Expired Hot Deals

Amazon.ca

LG UltraFine 27UN850-W 27 Inch 4K UHD LED IPS Monitor with DisplayHDR 400 and USB Type-C $449, Regular $600

[OP]
Newbie
Oct 8, 2013
15 posts
29 upvotes

[Amazon.ca] LG UltraFine 27UN850-W 27 Inch 4K UHD LED IPS Monitor with DisplayHDR 400 and USB Type-C $449, Regular $600

LG UltraFine 27UN850-W 27 Inch 4K UHD LED IPS Monitor with DisplayHDR 400 and USB Type-C Connectivity, perfect for Mac users as this will power your MacBook.

According to camel tracker, this is the lowest price this monitor has ever been on Amazon.
Thread Summary
Not the specs you want? Take a look at RFD Reviews' roundup of the best computer monitors!
9 replies
Member
Dec 29, 2017
404 posts
442 upvotes
The fact it's 27" and 4k gives you too much-work space with a minimal screen size. IMO, for 4k you need a minimum of 32" monitor.
Newbie
Feb 18, 2007
37 posts
3 upvotes
Does anyone know what the refresh rate is? I’ve checked the LG and Amazon specs but it doesn’t show. I’m assuming it 60Hz
Deal Addict
Jan 5, 2003
4523 posts
999 upvotes
Toronto
track2 wrote: The fact it's 27" and 4k gives you too much-work space with a minimal screen size. IMO, for 4k you need a minimum of 32" monitor.
Windows and Mac both have good scaling.

4k looks great on 27" just as it does on 32". I've got one of each and I use scaling on both, just less on the 32".
Member
Aug 3, 2012
443 posts
285 upvotes
AURORA
Thanks for posting. Was looking for something like this. No power delivery through USB? Or did I miss it?

Edit: has PD according to LG's web site: LG UltraFine™ Monitor offers USB Type-C™ for data transfer and power delivery up to 60W, as well as DisplayPort, two HDMI connections, two USB 3.0 ports and headphone jack.
Deal Addict
Nov 25, 2002
2564 posts
1187 upvotes
track2 wrote: The fact it's 27" and 4k gives you too much-work space with a minimal screen size. IMO, for 4k you need a minimum of 32" monitor.
This is true. Also, If you don’t have a newer computer, driving 4K will also bog down your computer and I have to run at a 150% scaling.
Better to have gotten a 1440p with higher refresh rate at 27”.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 4, 2015
1317 posts
860 upvotes
track2 wrote: The fact it's 27" and 4k gives you too much-work space with a minimal screen size. IMO, for 4k you need a minimum of 32" monitor.
I have 24" 4k. The perfect size for 4k IMO since it eliminates all fractional scaling issues. Just 200% scaling and same real estate as 1080.
Member
Dec 29, 2017
404 posts
442 upvotes
mr_yellow wrote: This is true. Also, If you don’t have a newer computer, driving 4K will also bog down your computer and I have to run at a 150% scaling.
Better to have gotten a 1440p with higher refresh rate at 27”.
Exactly! 1440p is just perfect for 27"-28" monitors.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jan 6, 2002
6398 posts
6825 upvotes
Toronto
track2 wrote: The fact it's 27" and 4k gives you too much-work space with a minimal screen size. IMO, for 4k you need a minimum of 32" monitor.
IMO you need your eyes checked. 27" is just fine for 4K. IMO of course. IMO.
Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses

Top