The ROG Strix OLED XG32UQWMS gaming monitor is planned for release in September 2026. ASUS provided a sample, but the company had no input on the article nor saw its contents before publishing.

OLED gaming monitors have been around for a while, but concerns about text clarity and burn-in left me less excited to buy something like the ASUS ROG Strix OLED XG32UQWMS. Given the chance to test an upcoming model from its range shown at Computex earlier this year, I couldn't resist, and my review could be the moment that helps me overcome my apprehension. Here's what I learned.

How much does the 32-inch Strix OLED cost?

The ROG Strix XG32UQWMS is targeting a September launch for $899, with specific US retailers to be confirmed. In the United Kingdom, that converts to £819, with planned third-party resellers including Amazon UK, Currys, and Very. In the meantime, you can sign up for availability notifications on the monitor's official ASUS listing for your region.

Is the 32-inch Strix OLED easy to set up?

I'm a big fan of toolless setups wherever they appear, and ASUS ROG wins points for delivering a straightforward process here. Everything hinged on a push-button release mechanism that either gripped the stand or the VESA mount; I used the former and attached the footplate with a simple thumbscrew.

The display alone weighs 9.92 lbs (4.5 kg), and adding the VESA mount brings the total to 10.64 lbs (4.83 kg) in a mounted setup. Otherwise, the foot plate and strut together weigh 4.54 lbs (2.06 kg), controlling height with a sturdy but not overly stiff response. On my desk, the monitor is 14.46 lbs (6.56 kg) overall.

Attaching the stand gave me a clear view of the ports and navigation via the multi-function button (MFB) located behind the bottom-mounted ASUS ROG logo and its accompanying "Neo" proximity sensor. It's a pretty standard affair that matches rival brands, and its controls should feel familiar to most people.

While there are two HDMI 2.1 ports, a pair of USB-A 3.2 Gen 1 with a hub port, and a headphone jack, there's only a single DisplayPort cable in the box for its matching DP 1.4 port, along with the AC cord. Bundling a free USB-B cable shouldn't be too expensive, and I'm disappointed to see it missing here.

Does the 32-inch Strix OLED look good?

Moving from a 27-inch IPS Alienware monitor to an OLED panel made its benefits immediately obvious, with an experience similar to the one I get from my LG C2 TV in the living room. High contrast, deep blacks, and crisp visuals come with its 4K resolution and that smooth 240Hz refresh rate. Windows 11 adjusted my settings accordingly, and the monitor looks great out of the box.

In motion, the UHD @ 240Hz mode looks fantastic, and I'm left wondering who would ever want to switch to 1080p for the sake of 480Hz on a 32-inch display. I know it has its place in ultra-competitive shooters like Counter-Strike 2 and its many rivals, but 240Hz still feels like plenty to me. If you're the target audience, I think you'll be happy, because FHD gameplay still looks quite good.

Up close, the clarity of on-screen text looks fine; nothing particularly groundbreaking, but nothing looks noticeably fringed when I sit at a comfortable distance in UHD mode. Adjusting ClearType in Windows 11 might give results that better suit you, but I didn't feel like anything looked out of place during my usual daily work and gaming.

The OSD is at least easy to navigate, and I could install the DisplayWidget Center if I really wanted to use a mouse to tweak several settings at once. Otherwise, the "TrueBlack Glossy" panel looks significantly darker at a glance than the other screens in my office, which certainly helps with the deep blacks OLED is famous for, and I found the visible room reflections were tolerable.

Testing the display

Out of the box, the XG32UQWMS defaults to "Racing mode", hitting 99% of the DCI-P3 color gamut as advertised, and sRGB accuracy earns a perfect score, while Adobe RGB maxes out at 93%. Without changing settings, a 100% brightness level reached around 306 to 311 nits, so getting it to 330 nits will require a bit of tweaking. On the whole, I'm satisfied with its stock settings.

Should you buy the 32-inch Strix OLED?

You should buy this if ...

✅ You want an OLED monitor built for preventing burn-in

✅ You're a competitive gamer who thrives on high refresh rates

You should not buy this if ...

❌ You want an out-of-the-box USB hub monitor

A built-in presence sensor probably sets off alarm bells for some gamers, but the proximity detection is literally there to help protect this OLED panel by switching off when you walk away. That, along with adjustments to uniform brightness and pixel-cleaning settings, helps prevent burn-in, which was my biggest concern with monitors like these. ASUS definitely could have thrown in a free upstream USB cable for its hub, but the display itself is solid, so it still wins praise.

