LG 27MU67 Could be first 27 inches of awesomeness we have seen?

Hmmm well I will say Wooooo! And wait for something to go wrong or be pointed out that kills the buzz....

Edit...I'm betting it IS Free Sink and not a spelling mistake and that will kill the buzz....
 
Bobmunkhouse said:
Hmmm well I will say Wooooo! And wait for something to go wrong or be pointed out that kills the buzz....

Edit...I'm betting it IS Free Sink and not a spelling mistake and that will kill the buzz....
Click to expand...

It seems like it should be very good, but the low key launch is a little strange.
 
It's like the dream monitor (which has 1440p) but a 4K version! My only annoyance is the screen is too small. Bigger screen for 4k please. And I'm loving that I/O. I wonder how much it'll cost next to those 1440p/144Hz/IPS/G-Sync/FreeSync monitors? Hopefully not too much, since it is freesynce. But I have noticed it's a 144Hz 4k monitor?

But it's too good to be true. There must be something fishy. The price perhaps? £2k for this 4k dream! Also does OCUK have this available for order yet?
 
mahius said:
It's like the dream monitor (which has 1440p) but a 4K version! My only annoyance is the screen is too small. Bigger screen for 4k please. And I'm loving that I/O. I wonder how much it'll cost next to those 1440p/144Hz/IPS/G-Sync/FreeSync monitors? Hopefully not too much, since it is freesynce. But I have noticed it's a 144Hz 4k monitor?

But it's too good to be true. There must be something fishy. The price perhaps? £2k for this 4k dream! Also does OCUK have this available for order yet?
Click to expand...

Why don't you actually bother reading?

It's 60hz, and it's A$799 - probably £400-500.
 
4K on a monitor that small...

34" minimum or not worth it. The whole point of 4K is to be gloriously massaged by the pixels, not to have to view it on a tiny monitor like this:

GTaPH3x.jpg
 
mrk said:
4K on a monitor that small...

34" minimum or not worth it. The whole point of 4K is to be gloriously massaged by the pixels, not to have to view it on a tiny monitor like this:

GTaPH3x.jpg
Click to expand...

I disagree. Anything over 32" is a waste at 4K IMO unless it's several metres from your face. You start to lose the PPI too much. 27-32" is good for 4K.
24" max for 1920x1080
2560x1440 between them and slightly overlap.
 
I wonder if someone will hack the Nvidia drivers to get Freesync working on Geforce cards? After all the new cards come with the newest displayport standard and the link between the card and monitor is only the software.
 
Acme said:
28" is too small for 4K to be comfortably usable, so 27" will be worse.

Next?
Click to expand...

UHD! :mad:

To be fair though, that's based on outdated thinking. Resolution really shouldn't be linked with physical size any more.

I really like the idea of those 5K displays (which are actually 5K as they're 5120 wide) because it's essentially a doubling in both directions of the pixel count of 27" 2560x1440 displays. It should mean sharper more detailed displays, not things being absolutely tiny.
 
UHD does the same for 1080P, but some programs do not scale at all, while others scale badly. Which leaves you with programs with icons too small to see properly, and programs which are all fuzzy. Trust me, I'm feeling the pain of going from 24" 1200P to 28" UHD. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom