Marketplace
Been looking for a budget 4k monitor for awhile now and just found this. Lowest price i've seen, previous lowest price was in Nov 2018 at Futu (ebay) for $399 delivered.
LG 27" 4K UHD IPS LED Monitor with AMD FreeSync (27UD59-B) $349 + Delivery (Free with Shipster) @ Kogan
730
Related Stores
closed Comments
What does it matter? Explain to this newb
Often, we can’t see the benefits of extra pixels (unless it’s a big screen or you’re sitting close enough). HDR (not necessarily pixel count) results in a better picture because of the contrast range. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/psa-dont-buy-a-4k-tv-witho…
That sample image is exaggerated I personally feel. I've popped into the likes of jb, gerry's etc, and looked at a nonHDR and HDR next to each other…and assuming the content is HDR…there is some difference, but it's not as pronounced as that image makes it out to be.
@Diji1: Thing is that HDR only improves contrast if the display has a native contrast that is high enough for its dynamic range to not already maxed out by normal SDR content..
In other words HDR was really made for OLEDs, high-end projectors and very bright LCDs. Would make bugger all difference on a budget LCD computer monitor like this.
@incipient: Depends on what "HDR" is being referenced. A lot of monitors say they have HDR, but don't have the brightness range to actually have any HDR that matters.
Think Linus or Hardware unboxed has done videos on em. Proper HDR monitors look great, the ones not properly doing HDR look very meh.
HDR allows you to see darker areas particularly in games and movies more accurately to real life
Actually id say HDR looks less 'real life'. Us humans actually do a pretty poor job of HDR. Look at a scene with some shadowed area and a bright sunny bit, and either the light will be blinding white, or the shadows just a flat black area.
@incipient: Depends. Sure if you're outside a dark area, in light, your eyes see very little detail, you mostly just see total black in the dark area. However, once you enter the dark area, your light to dark adjustment in your eyes set in and you see lots of detail in the dark area. The same works vice versa, if you're in a dark area and look out towards a bright area of the sun, you see nothing but lots of light till your eyes adjust.
I guess if you're in a dark area, but it's not totally dark you tend to see still a lot of detail. Screens up until proper 1000 nits HDR didn't really show that type of thing that you see similar to real life. Usually older IPS non-HDR screens just showed maybe a dark shape/silhouette and not the texture of the material. Where HDR gets unrealistic which is what I think you're talking about, is when you're in a super dark cave and somehow you still see detail of the texture and it's bright somehow, in real life that kind of thing wouldn't happen.
Firstly I'll say for this price, you won't get HDR (e.g. wanting ferrari for fiat prices), however I would say that today HDR is still not required. The list of supported games is quite small (see below)
In a given frame/scene, HDR will basically allow blacks/shadows to be darker (and retain quality) and allow the light areas to be lighter and brighter (again with good quality). e.g. you can get some nice detailed shadows, without having the sky look like a flat white space (that's a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea).
I would be perfectly happy to have this as my primary monitor today, and swap it out as my secondary in 2 years or so when HDR gets more support. One gripe with this is the bezel thickness if you use Eyefinity/Surround - they do get in the way!) The LG 27UK650 is basically this with HDR and thin bezels…at a MASSIVE price premium!
https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Special:Ask/-5B-5BCategory:Gam…
As someone who has a HDR monitor and TV I can second this. Yes it looks better, but it's not night and day difference. There is good and bad HDR content just like there is good and bad standard content. Some really well produced SDR content can actually look better than mediocre HDR content too.
According to that list Doom (1993) has HDR.
I knew it was ahead of it's time!
At 27 inch, if you get a 4K monitor, generally you would be after some sort of entertainment (either watching 4K video / UHD contents) or playing games at 4K. Regardless of your view on HDR, it is still good that the monitor does it. Unfortunately, at this price point, plus the nature of IPS (where contrast ratio is its main weakness - IPS generally need a much stronger backlight). In order to achieve real HDR, it will need a top notch backlight. Otherwise, at best, an IPS at this price range could only mimic HDR (fake HDR) at this price point.
