Asus ROG Strix XG438Q 43" Review: A Massive 4K 120Hz Gaming Monitor

Today we're checking out the latest large format gaming monitor from Asus, the ROG Strix XG438Q. We've seen 43-inch 4K monitors in the past, some of which have been designed for gaming, in fact you might recollect our review of the monstrous Philips Momentum 43 last year. Merely the XG438Q brings several cool technologies together in a single (huge) package.

We're getting a 43-inch 4K panel at 120 Hz. We're getting VA engineering combined with DisplayHDR 600 certification and FreeSync 2 HDR back up, so HDR is a feature here. And we're getting 90% DCI-P3 coverage for the wide gamut fans out there. All in all, a very decent characteristic set.

Now, this isn't the sort of display I'd personally cull to utilize. I think 43-inches is a tad also large for a monitor at a typical desk distance. But I tin understand why others might like information technology. The display is so big it dominates your field of view, which is great for gaming. For reference, it's about 20% wider than a 34-inch ultrawide, while also being significantly taller. It'southward a like pixel density to a 27-inch 1440p monitor, so upping the size to 43-inches at 4K gives you heaps more screen real estate to piece of work with, which could exist great for, say, a 4x grid of 1080p inputs using the pic-in-motion picture mode.

You'd definitely want to be a big screen fan though, considering this matter will dominate your desk space at near a meter wide. For gaming, we think information technology would exist fifty-fifty ameliorate if the monitor was curved then that the expansive edges were just brought into your field of view a bit better, but regardless, when you sit in front of this thing you won't really see anything else.

Blueprint wise, the front is (surprise) all screen. The bezels aren't particularly small when you lot put information technology up against a modern 27-inch monitor, just considering the screen is and so massive it doesn't seem like a issue. The wide-prong metal legs support the monitor well, though naturally given the size in that location'due south only tilt adjustability plus VESA mounting support. I couldn't imagine how difficult information technology would be to integrate summit adjustability into a monitor that weighs 33 pounds.

From the dorsum, this thing looks like a TV. There'southward a massive Asus ROG logo, a few vents and patterns that typically back-trail an ROG monitor design. Surprisingly, at that place's no RGB elements into the monitor itself, though you lot practice become this RGB Aura Sync ROG logo projector accessory that you lot can mount to the dorsum if you desire.

The ROG Strix XG438Q comes with four display inputs, at that place are three HDMI ii.0 ports and a unmarried DisplayPort 1.four. If you desire to use the monitor at its maximum 120Hz refresh at 4K, you'll need to use DisplayPort, as HDMI only supports up to 60 Hz.

And as nosotros're at the limits of DisplayPort without display stream compression, there are some small-scale compromises to hit 120 Hz in some situations. You lot'll get full 8-bit back up correct upwardly to 120 Hz, so no issues here for SDR content, however if you lot desire to apply 10-bit HDR, yous'll be limited to threescore Hz. ten-bit at either 100 or 120 Hz requires chroma subsampling. However in that location is nada stopping you from using HDR in conjunction with viii-bit color depth, and in previous testing nosotros've plant it very difficult to spot the difference betwixt viii-bit and 10-chip HDR on these sorts of panels, given this is a native viii-bit panel anyway.

For other I/O we have some audio jacks and a USB three.0 hub. The congenital in speakers are decent for a monitor, much improve than average if this is something that matters to you.

The on screen display can be controlled one of three ways: the directional toggle on the rear, the included remote control, or via Asus' software utility. You'll find all the usual stuff like cheat crosshairs, shadow boosting modes, timers, and then on. I of the large omissions is perhaps a backlight strobing mode, which Asus ordinarily calls ELMB, though typically this is for higher refresh displays at 144Hz or above.

Before getting into another aspects of performance, we wanted to talk nigh how this monitor handles fine particular. It's a 4K display that's big enough to use at its native resolution without scaling at a standard desk distance, and so it should handle text and other fine particular well. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and that's down to its subpixel layout.

Here are two side past side images that show how the XG438Q handles text, next to an IPS monitor of similar pixel density. The XG438Q is running in its SDR mode at 4K 120Hz over DisplayPort, although because this is an issue with the panel itself, it doesn't affair what configuration yous are in. You can clearly run into from these images that text is sharper and clearer on the IPS monitor compared to the XG438Q.

If we zoom in more, we can see why this is the case. The IPS monitor uses a standard RGB subpixel layout, which is what your operating system expects and plans for when rendering text. The Asus XG438Q uses a rarer BGR layout, which even modern operating systems don't really know how to handle well. Using ClearType in Windows can assistance mitigate the issue somewhat, and we ran the utility for the images you're seeing here, but it can never exist resolved fully then what y'all're left with is slightly blurry and odd looking text. Had Asus rotated the console 180-degrees to make it RGB, this wouldn't have been an issue.

