ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG27AQDP

Name: ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG27AQDP
Brand: ASUS
Price: 999 USD
Availability: InStock

Four hundred and eighty hertz at 1440p on an OLED — matched in this catalog only by Sony's INZONE M10S, and beaten only by Acer's 500 Hz panel. At that speed the panel is no longer the limit — the graphics card is, and so is the game engine. This exists for one audience, competitive shooters, and it is honest about that: everything else on the spec sheet is unchanged from the 240 Hz model.

Approx. price

~$999

snapshot, not a live price

Sharpness

46ppd · sharp

text is clean; pixel edges show if you look for them

HDR tier

Real HDR

per-pixel emissive — every pixel is its own backlight, so a highlight can sit beside true black

Peak brightness

1,300nits claimed

DisplayHDR True Black 400

USB-C power

None

video and data only, or no USB-C at all

Max refresh

480 Hz

0.03 ms GtG rated

Port speed — can each input carry this panel?

2×HDMI 2.1· full speed(DSC)
DisplayPort 1.4· full speed(DSC)

This panel needs 63.7 Gbps at 2560×1440, 480 Hz and 30 bits per pixel, and supports DSC compression.

Best for: Competitive shooters where frame timing is the only spec that counts

Specifications

Approx. price: ~$999
Type: OLED gaming
Screen size: 26.5 in
Resolution: 2560×1440
Aspect ratio: 16:9
Pixels per degree: 46 — sharp
Pixels per inch: 111
Panel: WOLED
Finish: matte
Curvature: Flat
Max refresh: 480 Hz
Response time: 0.03 ms GtG
VRR: G-Sync Compatible
HDR tier: Real HDR
HDR certification: DisplayHDR True Black 400
Peak brightness: 1,300 nits claimed
SDR brightness: 275 nits
Local dimming: Per-pixel (emissive)
Static contrast: effectively infinite
Colour gamut: 99% DCI-P3
Colour depth: 10-bit
HDMI: 2 × HDMI 2.1
DisplayPort: 1 × DisplayPort 1.4
DSC: Supported
Port speed: 2 of 2 inputs at full speed
USB-C: None
Thunderbolt: No
KVM: None
USB hub: 2 ports
Speakers: None
Stand: height, tilt, swivel, pivot
VESA: 100x100
Burn-in cover: 3 years
Weight: 13.7 lb
Released: 2024
$ per inch: $38
$ per megapixel: $271

Features

480 Hz native refresh on a WOLED panel
Two HDMI 2.1 inputs
Matte anti-glare coating
Three-year burn-in warranty
Custom heatsink

What it does well

480 Hz is double the refresh of almost every other OLED here, and it is native rather than a dual-mode trick
Brighter panel generation than the PG27AQDM at 1,300 nits claimed
HDMI 2.1 this time, which the PG27AQDM lacked
Three years of burn-in cover, a year longer than the PG27AQDM it sits above
Matte anti-glare coating, which ASUS states for this model as plain anti-glare rather than the micro-texture finish of the PG27AQDM

What it gives up

Feeding 480 frames a second at 1440p needs a graphics card most people do not have
Priced above ASUS's own 240 Hz version of the same size and resolution, and refresh rate is the entire difference
46 pixels per degree — no sharper than the $200 panels here, because refresh rate is where the money went
No USB-C, KVM or speakers — a display and nothing else, where ASUS's own 32-inch OLED doubles as a dock

The two lists above come from the maker’s specifications and from published third-party measurements, not from owner reports. Where owner discussion has been read it appears in its own section below, so the two are never mistaken for each other.

What owners say

Everything about this monitor is downstream of one number. At 480 Hz on a 1440p OLED it was the first of its kind, and the people who bought it early were doing so on the strength of a refresh rate that most of them could not fully use — buyers worked that out for themselves in advance and bought anyway, or bought the 360 Hz alternative instead.

The complication owners found after launch is that the highest refresh rate and the flicker mitigation are mutually exclusive. One owner running it at 480 Hz over HDMI with current firmware on a 4090 reported heavy flicker in loading screens and occasionally in play, then found the anti-flicker setting greyed out at anything above 240 Hz. If your games have unstable frame pacing or long loading sequences, that is worth understanding before ordering. The other structural limit is the DisplayPort version: 1.4a rather than the 2.1 originally expected, which means compression carries the full mode and brings the familiar knock-on effects — slower alt-tabbing out of full-screen games, and no room for supersampling at native resolution and full refresh.