While fake HDR doesn't make much sense, it will still require some work and HDMI 2.0a from the monitor maker. By not implementing that, the port bandwidth can stay at HDMI 2.0 (saves cost). This is really nitpicking at this price, that's really expecting too much.
The issue to watch out for, is that most 27 inch 4K monitors (this one included) don't support 2K resolution so you either go 4K and 1080p. Granted that even if it does allow/support 2K resolution, it wouldn't look as sharp. This is something to watch out for if you have a PC gaming setup that does decent 2K gaming, but not necessary 4K. Furthermore, for work, 27 inch 2K is probably the most ideal (you can use 4K with OS scaling / app scaling, but some apps simply just don't look right still).
Also, if you simply use integrated graphics from the intel CPU, you will probably prefer DisplayPort. Intel still use the LSCON trick in their 7th and 8th gen CPUs to deliver 4K@60Hz (basically convert a DisplayPort to HDMI 2.0). Whether that chip presents depends on the motherboard. Basically, make sure your PC/laptop/Mac setup can do 4K@60Hz.
It means thousand of dollars more for true HDR.
This is kind of silly. People say not to buy 27" in 1080p. Now that it's 4K, it needs to have HDR too??
HDR is not really designed for monitor and it is rather a concept in TV world.
Also, you won't be able to use most of your applications under HDR mode, like windows applications or even photoshop without having a dedicated professional graphic card (not consumer grade GTX or RTX).I am not against this kind of deals and actually I believe 27 inch is just about the right size for a monitor.
PS: I am using a higher up 32UD99 model which comes with HDR mode, can't use this feature most of the time anyway. You need to consider this only takes one-third
price of my 32UD99 monitor.
For a gaming display I'd take 120hz over HDR to minimise input lag. I'm not one of these people that "can't go back to 60hz" the visible switch doesn't bother me at all but I can feel the improved responsiveness on 100hz to about 144hz. I tried a 200hz screen and couldn't tell the difference.
Another thing to note is that most HDR monitors don't meet true HDR spec so the benefits are minimal. Typically the backlight can't achieve great enough brightness or the backlight washes into what should be dark areas on the cheaper models.
Pretty much this, there's a pretty good video by Linus Tech Tips on it.
I have the older model (58). It is a good entry level 4K, however the contrast ratio is not high enough for a sunlit room. I don't know if they fixed this in the new model. Other than this, it's been ok for gaming and anything else. Just note that you will need at least gtx 1080 to be able to benefit from 4k gaming. Ideally you will need 2080ti to run many new games on max settings.
Rip wallet
This one. The VP28UQG has a TN panel.
What about for primarily Xbox One X 4K use?
The only metric that the Asus beats this monitor on is response time - 5ms on the LG vs 1ms on the Asus. I really doubt you'd notice the difference in response time playing on a console.
IPS has significantly better colour reproduction and contrast, better viewing angles, your eyes will thank you.
now i don't know what one to get, one difference is the LG is IPS panel and the asus is TN
If you must get one of the two, then this one because it is IPS and the TN doesn't offer anything above 60Hz (while it does have better input lag, but if your 1080p gaming is locked to 60Hz/fps max, it just doesn't feel like a TN gaming monitor).
Make sure your graphics card can do 4K@60Hz.
Unless you're a fairly hardcore FPS (eg csgo) gamer…always go IPS over TN
I already have a 1080p 144hz TN monitor, but my 2nd monitor is overdue for an upgrade
@Yoell: Personally I don't like mixing resolutions (as the mouse gets caught and I expect I have slight ocd =p) but that's just me.
Would this monitor ship with a hdmi 2.0 cable? or would i have to buy one seperate
It comes with one. However, standard HDMI cable should work fine still.
standard doesn't support 4k60hz tho, so would be looking for hdmi 2.0
thanks for infoRead The 4K HDMI Cable rip-off. If you want to waste money to buy expensive cables, go ahead.
This is just HDMI 2.0, not HDMI 2.0a or HDMI 2.0b or above. Do bear in mind that some LG monitors requiring you to set the HDMI port to deep colour mode before you can actually use 4K on the HDMI port (DisplayPort is not limited).
