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
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2020
1789 posts
3495 upvotes
coffeecoffee wrote: 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.
wow, you guys are really comparing a 27" monitor to a ~3" phone that goes close to your face......
Zoomer Wireless: $36 5GB Plan
Sr. Member
User avatar
Oct 24, 2019
591 posts
895 upvotes
Edmonton
ImaKingK wrote: 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 :)
There is nothing that "wrong" with scaling it's just that you need to do it when things get too small.
Windows use to be really bad at scaling but it's better now. Mac has a great scaler so I have been told.

Scaling at 200% is perfect as the monitor takes one pixel and turns it into 4 pixels Square (1 pixel times 2 in each direction x,y), your Monitor is outputting a 1080p image on a 2160p display. If the scaler is good the picture can look better.
Image

When you use a non perfect scale, guess work needs to happen at 150% 1 pixel is times by 1.5
Image

Some programs just let Windows do all the scaling and sometimes it can look like crap. Other programs will scale the menus and HUDs but leave the images unscaled, which is great for video or Photo editing. Some programs will not scale at all and have really small text.
Apple has more control over Software so they are ahead of the game.
As a windows user the Pluses also come with Cons depending on the software you are using and I do not really see the point of a 2160p Monitor when you have to scale it to 1440p anyway.

The only other way I can put it is:
For $300-400$ @ 27" you have three options.
1080p @ 240Hz
1440p @120Hz
2160p @ 60Hz (but scaled down to 1440p) 150% scale

I would pick the middle one most of the time.
Newbie
Jul 7, 2020
6 posts
4 upvotes
Been always using Win10 scaling to 150% or 175%, no matter it's 1080p or 4k, just to make the texts look larger. Always been a better experience with less eye fatigue, especially when working on word/excel.
Sr. Member
Jun 12, 2010
547 posts
909 upvotes
MahlerMusic wrote: There is nothing that "wrong" with scaling it's just that you need to do it when things get too small.
Windows use to be really bad at scaling but it's better now. Mac has a great scaler so I have been told.

Scaling at 200% is perfect as the monitor takes one pixel and turns it into 4 pixels Square (1 pixel times 2 in each direction x,y), your Monitor is outputting a 1080p image on a 2160p display. If the scaler is good the picture can look better.
<snip>

When you use a non perfect scale, guess work needs to happen at 150% 1 pixel is times by 1.5
<snip>

Some programs just let Windows do all the scaling and sometimes it can look like crap. Other programs will scale the menus and HUDs but leave the images unscaled, which is great for video or Photo editing. Some programs will not scale at all and have really small text.
Apple has more control over Software so they are ahead of the game.
As a windows user the Pluses also come with Cons depending on the software you are using and I do not really see the point of a 2160p Monitor when you have to scale it to 1440p anyway.

The only other way I can put it is:
For $300-400$ @ 27" you have three options.
1080p @ 240Hz
1440p @120Hz
2160p @ 60Hz (but scaled down to 1440p) 150% scale

I would pick the middle one most of the time.
I primarily use Linux (probably ~99% of the time) and this is a topic I've been meaning to deep dive on at some point. Font rendering with my fractional upscaled 2160p (Philips 278E) looks better than my previous 1440p (u2713hm). Not sure if it's the panel itself but it's not like the 4k is premium in comparison?

Strangely, fonts have always looked better in my Linux setup than in Windows even since I bothered to try and configure them properly in ~2012. Maybe subpixel/grayscale AA works better than in Windows? Just the first link I pulled up on the topic: https://mrandri19.github.io/2019/08/08/ ... x-ep2.html

Also this is only when it comes to fonts, then there's the matter of images like in your example above, watching 2160p video content on a 27" might look nicer than 1440p video content on a 27", etc.

I'm in the market for a new secondary monitor now and trying to decide if I want a higher refresh rate 1440p or a second 2160p. Having both at the same resolution would make my life easier within Linux but a higher refresh rate might be nice for the rare gaming session down the road too. This especially as gaming in Linux hopefully improves over the next year and so might the configuration for different sized display setups with things like Wayland/GBM improvements.