How much of an issue is this in practise? For gaming, it'south not a large deal at all. Information technology'due south also not equally much of an upshot with larger fonts, and so using a 150% scale or higher tends to hide the problem. Simply if yous were planning on using this as a productivity monitor at its native resolution calibration, the BGR layout could annoy you.

Performance

Moving on to other aspects of the monitor, starting with response times. This is a VA console so we're non expecting miracles. Using the default overdrive style, Level 3, nosotros get astringent nighttime level smearing. An average of 19.62ms for dark transitions is non great, and neither is the overall grey to grayness average of 10.03ms. However, overshoot is well managed in this way, and so let's push things upward a chip.

Level 3 Overdrive

Level 4 does improve the overall average to 8.7ms and the error charge per unit is nevertheless manageable, with just 10% of transitions having more than 15% overshoot. Yet dark level smearing is withal a big event here. We tin can go all the way upward to Level v which significantly improves response performance, but that comes at the expense of an average error rate of 35%, which is massive. I wouldn't recommend using this fashion unless you love inverse ghosting. At that place are also levels below 3 that you can use, just each step is fifty-fifty slower so we won't carp covering them here.

Level 4 & five Overdrive

Using the optimal level 4 overdrive fashion at 120Hz and comparing to other displays, we'd say the XG438Q is irksome in general. The best VA panels we've tested tin be seen with an average in the 4.5 to vi.5 ms range, so eight.70ms is on the worse end of the calibration.

And that's exacerbated by an 18.31ms night level response average, which is the slowest consequence nosotros've recorded, indicating this monitor has the worst dark level smearing of the seven VA panels we've tested. A 10ms boilerplate isn't amazing from some of the better monitors, and then at 18ms you lot'll be noticing it.

Refresh rate compliance is likewise mediocre, with merely 65% of all transitions getting close to the 8.33ms window required for true 120Hz. Information technology's the night level functioning that lets this brandish down, as brighter transitions are much faster and hands fall within 120Hz. And with this optimal overdrive way, the mistake rate is pretty standard so changed ghosting isn't a huge consequence.

For those wanting to use this display at 60Hz, you should use the level 3 overdrive mode, which performs very similarly to level 4 at 120Hz. An eight.8ms average here is okay, but again a dark level average of fifteen.91ms is an outcome.

Input lag once again is not amazing, a result of 9.75ms in our testing indicates that there's around 4.5ms of processing lag. Non terrible, not amazing. For a 120Hz monitor we'd possibly similar a little faster input lag just then again it's around the same mark as the Acer Predator X34.

Equally for color operation, couple of quick notes before we go into it. The XG438Q supports 90% DCI-P3 coverage, but there'southward no sRGB toggle, so out of the box colors are oversaturated. The local dimming backlight is likewise enabled by default, which does affect performance. Also, due to its low zone count – in that location'southward just 8 edge lit zones – haloing is very noticeable for desktop usage. Normally I would only enable local dimming for HDR content but it's enabled by default, so allow's see how it performs.

Default Color Performance

Asus ROG Strix XG438Q sRGB, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K

Grayscale, Saturation and ColorChecker

When testing the brandish against the sRGB standard, things get off to a rocky kickoff in greyscale. While the color tint is okay and a CCT average of 6123K is only slightly warm, the gamma bend of around ii.4 is well off the sRGB standard, and a deltaE average of iii.thirteen is outside the authentic range we unremarkably like to see, which is below two.0.

Equally we go into saturation functioning, the almost noticeable consequence with performance here are yellows: they are miles off and clipped at the height end for some bizarre reason. This leads to an overall deltaE average of iii.71, plus we're getting oversaturation due to the wide gamut. It'due south no surprise to encounter similar performance with ColorChecker: a deltaE boilerplate of three.584 again isn't as accurate equally I'd like.

That said, when comparing this monitor to others in their default configuration, it falls in the typical gaming monitor zone where deltaEs are betwixt iii.0 and 4.0.

If you desire more authentic functioning, the fundamental feature to plough off is the dynamic backlight. This seems to bear upon the gamma performance, and to me looks pretty crap for apply with SDR content or desktop apps. I also made some slight tweaks to colour temperature for my unit, and of grade switched the overdrive fashion to Level 4 as we found earlier.

With those changes in identify we see pretty significant improvements to greyscale performance. The deltaE average is stone solid, equally is the adherence to the sRGB gamma curve. This is a really strong result achieved without a full calibration. Unfortunately, the upshot with yellows is not resolved, so colour performance in our other tests is still pretty poor.

OSD Tweaked Color Performance

Asus ROG Strix XG438Q sRGB, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K

Grayscale, Saturation and ColorChecker

To get things prissy and accurate, yous practise need to perform a total scale, which fixes issues such as the weird yellow performance and as well allows yous to go sRGB accurate colors for general usage. It's non a perfect result as you'll see here from the ColorChecker test, where ideally there would exist no colors tested with a deltaE above 2.0, but for a gaming monitor this is fine.