@netsurfer: I wont be spending extra cus u said it comes with a hdmi 2.0 ?
so i should be all good :)
thks, bought one. It's much cheaper than FUTU with 20% off on Ebay, and you'd need a computer alliance deal at 20% off to match which ebay don't seem to too often across the board and include the monitor at no price jacking.
came to $360 delivered to Melbourne.
Will this be ok as a home office monitor? Would be purely used for work and no movies/gaming.
See my first comment in this post. I've covered it. In short, it doesn't have 2K resolution support and even if it does, it won't look very sharp. For pure work, at 27 inch, I recommend 2K monitor. I have both 27 inch 4K and 2K monitors. For work, I go and use the 2K monitor. You can use OS scaling and app scaling, but at 4K, some apps just don't scale properly. However, if you just use latest Office and latest browsers, then 4K should be fine.
What work do you do? I respectfully disagree with netsurfer.
I got my first Dell 4k 27" more than 2 years ago. Back then there were some scaling issues on W7.
Have another 4k 27" now and basically everything works prefectly. I use W10 and so engineering work which work fine (CAD, MS office etc). Unless you're using some really really unusual software most have decent support now. If you have a Mac then support is also top notch.
For my work that extra resolution in CAD just makes every image and text crisp. Same with MS office, never going back =)
I work for a bank and most of my work is through Chrome and a couple internal programs which are quite old, just reading text really. Work laptop runs on W7.
my work is through Chrome and a couple internal programs which are quite old, just reading text really. Work laptop runs on W7.
Chrome should run okay. Internal programs - doubtful they will scale properly (used to work for a bank - some of their apps are really legacy apps). Windows 7 don't do app scaling well though. Windows 10 does a better job.
If your work laptop runs Windows 7, I doubt the HDMI port can do 4K@60fps. You can get this monitor if you want to. 4K monitors run quite well at 1080p mode. From what you mentioned, I don't think you need the extra workspace 2K monitor offers.
Worst case, run Chrome based tasks on the new monitor, old apps on the laptop screen.
@netsurfer: Ended up getting it so we'll see how it goes. Seeing as I normally have at least 5 chrome tabs I need to flick between, the additional screen real estate will make life easier. Hopefully. Thanks!
@anikam: At this price, cannot go wrong. You will be able to at least watch youTube in 4K. Not sure whether LG changed it for this, some of their 4K 27 inch displays have the HDMI port default to 1080p mode. You need to set HDMI Ultra HD Deep Color to On to switch it to 4K.
Old internal programs will likely not work/scale properly (unusual software).
W7 had scaling issues as I mentioned. Chrome will work on 4k
But at this price you're basically future proof yourself with a bargain priced 4k IPS monitor for when your next laptop/PC can fully support it.
everything works prefectly
That's not true. While newer apps generally work fine, older apps and some of the specialised apps don't work. Even for the ones that work fine, you pretty much have to use scaling on 4K at 27 inch. Thus, essentially, you are not actually fully utilising the entire 4K. Then, you have issues with apps wanting to use 1:1 vs apps that work fine with scaling. For most people, without scaling, 4K 27 inch (at its native / zero scaling) is not work friendly (other than 4K video editing perhaps). Once you use scaling, you are essentially reducing actual overall usable workspace.
If you have a Mac then support is also top notch.
It depends on the Mac. I have a Macbook Pro 2017 13 inch, the OS I ran initially wouldn't allow 4K out of the box (interestingly, the PC and laptop I tested both ran 4K without issue). I had to do a few things to get the MBP to do 4K. Let's pretend there is zero issue there (since you only need to setup once). Are you using the "More Space" (the one all the way to the right? - true 4K)? If not, let's say you use the middle setting, that's 1692p essentially. Not to mention, for a Donglebook, you need to get a decent dongle (USB-C to 4K/60Hz). Most cheap multi-port dongles can only do 4K@30fps. You plug those dongles into a 2K screen, 2K 60fps right away, no fuss.
Even on Mac, I still would like some software to run at 4K (video editing related or video playback), while most apps run in scaled mode.