There's different resolution/size ratios, PPI, perceived PPI based on viewing distance, etc. but then there's also physical space issues, like how much room you have on your desk, how freely you can move the monitor closer/further if you have a monitor arm vs. stuck using a stand. I don't think the algorithm for picking the best monitor is as obvious as some people make it sound in previous replies....
Jr. Member
Mar 1, 2015
138 posts
91 upvotes
North York, ON
MahlerMusic wrote: 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.
Well, I agree with you that 1440p is a good resolution for a 27" monitor. I won't complain the monitor is 4K itself as, sometimes, I can use it to view/edit 4K videos. 60hz isn't bad, is it?
Deal Addict
May 13, 2015
1207 posts
1586 upvotes
Dartmouth, NS
1080p = 24" or less
1440p = 27"
4k = 32" or more
Sr. Member
User avatar
Oct 24, 2019
591 posts
895 upvotes
Edmonton
JasonToronto wrote: Well, I agree with you that 1440p is a good resolution for a 27" monitor. I won't complain the monitor is 4K itself as, sometimes, I can use it to view/edit 4K videos. 60hz isn't bad, is it?
Nothing wrong with 60Hz. I'm running Dual Dell Ultrasharp 27" 1440p @ 60Hz because all I do is office work and Photo editing. I do plan to replace my setup with a 42" 4K monitor at some point.
42" at 4K will keep everything the same size as what I have now I will just have less horizontal space and more vertical space.

I only do light gaming and do not have enough GPU power to really run high FPS and high resolution.
Sr. Member
Sep 29, 2013
870 posts
552 upvotes
Anyone run this in portrait mode as a 2nd monitor for work?

My primary is a 32" 4k.
I have a 24" 1920x1200 in portrait mode right now and it is only useful for spreadsheets and email cause its too narrow.
Going to a 2K would only add 240 more pixels in width.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5909 posts
1034 upvotes
Calgary
https://www.sven.de/dpi/

1920x1080 at 24" is 92 PPI
1920x1080 at 22"" is 100 PPI
3840x2160 at 43" is 102 PPI

Even at 43", it is still denser than 1080 at 22"
Member
Sep 12, 2018
423 posts
375 upvotes
Edmonton
MahlerMusic wrote: There is nothing that "wrong" with scaling it's just that you need to do it when things get too small.
Windows use to be really bad at scaling but it's better now. Mac has a great scaler so I have been told.

Scaling at 200% is perfect as the monitor takes one pixel and turns it into 4 pixels Square (1 pixel times 2 in each direction x,y), your Monitor is outputting a 1080p image on a 2160p display. If the scaler is good the picture can look better.
Image

When you use a non perfect scale, guess work needs to happen at 150% 1 pixel is times by 1.5
Image

Some programs just let Windows do all the scaling and sometimes it can look like crap. Other programs will scale the menus and HUDs but leave the images unscaled, which is great for video or Photo editing. Some programs will not scale at all and have really small text.
Apple has more control over Software so they are ahead of the game.
As a windows user the Pluses also come with Cons depending on the software you are using and I do not really see the point of a 2160p Monitor when you have to scale it to 1440p anyway.

The only other way I can put it is:
For $300-400$ @ 27" you have three options.
1080p @ 240Hz
1440p @120Hz
2160p @ 60Hz (but scaled down to 1440p) 150% scale

I would pick the middle one most of the time.
2160p is definitely not 1440p when scaled to 150%. The results look drastically different.
Member
Sep 12, 2018
423 posts
375 upvotes
Edmonton
For 4k on 27" I'll provide my 2 cents. I'm using 27" 4k monitor for 1 year and I absolutely have no regret over that. To be honest, I'm spoiled so much by 4k, I got a QHD monitor and immediately sent it back, because I couldn't tolerate the pixels. But this same me uses a 24" 1080p monitor as second monitor. My rationale is, most of the time I'm looking at a single monitor and the second monitor is just that, a second monitor. So, I would rather save some money there.

For people, who are saying the texts are too small at 4k, aren't either using scaling or never used a 4k monitor at all. If you are reading a lot of texts, a 4k monitor with scaling will provide you ultimate performance. Some downsides to consider though. If you are getting a 4k monitor, most likely you have to compromise on refresh rate and response time. I honestly couldn't care less about them. But if your use case needs them, it might not be a good choice to go after 4k monitors. I'm using 4k with both my Mac Mini and Work Computer (Dell) and satisfied with the result in both cases.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
16947 posts
9024 upvotes
Ottawa
IshfaqueR4678 wrote: For 4k on 27" I'll provide my 2 cents. I'm using 27" 4k monitor for 1 year and I absolutely have no regret over that. To be honest, I'm spoiled so much by 4k, I got a QHD monitor and immediately sent it back, because I couldn't tolerate the pixels. But this same me uses a 24" 1080p monitor as second monitor. My rationale is, most of the time I'm looking at a single monitor and the second monitor is just that, a second monitor. So, I would rather save some money there.

