to display the current refresh rate of the monitor. This will reflect the frame rate if it’s within the main variable refresh rate window. And as with AMD FreeSync, HDR can be used at the same time as ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

On an ideal monitor, HDR (High Dynamic Range) involves the display of very bright light shades and very deep dark shades simultaneously. The monitor should also be able to display an excellent range of shades between these, including highly saturated and much more muted ones. The monitor would ideally support per-pixel illumination (e.g. backlightless technology such as OLED) or failing that offer a very large number of dimming zones with precise control. A solution such as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) with a good number of dimming zones, for example. This would allow some areas of the screen to pump out very high brightness whilst others remain very dim. Colour reproduction is an important part of HDR, too. The ultimate goal here is support for a huge colour gamut, Rec. 2020. A more achievable near-term goal is support for at least 90% DCI-P3 (Digital Cinema Initiatives standard colour space) coverage. Finally, HDR makes use of at least 10-bit precision per colour channel, so its desirable that the monitor supports at least 10-bits per subpixel.

The HDR10 pipeline is the most widely supported HDR standard used in HDR games and movies and that’s what’s supported here. For most games and other full screen applications that support HDR, the Gigabyte automatically switches into its HDR operating mode when an HDR signal is detected. As of the latest Windows 10 update, relevant HDR settings in Windows are found in ‘Windows HD Color settings’ which can be accessed via ‘Display settings’ (right click the desktop). Most game titles will activate HDR correctly when the appropriate in-game setting is selected. A minority of game titles that support HDR will only run in HDR if the setting is active in Windows as well. Specifically, the toggle which says ‘Play HDR games and apps’. If you want to view HDR movies on a compatible web browser, for example, you’d also need to activate the ‘Stream HDR Video’ setting. These settings are shown below. Also note that there’s a slider that allows you to adjust the overall balance of SDR content if HDR is active in Windows. This is really just a digital brightness slider, so you lose contrast by adjusting it. When viewing SDR content with HDR active in Windows things appeared better-balanced than we’ve seen on some models, but as explored shortly you lose access to many adjustments in the OSD, including brightness and colour channel settings. We’d recommend only activating HDR in Windows if you’re about to specifically use an HDR application that requires it, and have it deactivated when viewing normal SDR content on the monitor.

For simplicity we’ll just focus on a few titles in this section; Battlefield V and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We’ve tested both titles on a broad range of monitors under HDR and we know they’re a good test for monitor HDR capability. The experience described here is largely down to the screen itself, with strengths and limitations made clear. Although our testing here is focused on HDR PC gaming using DisplayPort, we made similar observations when viewing HDR video content on the Netflix app. There are some additional points to bear in mind if you wish to view such content. We made similar observations using HDMI, which would be used when viewing HDR content on an HDR compatible games console for example. Testing on both our Nvidia and AMD GPUs showed that the HDR implementation was similar in both cases, although on our AMD GPU the monitor had a moderately strong yellowish green tint under HDR. Like some sort of chartreuse filter was applied, which your eyes adjust to a bit over time but don’t completely compensate for. As usual under HDR, many settings are inaccessible – including the entirety of the ‘Picture’ menu. You can’t change presets or adjust things like brightness, colour channels, sharpness or gamma. You can access ‘Super Resolution’ in the ‘Gaming’s section of the OSD if you want to add a sharpness filter.

The Gigabyte AORUS FI27Q-X is VESA DisplayHDR 400 certified. This is the lowest level of HDR certification provided by VESA, so only a basic HDR experience is provided. The colour gamut requirements are quite loose here, although we recorded 94% DCI-P3 on this model which is sufficient even for higher HDR tiers than this. This is shown in the graphic below, taken from earlier in the review. The red triangle shows the monitor’s colour gamut, the blue triangle DCI-P3 and green triangle sRGB. With the gamut providing a decent match for the near-term target developers have in mind under HDR (DCI-P3), the colour reproduction under HDR was quite respectable. Because wider gamuts like this are targeted rather than sRGB, which is the target under SDR, you don’t get that oversaturated look to some elements. The extra red and orange hues injected into shades such as certain woody tones, patches of earth and some skin tones is not present and such shades appear more neutral and appropriate. Likewise, the significant extension beyond sRGB in the green region of the gamut is put to good use now instead of causing some shades to appear somewhat neon where it isn’t intended.