Well I consider scaling (W10) to be using the entire 4k, text and images are definitely clearer even though the icons may be almost the size as a 27" 1080p screen. I wouldn't use 4k 1:1, pixels just too small. I'm happy to 'waste' the screen resolution in this manner.
As I stated unusual software may not work.
It depends on the Mac.
Absolutely. I haven't tried every Mac and don't own one (engineering software and Mac do not play ball).
I tried with a friends Macbook using DisplayPort and got 4k60 with no fiddling required. Probably dongle dependent
@thetrain: First of all, I am just pointing out that with 2K, you can simply use 1:1. So, there is no scaling. Once you get a 4K monitor, the first thing you need to do is play with scaling settings. And, if you are like me and prefer different scaling for different apps, then there is a bit of setup. Once you have an app that simply doesn't scale, it becomes annoying. I also have a dumb app that simply doesn't work unless you run in 1:1 mode. I am running 2018 October version (latest) - obviously it hasn't considered 4K support.
I tried with a friends Macbook using DisplayPort and got 4k60 with no fiddling required.
Older Macbook Pro with Thunderbolt 2 ports? Those would work fine. Macbook Pro 15 inch is also fine (provided you get the right dongle). Macbook Pro 13 inch - it really depends (the issue I had is OS related - Apple blocked it by default, not dongle related). Dongle also matters though:
Apple's official USB-C Digital Multiport Adapter - 4K@30Hz (not 60). Try not to paint the picture that it just works for every Mac. It is complicated. Deep down, Apple want you to go Thunderbolt 3 route.
Also, I reminded people to watch out for Intel's HDMI limitation. 4K@60Hz still has a bit of growing pain (esp. if you have older hardware).
NOT saying don't get 4K 27 inch. 4K/27 inch makes sense for home use with occasional work (better entertainment value). I use my 4K 27 inch a lot because I don't do that much work at home. I do most of my work at work.
@netsurfer: Update: monitor was delivered today and have set it up in the home office, it's perfect! Size is great, and the ample screen real estate means that I can use 4 corners of the monitor to have all my programs and Chrome tabs open. Happy with my purchase!
i bought it for for work use, no gaming. current. monitor is 32” 2k ….sitting 60cm from the screen at a desk i find the 32” looks curved at the left and right edges due to parallax.
previously has 1920x1400 28” and that had no parallax issues when sitting up close but i wanted finder pixels which the 2k didn’t deliver…..
so 27” 4k should be smaller pixels and no parallax when sitting up close, it’s what some people at work had for their surface tablets and it looked nice.
I reckon 4K is great for home office . With the lg screen split software I can get 4 1920x1024 screens .
Will a 680 card be enough to power a 4K resolution or not?
some of the intel on chips graphics will drive 4k depending how old your cpu is, if not used for gaming but office type work screen updates aren’t cpu intensive.
some of the surface tablets drive 4k and they don’t have dedicated graphics processor, but they also don’t do fast frame rates and are used for work not gaming.
check which generation cpu you have.
For HDMI with an intel CPU and embedded graphics, it not only depends on the CPU, it depends on the motherboard as well. If the motherboard does not have LSCON chip for the HDMI port, then it is likely 4K@30fps.
So, for intel CPU, best to use DisplayPort. But if the CPU is too old, the DisplayPort cannot do 4K@60Hz either.
Netsurfer,
yeah you nailed it,
on my gen 6 the CPU and motherboard, 4k is only 30hz for 4K.
Display port is 4k 60hz …. so I will need DP cable for 4K 60hz … have lots of HDMI. no DP cables :-(So now the quest for cheap display port cable that does 4k at 60hz at 3M off ebay … I'm sure this will be as bad as myth busting HDMI cables.
@garage sale: According to the item description, it comes with a DisplayPort cable.
Don't buy long display cables, especially cheap ones.
yes but dont even think about gaming except really old/indie games
680 only does 4K@30hz / 30fps. This monitor can do 4K@60fps - it still runs 4K@30fps fine.
Does my Samsung U28E850R 28" LED LCD monitor compare to this at all? I’m getting a high end PC built now and thinking I may need to upgrade. Any thoughts?
