Expired Hot Deals

Best Buy

LG UltraFine 27" 4K FreeSync Monitor (27UP650-W) $379.99 ($120 off)

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 25th, 2022 8:52 am
[OP]
Newbie
Jun 25, 2019
43 posts
135 upvotes

[Best Buy] LG UltraFine 27" 4K FreeSync Monitor (27UP650-W) $379.99 ($120 off)

A decent 4K monitor with a great discount.
Last edited by TomRFD on Jan 18th, 2022 3:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: retailer field was empty
Thread Summary
If you're shopping for a new screen, take a look at RFD Reviews' top picks for the best computer monitors!
36 replies
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2020
1786 posts
3491 upvotes
Nice monitor but wouldn't really call it a "gaming monitor", 4K is nice but very hard to achieve for most AAA games unless you have a really good GPU and 60hz for gaming is meh. I'd much rather get a 1440p monitor that is atleast 120-170Hz, I currently have a 27" 1440p 170Hz monitor and it is amazing. I can play The Witcher 3 at 1440p with over 100fps
Zoomer Wireless: $36 5GB Plan
Member
Nov 17, 2013
242 posts
182 upvotes
Toronto, ON
great 4k monitor. not my primary gaming monitor, but good for consuming 4k content
Sr. Member
User avatar
Oct 24, 2019
587 posts
889 upvotes
Edmonton
No upvote or down vote for me but I would rather spend the same amount for 1440p and a higher refresh rate.
Deal Addict
Apr 23, 2014
1123 posts
213 upvotes
how true is it that 4k looks better with a 32" size. I'm not a gamer but looking for something for text/numbers ease and clarity?
[OP]
Newbie
Jun 25, 2019
43 posts
135 upvotes
MahlerMusic wrote: No upvote or down vote for me but I would rather spend the same amount for 1440p and a higher refresh rate.
It all depends on your use cases.

If you're a gamer, 2k 144 Hz is definitely a no brainer. For other usage, such as office, coding or watching 4K contents, 4K is probably a better choice.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2020
1786 posts
3491 upvotes
Penrose wrote: how true is it that 4k looks better with a 32" size. I'm not a gamer but looking for something for text/numbers ease and clarity?
4k on a 27" would probably make most things look too small, hence why people say its better to get at least a 32" for 4k.
Zoomer Wireless: $36 5GB Plan
Newbie
Jul 7, 2018
62 posts
224 upvotes
If you’re using Windows, you can set scaling to 150% or 175%. 27” at 4K is the largest size I’d want to use; the pixel density on 32”+ is too low.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 25, 2008
2902 posts
3391 upvotes
Winnipeg
coffeecoffee wrote: If you’re using Windows, you can set scaling to 150% or 175%. 27” at 4K is the largest size I’d want to use; the pixel density on 32”+ is too low.
Totally disagree. Using a 4k monitor that is 32", and the picture quality is absolutely amazing!
I'm not cheap, I'm frugal!!!
Sr. Member
User avatar
Oct 24, 2019
587 posts
889 upvotes
Edmonton
dyckia wrote: It all depends on your use cases.

If you're a gamer, 2k 144 Hz is definitely a no brainer. For other usage, such as office, coding or watching 4K contents, 4K is probably a better choice.
coffeecoffee wrote: If you’re using Windows, you can set scaling to 150% or 175%. 27” at 4K is the largest size I’d want to use; the pixel density on 32”+ is too low.
I hear people saying this all the time but in general you do not want to use scaling. Most people that use a 4K 27" monitor use scaling to change it to a PPI of a 1440p 27" monitor anyway so it just seems pointless to me.
Office and Coding work does best at 100% scaling and 27" at 1440p is the perfect PPI.
The "perfect" PPI is 95 to 110 PPI
A PPI of 140 is pretty much the Max people with perfect vision can handle and even then most people find it too high.
Back in the day I would use a 21" 1080p Monitor for perfect text but most people at work would say it's too small and would get 23" or 24".
27" @ 1440p is about the same PPI as 21" @ 1080p.
32" @ 2160p is at the far end of usable at 100% scaling.