Vegetation now appears lush and varied without inappropriately strong yellow hues or green shades which look brighter, more neon and simply less natural than intended. The colour gamut actually extends beyond DCI-P3 and encroaches more on the longer-term Rec. 2020 standard for some green shades which helps give strong but appropriate depth and saturation here under HDR. Certain other shades such as rich reds, deep purple flowers and some brightly painted objects weren’t as vivid as they could be. Greater encroachment of the Rec. 2020 gamut or even more complete DCI-P3 coverage in such regions of the gamut would help there. More precise luminance control (e.g. local dimming) would also help inject superior depth to some shades.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

The HDR10 pipeline makes use of 10-bits per colour channel, with the monitor supporting this (8-bit + FRC) at up to 200Hz via DP 1.4 and at up to 60Hz via HDMI 2.0 at the native resolution. At 240Hz via DP and 144Hz using HDMI, the 2-bit dithering stage is offloaded to the GPU. This actually works very well and provides a similar result, so don’t expect dramatic differences here. But subtle differences may be noticed during careful side by side comparison of very specific content and we can appreciate some people will like to know the monitor is handling the 10-bit signal itself without GPU dithering being used. However it’s achieved, the 10-bit colour processing provides a natural uplift to darker areas. There’s a greater nuanced variety of closely matching shades, achieving this look which simply isn’t replicated under SDR even with gamma enhancement. Such ‘enhancements’ would instead provide a flooded and less natural appearance to things. 10-bit colour is helpful for shade variety elsewhere, too. For very bright shades, for example particle effects such as smoke and fog and lighting effects, there were much smoother gradients. More natural-looking progressions which made certain elements appear more realistic. The image below shows one of our favourite scenes under Shadow of the Tomb Raider for highlighting a strong HDR performance. Note that the photo is purely for illustrative purposes and in no way represents how the monitor appeared running HDR in person.

This scene highlighted the positive impacts of the 10-bit colour reproduction nicely. The bright natural light streaming in from above with the misty spray from the waterfall both showed very natural and gentle gradients. The definition was improved for darker shaded areas by the enhanced nuanced shade variety, too. The maximum luminance is quite limited by HDR standards and there’s no local dimming on the backlight, though. Bright elements such as the sun or its glint off the water and waxy leaf surfaces didn’t really have the ‘pop’ it should have. Whilst shaded areas should appear dimmer than they should with suitable dimming of the backlight that respects the broad range of desired shade brightness levels. Darker areas didn’t have the atmospheric look they could have, with elevated luminance levels and ‘IPS glow’ brought out a fair bit. The monitor makes use of reactive Dynamic Contrast under HDR, though, which can respond to HDR metadata for enhanced precision. This is no substitute for local dimming, but it does add extra depth to predominantly dark scene and is something we much prefer to having the backlight just pumping out full luminance here unnecessarily. The video section below gives a run-through of the overall HDR capability of the display using Shadow of the Tomb Raider as an example.