What you get in exchange is the newer WOLED generation with ASUS's micro-textured coating, factory calibration, three years of burn-in cover and a pixel warranty that names bright and dark dots. Owners who came from earlier ROG OLEDs and stayed here describe it as the one that finally stuck. Owners who play at a genuinely competitive level mostly still wish somebody would make a 25-inch 1080p version.

What owners like

One owner who had cycled through a 32-inch 4K QD-OLED, a 27-inch 1440p QD-OLED, a 540 Hz TN panel and the 240 Hz version of this exact monitor stopped here and said so plainly — that is a meaningful endorsement from someone with a return-and-retry habit.
The newer-generation WOLED panel was the reason people waited for this rather than buying a 360 Hz rival, both for the brightness step and for a subpixel arrangement expected to treat text better.
Burn-in cover runs three years, a year longer than the 240 Hz model it sits above, and the pixel warranty covers bright and dark dots — the specific thing owners get turned down on elsewhere.
It keeps the micro-textured matte coating, which is why buyers with a window or a lamp they cannot move choose an ASUS WOLED over a glossy QD-OLED in the first place.
The panel arrives factory calibrated with unclamped sRGB controls, so the out-of-box picture needs less work than owners of earlier ROG OLEDs had to do.

Common complaints

The flicker problem is the serious one. An owner on a high-end system saw heavy flicker during loading screens and sometimes in gameplay at 480 Hz, and discovered the monitor's own anti-flicker feature is only selectable at 240 Hz — which defeats the reason you bought this model.
DisplayPort is 1.4a, not the 2.1 originally expected, so 480 Hz at 1440p depends on compression. Owners name real consequences: slower switching between full-screen games and the desktop, and no supersampling at native resolution and full refresh.
Almost nobody can feed it. Buyers repeatedly work out that 480 frames a second at 1440p is unreachable in current games even on top-end hardware, and several bought the 360 Hz alternative on that basis.
Competitive players — the audience this exists for — keep pointing out they would rather have a 24 or 25-inch 1080p panel, and that a 27-inch 1440p screen is a compromise rather than the endgame for their use.
Availability was poor at launch, with US stock appearing and vanishing and European buyers waiting months, at prices around the eleven-hundred mark.

Questions owners ask about the ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG27AQDP

Why is the anti-flicker setting greyed out?

Because it only becomes available when the monitor is running at 240 Hz. An owner who bought this specifically for 480 Hz found exactly that, after seeing significant flicker in loading screens and occasionally in gameplay on a high-end system with current firmware. The practical options are dropping to 240 Hz and getting the mitigation, capping your frame rate so the variable range is narrower, or turning variable refresh off in the games where it bothers you.

Can DisplayPort 1.4a really carry 1440p at 480 Hz?

Yes, with Display Stream Compression doing the work — uncompressed, that mode needs more bandwidth than DisplayPort 1.4 provides. The compression itself is visually lossless in practice, but owners report two real side effects of relying on it: switching between a full-screen game and the desktop is slower, and you cannot render above native resolution and hold full refresh. If you were hoping for a 2.1 revision, none had appeared.

Will my graphics card actually push 480 frames a second?

In current games at 1440p, almost certainly not, and buyers reason their way to that conclusion before ordering. Even in older competitive titles it takes a top-tier card. The honest case for buying it anyway is that an OLED's response time plus a high refresh ceiling still improves motion at whatever frame rate you do reach, and that the monitor will outlast two graphics cards. If you need every dollar to be useful today, the 360 Hz panels are the better value.

Is it worth the extra money over the 240 Hz version of the same panel size?

Refresh rate is nearly the whole difference, along with a year more burn-in cover and a newer panel generation. Owners cross-shopping them split on it: people who play competitively and can feed the panel say yes, people who mostly play story games say the money is better spent on resolution. Worth noting the older model has fallen a long way in price, which widens the gap further.

How is the matte coating for someone used to a glossy panel?

It is the reason to buy an ASUS WOLED rather than a glossy QD-OLED, and the trade is the usual one — much less reflection, slightly less punch in a dark room. Buyers weighing this against a glossy 360 Hz rival with speakers keep coming back to the coating as the deciding factor when their room has light they cannot control. One owner rejected a glossy panel outright because it did not work with their lighting and landed here.