Screen Size Screen Resolution Pixel Density Optimal Viewing Distance
24″ 1920×1080 92 PPI 37″ (94cm)
24″ 2560×1440 122 PPI 28″ (71cm)
24″ 3840×2160 184 PPI 19″ (48cm)
27″ 1920×1080 82 PPI 42″ (107cm)
27″ 2560×1440 109 PPI 32″ (81cm)
27″ 3840×2160 163 PPI 21″ (53cm)
32″ 1920×1080 70 PPI 49″ (124cm)
32″ 2560×1440 93 PPI 37″ (94cm)
32″ 3840×2160 140 PPI 25″ (64cm)
29″ UltraWide 2560×1080 96 PPI 36″ (91cm)
34″ UltraWide 2560×1080 82 PPI 42″ (107cm)
34″ UltraWide 3440×1440 110 PPI 31″ (79cm)
38″ UltraWide 3840×1600 111 PPI 31″ (79cm)
43″ 3840×2160 104 PPI 33″ (84cm)
49″ 32:9 5120×1440 109 PPI 32″ (81cm)
49″ 32:9 3840×1080 81 PPI 42″ (107cm)
Jr. Member
Mar 1, 2015
138 posts
91 upvotes
North York, ON
I paid $359 in boxing week. Over all this is a good monitor for office work (I don't play game). Using 150% on Windows is very nice. Large font on mac is fine too. 32" may be too big for most people's desks.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Oct 24, 2019
587 posts
889 upvotes
Edmonton
JasonToronto wrote: Using 150% on Windows is very nice. Large font on mac is fine too.
That is because 2160 divided by 150% is 1440... the perfect resolution for office work.
So you are pretty much turning your 4K monitor into a 1440p monitor but still at 60hz.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jan 11, 2008
646 posts
90 upvotes
Toronto
Recently purchased this LG monitor from Staples when they had a flash sale ($349.99 - $10 Newsletter coupon). I don't game and wanted a monitor for general productivity/work use with my M1 MacBook Air (USB-C to HDMI cable [email protected]) that was colour-accurate enough for photo and video editing. The picture quality on this monitor is amazing and definitely worth the price IMO.

I did have to scale it larger - not sure what percentage, just set it to the size I'm used to with text on my MacBook. But I'm not sure why scaling is an issue (if someone can enlighten me that would be great). Haven't noticed any decrease in quality of text or video from the scaling. So I'm happy with the purchase :)
Jr. Member
Sep 23, 2010
172 posts
80 upvotes
Vancouver
I have the 27UL650

Its a good monitor, but in all honest I regret getting a 27"

With 4k its a bit too small and I have to push the monitor up wayy to close to see 4k detail. (viewing distance).
Also scaling is an issue. And also gaming. 2k is better for all around gaming.

I recommend going 32" or larger if you go to 4k.

Also i find if your watching alot of movies and/or gaming. 21:9 ultrawide is better.

27" 2k - 32"+ 4k.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2020
1786 posts
3491 upvotes
coffeecoffee wrote: If you’re using Windows, you can set scaling to 150% or 175%. 27” at 4K is the largest size I’d want to use; the pixel density on 32”+ is too low.
Tell me you don't understand pixel density without telling me you don't understand pixel density
Zoomer Wireless: $36 5GB Plan
Jr. Member
May 23, 2017
111 posts
36 upvotes
aomous wrote: Tell me you don't understand pixel density without telling me you don't understand pixel density
lol youre the one that doesn't understand pixel density
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 19, 2005
4735 posts
1847 upvotes
Vancity
Ideally 32" for 4K without scaling. However, given the price difference, and the lack of desk space for a dual monitor set-up, I settled on a 2x 27" at 125% scaling. Just like using a phone, I don't want to see the spaces between the pixels.
signature closed for renovation
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2020
1786 posts
3491 upvotes
nogirls wrote: lol youre the one that doesn't understand pixel density
How? 4k on a 32" is no where near "too low" Its actually perfect and if you're gonna set your scaling to 150% or 175% on a 27" 4k monitor, then whats the point of even getting a 4k monitor?? You clearly also dont know shite about pixel density and monitors
Zoomer Wireless: $36 5GB Plan
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2020
1786 posts
3491 upvotes
recordman wrote: Ideally 32" for 4K without scaling. However, given the price difference, and the lack of desk space for a dual monitor set-up, I settled on a 2x 27" at 125% scaling. Just like using a phone, I don't want to see the spaces between the pixels.
I have 2x 27" 1440p monitors and I can't see the spaces between the pixels, however in a 1080p 27" monitor, I can definitely see the spaces
Zoomer Wireless: $36 5GB Plan
Newbie
Jul 7, 2018
62 posts
224 upvotes
aomous wrote: Tell me you don't understand pixel density without telling me you don't understand pixel density
27” at 4K is 163PPI
32” at 4K is 137PPI

27” at 4K is the same as the original iPhone. I don’t want lower than that.

Top