Interpolation and upscaling

You might want to or be required to run the monitor below its native 2560 x 1440 (WQHD or 1440p). This could be for GPU performance reasons, or because you’re using a system such as a games console that doesn’t support the WQHD resolution. The monitor provides scaling functionality via both DP and HDMI. It can be run at resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) and can use an interpolation (scaling) process to map the image onto all pixels of the screen. This is supported for refresh rates shown earlier in the first Full HD list (‘Ultra HD, HD, SD’) at the end of the ‘Features and aesthetics’ section – up to a maximum of 120Hz. It is also supported at 165Hz via DP, but oddly not 144Hz or at higher refresh rates from the ‘PC’ resolution list. As noted in that section a ‘4K’ UHD downsampling mode is also offered when using HDMI, at up to 60Hz. To ensure the monitor rather than GPU is handling the scaling process, as a PC user, you need to ensure the GPU driver is correctly configured so that the GPU doesn’t take over the scaling process. For AMD GPU 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 monitor offers various ‘Display Mode’ settings in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD, as explored in the OSD video. These are only accessible if ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ is disabled in the OSD. There’s a ‘1:1’ pixel mapping feature, where the monitor will only use the pixels called for in the source resolution to display the image. With a black border around the image using the remaining pixels. The default ‘Full’ setting instead uses interpolation to map the source resolution onto the 2560 x 1440 pixels of the display – this setting is used if Adaptive-Sync is active. The ‘Aspect’ setting does the same but will respect the aspect ratio of the source resolution so that it doesn’t stretch things. This will require a black border in some cases. When running at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), the monitor presented the image that was moderately soft compared to viewing a native Full HD screen of the size. This could be counteracted by either increasing ‘Super Resolution’ or ‘Sharpness’ in the OSD. We found setting ‘Super Resolution’ to ‘1’ offset the softening quite effectively, although gave a slightly over-sharpened look. Increasing ‘Sharpness’ from ‘5’ to ‘10’ instead offset the sharpness quite nicely without the oversharpening. A touch softer in comparison, in other words. You’d have to adjust according to preferences, but we much preferred either setting set like this compared to both set to their neutral positions. Whilst it didn’t look quite the same as a native Full HD screen would, it provided a decent compromise. Whilst the flexibility provided by these two independent sharpness controls is welcome. In summary; a relatively strong and flexible interpolation performance is offered by the monitor.

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.

Video review

The video below shows the monitor in action. The camera, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see when viewing the monitor in person. It still provides useful visual demonstrations and explanations which help reinforce some of the key points raised in the written piece.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (Adaptive-Sync)

Conclusion

New generation IPS-type panels offer a highly responsive experience. The Gigabyte FI27Q-X homes in on this, driving the refresh rate up to 240Hz and combining it with a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD or 1440p) resolution. A combination which lets more powerful systems stretch their legs. The monitor uses an IPS-type panel from Sharp, which uses an unconventional (BGR) subpixel layout. This provided mild fringing issues which, especially once ClearType is corrected if required, most users shouldn’t find problematic. The resolution was coupled with a light to very light matte screen surface, offering good clarity and vibrancy potential to suitably high resolution content. As an AORUS model this was complimented by solid build quality and a full ergonomic flexibility. We always like a bit of powder-coated metal for our stands. And although sharp-lined and aggressive-looking ‘gamery’ designs aren’t to everyone’s taste, this one kept things quite simple and well-blended. The only dashes of colour, aside from those displayed by the screen itself, came from the RGB LED lighting feature at the rear. Something which couldn’t be appreciated from the front even if you wanted to.

The static contrast was close to the specified 1000:1, dropping a bit below and closer to 900:1 following the adjustments made to our ‘Test Settings’. It redeemed itself a bit by offering a lower level of ‘IPS glow’ than we’d typically observe. This was still a feature, especially in dimmer lighting conditions. But it was more subdued than usual and didn’t spread as far into the centre of the screen. We still wouldn’t say contrast was the main strength of the monitor, but we were still pleased to see this. The screen surface, as well as being light to very light, had a fairly smooth finish which kept the image free from obvious graininess. When it came to colour reproduction, the monitor certainly delivered a vibrant image with some particularly punchy green and orange-red shades. The gamut coincided closely with Adobe RGB, greatly extending beyond sRGB in the green region in particular. Whilst the IPS-type panel maintained excellent consistency. This works nicely if you like your shades vibrant and punchy or wish to work within the Adobe RGB colour space. Many users will enjoy the ‘pop’ offered here. The monitor also offered an sRGB emulation setting for those preferring more subdued and potentially accurate output within the colour space. Brightness was adjustable, which was good to see. But things appeared on the undersaturated side, even with the confines of the sRGB colour space in mind. Gamma tracking was off with this mode, whereas gamma tracked the ‘2.2’ curve very closely using the native gamut and factory defaults on our unit.

The VESA DisplayHDR 400 support offered is only a basic level, without local dimming or a particularly spectacular peak brightness. Nonetheless, monitors vary a lot in their HDR implementations even at this level. And this was one of the better VESA DisplayHDR 400 implementations we’ve come across. The fairly generous colour gamut does not fully cover DCI-P3 (near term target) and certainly not Rec.2020 (long term target) for HDR, but it offers decent DCI-P3 coverage with some extension beyond in the green region. This gamut was put to good use under HDR, allowing more natural and subdued shades where they were wanted. Alongside some rather eye-catching and lush-looking shades elsewhere – with some greens and oranges particularly lively but only where they should be. The monitor also used effective Dynamic Contrast under HDR, which can be enhanced by HDR metadata to make its adjustments more appropriate to the content being displayed. This was no substitute for local dimming, but at least meant the backlight wasn’t flooding predominantly dark scenes in the way some models do under HDR. Where the backlight would just stick to its maximum brightness level, inappropriately. 10-bit processing also did its thing to enhance the nuanced shade variety.

The monitor is clearly built for speed and when it came to responsiveness the monitor didn’t disappoint. It offered very low input lag and put in a solid 240Hz performance, with rapid overall pixel responses that made good use of such high refresh rates. There were some minor weaknesses – ‘powdery’ trailing in places which added a touch of perceived blur. The ‘Speed’ setting may be preferred by some as it pushes things further with a bit of overshoot in places instead. Overshoot levels were nice and low using our preferred ‘Balance’ setting, although did increase somewhat at lower refresh rates. This occurs during frame rate dips with Adaptive-Sync active. Something the monitor made good use of by supporting both AMD FreeSync Premium and Nvidia’s ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. It would’ve been preferable to have variable overdrive, as used to good effect for models with a G-SYNC module. And a G-SYNC module would also remove the slight stuttering when the LFC boundary is crossed (as there wouldn’t be one). But we’ve certainly seen far more obnoxious overshoot than this at reduced refresh rates and the Adaptive-Sync implementation in general was about as good as we’ve seen.

The Dell Alienware AW2721D is an alternative to this model which does offer this full fat ‘G-SYNC experience’ as well as a higher HDR level (VESA DisplayHDR 600). But it also has some drawbacks such as supporting a 10-bit signal at a lower refresh rate, worse Adobe RGB coverage and higher ‘IPS glow’. We’ve drawn up a comparison between the AW2721D and FI27Q-X on our forum, with further reading including some positive user feedback also linked to there. Overall, we feel the AORUS is a very well-rounded product that’s very capable for both work and play. Particularly attractive to those seeking vibrant colour output or wishing to make use of the colour reproduction capability for creative purposes. And looking for strong responsiveness at the same time. Some nice additions like reduced ‘IPS glow’ and an agreeable screen surface thrown might help sweeten the deal, too.

Positives	Negatives
Vibrant colour output with excellent Adobe RGB coverage, good DCI-P3 coverage and strong consistency from the IPS-type panel. Colour output under HDR quite respectable	Potential ‘fringing’ issues related to subpixels, sRGB emulation mode causes some undersaturation
‘IPS glow’ subdued a bit, light to very light screen surface with relatively smooth finish aided vibrancy and clarity	‘IPS glow’ still a feature, affecting atmosphere particularly in dimmer lighting. No local dimming or a particularly high peak brightness for HDR
A strong 240Hz performance with well-tuned pixel responses, very low input lag and a good Adaptive-Sync performance on both the AMD and Nvidia side	Optimal response time setting varies depending on refresh rate. Unappealing strobe backlight implementation with very strong overshoot and other visual disturbances
A good resolution and comfortable pixel density for both work and play, solidly built with good ergonomics and a very feature-rich OSD	RGB LED lighting feature only visible from back, OSD Sidekick has a few bugs and typos – hopefully addressed in future updates

The bottom line; a versatile screen for both work and play, with an emphasis on vibrant and consistent colour output and strong responsiveness.PC Monitors

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

Buy from Amazon

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.