Technology rarely stands still, and having a job like this means seeing newer, better, faster hardware on a regular basis. But through all of the upgrades I've made in the last decade, there's one piece of tech that has been with me throughout and won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Many years ago, I bought a monitor to pair with my gaming PC of the time. You can read about it in my Dell S2417DG review, which I had to double-check the date on. I've had this monitor for 9 years now.

It's not the only PC monitor I've used in that time, of course. I've paired it with various other secondaries, and I've moved it off to use with another PC while I review other monitors.

But almost a decade after cracking open the box, it's still here. It's my primary display for work and for PC gaming, and unlike every other piece of tech I've got itchy feet over upgrading through the years, I've got no plans to get rid of the Dell S2417DG. It's still plenty good enough, even for gaming when refresh rates have gone through the roof. I absolutely adore it.

What makes the Dell S2417DG so good

When I originally bought and subsequently reviewed the Dell S2417DG, I was looking for three things in particular.

• 1440p
• High refresh rate
• NVIDIA G-Sync support

At a then-list price of $430, compared to a lot of the competition, the S2417DG represented phenomenal value. The key specs that drew me to this specific model are highlighted in the table below.

When I bought it, I'd just secured an NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti, the beast of its time, and my previous primary monitor didn't have a refresh rate or resolution high enough to allow me to stretch its legs.

Fast forward 9 years and I'm still happy gaming at 1440p and still happy at 165Hz. Could I do 4K? Sure, I'm fortunate to be running an RTX 5090 these days. Could I do more frames? Absolutely.

I've tested laptops and monitors with higher resolution and/or refresh rates far in excess of 165Hz and never once felt I needed more in my own setup. Playing Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 at 240Hz rather than 165Hz is not going to suddenly change the game for me. It certainly won't help a gamer in his forties be any better at it.

For day-to-day use, I've long felt 120Hz is the sweet spot. I only really use 165Hz because this monitor has a factory overclock, so why not?

But it has everything I need. The color isn't the absolute greatest, but 98% sRGB is fine for my needs since I don't do any serious color accuracy work, and games still look great.

Even with an older DisplayPort standard, I haven't yet been held back, and the 1ms response has since been beaten by newer monitors, but again, it was more than enough back then for me, and it's still the same today.

In years past, I also made use of the USB 3.0 hub built into the monitor. Nowadays my desktop PC has enough USB ports that are faster than this that I don't need to. But in the early days it was extremely useful.

Only one area this monitor has started to underperform

Over the lifespan of this monitor, I've also used it hooked up to my Xbox console. It's only here, now, that it's starting to show its age.

The HDMI 1.4 port on the Dell S2417DG is hard-capped at 60Hz, even though it will still support the 1440p native resolution. Even dropping to 1080p, that 60Hz cap applies on this monitor.

It's not a total dealbreaker, since 60Hz has been fine on console for long enough, but with an Xbox Series X I'm not able to make full use of the 120Hz capabilities in supported games using this monitor anymore.

As such, the Xbox Series X has been hooked up to a more modern 1080p monitor with a newer spec HDMI connection. I'll take frame rate over resolution any day.

I don't see the point in 'upgrading' to a newer monitor

Are there better monitors out there? Of course there are. There are plenty with 4K displays, OLED, faster refresh rates, and larger panels.

But I've long felt 1440p is the sweet spot for gaming. I don't have the space for large displays, and having tested higher refresh rate panels, I don't actually feel like I'd be getting anything beneficial.

Call of Duty is the only 'competitive' game I play, and I've got enough FPS to be comfortable in that. Looking at what's out there right now at prices I'd be comfortable paying, I feel like any new monitor would be a sidegrade, less so than an upgrade.

Would I be better off with more up-to-date ports? Most likely I would, but I've been fine for 9 years now without feeling like I'm held back. The old warhorse is still pulling along as well as it ever did.

I'm also a big believer in not adding to e-waste. I could sell this on to someone else, but it works well enough still, so what's the point in that? Times are hard, everything is more expensive than ever before, and you never know when you'll need to cash in a kidney to buy another stick of RAM or an SSD.

I truly can't think of another piece of tech I still own and have used for as long as this monitor consistently. I'm just praying that writing about it doesn't hex the whole thing and I wake up tomorrow and it decides it's had enough...

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.