Your U28E850R has USB 3.0 ports, VESA like stand (height adjustable, pivot, rotation support). This one has IPS (U28E850R is TN), no USB 3 ports (does have VESA mounting point but included stand is not VESA).
Define high end PC - i.e. which graphics card(s) you plan to get. What type of gaming are you after? If you are serious about gaming, 60fps/hz monitors probably won't cut it. For example: you go for RTX 2080, it doesn't make sense to get this LG monitor.
Thanks for that. Actually that’s exactly what I’m getting. If you search tech fast and see the 1920x Thread Ripper deal, I ordered one of them so fairly high end. I’ve heard so many differing opinions on what to buy. I assume a 27 or so inch 1440p monitor with 144mhz refresh rate seems to be the go. I would want something that can also support my PS4 with low input lag a must as I play games like cod mostly. Any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks.
There is one, but you are not going to like the price (RRP is around $2999):
https://www.asus.com/au/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG27UQ/
Even with that, you have to use DisplayPort for PC gaming. As the specs indicates: DP: 3840 x2160 @ 144Hz (overclocking)/
DP: 3840x2160 @120Hz (native)/HDMI : 3840x 2160 (up to 60Hz). It is a limitation of current official HDMI standard (HDMI 2.0a is just 4K@60Hz). It is a true IPS HDR gaming monitor and it supports GSync (which works with RTX 2080).PS4 Pro, honestly, at best it does dynamic 4K @ 30fps (with true res more like 1440p). I can understand the preference for low input lag, but for consoles, you don't need high refresh rate monitors. PS4 Pro doesn't support FreeSync (at least not yet).
A 1440p gaming monitor probably makes more sense price wise, but then you hit another issue. PS4 Pro does not support 1440p (even though it would make a lot of sense to support it). So, you can only run 1080p on a 1440p monitor and it won't look very sharp (All LCD monitors only look really sharp at native resolution). However, you already have your U28E850R so you could use that for PS4 Pro if you do want to save money and get a 2K (1440p) gaming monitor instead. It's just RTX 2080 seems to be an overkill for 1440p gaming.
@netsurfer: Holy smokes! Yeah that’s a bit out of the price range lol. I could probably budget around $600 max for a monitor if you have any other suggestions? In the mean time I’ll just test the Samsung once I get my build, I do know it’s limited with the refresh rate, though which is going to be the biggest drag but maybe it’s not so bad. Time will yell. Thanks for your input, much appreciated.
@[Deactivated]: Cannot help you with a cost effective gaming monitor. I don't even have a budget for RTX2080 so I haven't looked into 1440p gaming monitors.
This monitor is attractive, price wise. And, it is IPS. It's just that it will be another 4K monitor for you without HDR. I know it is probably not a big deal, but it would be good to have the option to play games, watch 4K videos in HDR.
@netsurfer: True. There will be other deals. I’ll do some proper research and then hold out for the right one. I still won’t receive my build for close to 2 weeks and I have the Samsung for now so all good. Cheers.
Thinking of selling my Samsung ue590d for this
Good idea?
Yes
A good price but a strange product. 4k needs a very expensive card to drive it but 27 inches isn't big enough for 4k to be useful. I run a 40 inch 4k panel for desktop use and it's great, but only a smaller 1080 panel for gaming. Maybe this panel can do both as a one screen compromise but it will be somewhat inferior for both things. Well the freesync is handy if you are running AMD cards …
people at work have small (28") 4K screens for their surface tablets to dock to when at their desks. You get sharper images the main part of the screen you use due to smaller pixels and font size adjustment, and on the background you fit more due to smaller pixels and if you shrink windows.
40" panel at a desk eg 45 cm from eyes would make you move head from left to right when looking at edges, lucky you got that past the OH&S people at work for ergonomics. At my old work people that needed the extra view area got 2 screens, one for their main work area, and one for "other stuff / apps", but this was typically 2x1080p screens, 4k screen users just had one about 28".
VIRGIN SAVIOR on 28/12/2018 - 16:05 Comment score below threshold.