For people, who are saying the texts are too small at 4k, aren't either using scaling or never used a 4k monitor at all. If you are reading a lot of texts, a 4k monitor with scaling will provide you ultimate performance. Some downsides to consider though. If you are getting a 4k monitor, most likely you have to compromise on refresh rate and response time. I honestly couldn't care less about them. But if your use case needs them, it might not be a good choice to go after 4k monitors. I'm using 4k with both my Mac Mini and Work Computer (Dell) and satisfied with the result in both cases.
Yeah I can't stand QHD at 27" either. After you see the crispy sharp text on a 4K monitor, it's hard to go back. I do prefer 32" though. And I much prefer the physical size of the screen, I can tile the app windows and view more content comfortably. As a single monitor, I find 32" to be the sweet spot horizontally and vertically, if any wider...I feel I have to move my head side to side too much (21:9 monitor).

I never had any issues with any of the apps I use not scaling properly
Last edited by warpdrive on Jan 24th, 2022 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jr. Member
Nov 25, 2021
110 posts
112 upvotes
IshfaqueR4678 wrote: For 4k on 27" I'll provide my 2 cents. I'm using 27" 4k monitor for 1 year and I absolutely have no regret over that. To be honest, I'm spoiled so much by 4k, I got a QHD monitor and immediately sent it back, because I couldn't tolerate the pixels. But this same me uses a 24" 1080p monitor as second monitor. My rationale is, most of the time I'm looking at a single monitor and the second monitor is just that, a second monitor. So, I would rather save some money there.

For people, who are saying the texts are too small at 4k, aren't either using scaling or never used a 4k monitor at all. If you are reading a lot of texts, a 4k monitor with scaling will provide you ultimate performance. Some downsides to consider though. If you are getting a 4k monitor, most likely you have to compromise on refresh rate and response time. I honestly couldn't care less about them. But if your use case needs them, it might not be a good choice to go after 4k monitors. I'm using 4k with both my Mac Mini and Work Computer (Dell) and satisfied with the result in both cases.
Agree completely. Most apps scale fine at high resolution, I find it's only the more obscure ones that haven't been updated in ages that don't.

The Surface Pro was my first experience with a high ppi screen. Even at the default 200% scaling, the crisp clarity and sharpness is still there. Remember Windows scales very nicely on high PPI screens because Microsoft's own product line uses such screens - this is the direction we are moving in as more products shift to higher pixel densities.

My MacBook Air also had a higher 1440p resolution with it's small screen as well. High PPI is here to stay, and thank goodness for it.

For me personally, 27inch at 1440p is not good enough - I tried it for about a month or so. 4k at 27inch was lovely. For some reason (and this is just me personally), I seem to get eye-strain with lower PPI screens, but with high PPI screens I tend to feel much better using them. Not sure why this is the case, but there you go.

I also noticed M1 Macs and Linux seem to scale better on 4k or above...at 1440p the scaling is not as good as Windows for some reason.

At the end of the day, you have 30 days to return the product, so there's nothing wrong with giving it a try. For me 27inch should absolutely be 4k, but someone might be okay with 1440p at 27inch as well.
Deal Addict
Apr 30, 2007
2298 posts
1167 upvotes
coffeecoffee wrote: 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.
You gonna hold that 27” monitor up to your face too?
Sr. Member
Aug 19, 2013
979 posts
1028 upvotes
TORONTO
aomous wrote: 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
4K scaled 150% to 1440p usable space is still a 4K picture. It’s crisp and somewhat comparable to an iMac 5k 27 inch retina.

It’s way better than a 27” 1440p monitor in terms of picture quality. Gaming is of course a different story but still not bad playing at 1440p with gpu image sharpening turned on.
Sr. Member
Dec 5, 2016
504 posts
697 upvotes
Guys... High-DPI scaling was a real pain in the ass 7 years ago. It's not anymore.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 1, 2017
2393 posts
1623 upvotes
aomous wrote: 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
Depends on the type of gamer you are... I don't play anything competitive so high fps is meaningless to me.

Better visuals is where it's at.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)