Calibrated Colour Operation

Asus ROG Strix XG438Q sRGB, tested at native resolution, highest refresh charge per unit
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Beneath two.0, CCT Target: 6500K

Grayscale, Saturation and ColorChecker

The monitor is also quite accurate when calibrated for D65-P3 performance, in that location is a small amount of clipping at the top end as gamut coverage is only 90% rather than 100%, merely that'due south to be expected. If you like a bit of oversaturation and similar brilliant colors, this volition be a corking monitor for y'all.

Effulgence in the SDR mode is excellent, topping out at 474 nits. The native contrast ratio is also very good, so don't exist shy in disabling that dynamic backlight for SDR usage, as you'll still get over a 4000:1 contrast ratio after calibration. And calibration in the commencement place doesn't have a pregnant impact on contrast ratio, so we're not hurting native panel functioning further in its quest for deep blacks.

Unfortunately, uniformity is poor. This was the same issue with the Philips Momentum 43: with such a large panel, uniformity issues are difficult to forbid and piece of cake to spot. With this monitor, the bottom third of the console is off compared to the rest, at to the lowest degree for our review unit of measurement, and there's noticeable vignetting likewise. It's non something yous'll notice in gaming, but for web browsing with large areas of the same color, yous might find information technology abrasive.

HDR is likewise a big feature. Asus is touting DisplayHDR 600 compliance which is a piffling lower than the DisplayHDR 1000 we've seen from previous 4K 60Hz monitors of this size, but it's still promising for those that practise want some HDR functionality. What we're getting here falls into the semi-HDR category. Effulgence is good enough, at 600 nits peak and sustained, as is the colour performance which hits 90% DCI-P3 coverage without issue. All the same the lack of a full array local dimming backlight, with Asus instead opting for but 8 border lit dimming zones, prevents you from getting the full high contrast experience that is expected of truthful HDR.

HDR effulgence is good, hitting 660 nits whether sustained or wink, and at that place's only a small drop off to around 550 nits for small-scale window sizes. While high zone count monitors tend to increase the brightness as the window size decreases, with low zone count monitors information technology'due south the contrary. Luckily the drop is only minor here.

Contrast is very skillful, with the dynamic backlight almost turning off the backlight when displaying a total black image. This leads to a very high best example contrast ratio. Nonetheless when looking at unmarried frame contrast, which is the cornerstone of HDR, the border lit backlight can only manage a all-time case ratio of 20,000:1, which is beneath the ideal 50,000:1 or higher. So we are getting a better-than-native contrast ratio, around 5 times higher, just considering of the low zone count the monitor can merely hitting these sorts of ratios in large chunks.

The XG438Q performs well in our worst case HDR dissimilarity exam, because of a very loftier native contrast ratio of 4,000:1. While nosotros're not getting above native contrast here, it actually outperforms the Asus PG35VQ with its FALD backlight. This is because while the PG35VQ does have much better zone control, it has a lower native contrast ratio, and the FALD backlight is but good for an extra 1500:ane in this examination.

Is It Good?

I'm in 2 minds most the Asus XG438Q. It's a big monitor, information technology supports 4K at 120 Hz, and it is decent for HDR in specific scenarios. Most other 43-inch monitors up until this betoken have only been 60 Hz capable, so the XG438Q is unique in that respect and offers something better for gamers.

Nonetheless, it'due south fair to say at that place are some performance to be noted. The BGR subpixel layout has been a problem for other 43-inch monitors, and information technology rears its head again here, which leads to poor text rendering at a 100% resolution calibration. Response fourth dimension performance is below boilerplate with specially poor night level smearing. And while the monitor does a decent job of greyscale accurateness when y'all disable the dynamic backlight, in that location are a few color performance oddities every bit well, plus weak uniformity.

Normally we wouldn't recommend this sort of monitor, simply it's also the only selection for high refresh gaming at this size. Even though performance is only average, it's going to be better than 4K 60Hz equivalents for gaming simply because it has a college refresh rate, provided you tin can utilize information technology. If you don't have a powerful plenty GPU, or gaming isn't a use case for you, become for a 43-inch 60Hz IPS monitor instead.

The ROG Strix XG438Q is brand new and its pricing has nevertheless to exist prepare in stone. We estimate it volition set you dorsum around €i,200 in Europe and $1,100 in the United states. In other words, you lot will pay a premium for the 120 Hz support. Paying double isn't unusual to get high refresh rates, but ideally a $1,000 monitor should perform better in most respects, something the XG438Q doesn't quite achieve. With that said, this isn't the first time we've run into bug with a 43-inch 4K VA console, so nosotros won't place the blame on Asus. Instead it seems to exist every bit expert as yous can become for electric current-gen panels of this size, which conspicuously aren't equally popular as some of the more refined smaller sizes for the time being.