State of 4K monitors (discussion and recommendations)

HiCZoK

HiCZoK

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
860
Hey everyone!
Since 4k is where things are going in long terms, I am thinking about upgrading to 4k... so I started digging again (just months ago I've had 240hz, gsync, 144hz, multiple ips montiors and now have simple hp 27ea as a nice stop gap) and the market is still in a weird/bad place.
TV's are 5 years ahead but only if we talk about 42"+ and that is too big almost for any desk and defeats purpose of high ppi monitor. Unless there are smaller good tv's which I don't know about. It's crazy anyway that 4k 42" hdr is cheaper than 27" monitor.

I think that when talking about 4k we should consider 27-32 monitors and mainly 60hz for now due to there not being much else and pc specs not being there yet and ppi doing the best work at those sizes.

There is also a question of HDR and FALD. There are already HDR10 monitors on the market that properly "accept" hdr 10 signal like LG 27UK line or dell U2718Q. There are also monitors with fald zones from Dell or Asus but they suck, are very expensive and create halos around brighter objects. Nowhere close to oled or hdr on ips tv's.
So there might not even be a point of getting fald or even a 4k monitor that accepts hdr10 signal if it cannot properly display it.

So... that said, any recommendations for 27" 4k monitor? Probably ips without fald zones or hdr10 since it's useless anyway. I want to use it on ps4 and pc.
Anyone experienced with those? I'v seen some reviews and 600:1 contrast does not sound good... if these were at least 1200/1300:1 like 1080p ips monitors are, it would not be so bad. But being that I am used to 27" 1080p, 6bit monitor... 4k, 10bit should at least be some upgrade right?!
 
lg-27ud58-b (or it's cousins with better stand) since it has a good price. And would upgrade in a few years if high refresh monitors become more affordable since you want it for gaming as well.
 
I agree with ors in general that LG has the best options available right now for "standard" 4K monitors in the 27-32" range. But for the 27" take a look at the newer UD68 as it has the better contrast you're looking for. For the 32" you want the UD99, as the cheaper UD59 uses a VA panel.
 
I had to return my 27ud58p-b after it developed bright colored borders around the panel. On any black or dark screen I had bright red and blue lines spanning the sides, top, and bottom of the screen. They decided it was unfixable and mailed me a check.

I bought my father a 27ud58-b and it now has a red line on one bordering side.

Beautiful monitor but I felt I should drop this message as a potential warning. I'm usually not too anal about minor defects but losing the border pixels drove me insane.

Aside from that both screens had virtually no IPS glow, so if you get a good one you'll love it.

Edit: these were purchased in spring of 17, so maybe by now LG has fixed the issue. I know i wasn't the only one to return my monitor.
 
Yeah i've heard about LG 4k monitors. They do have a plenty of choice. UD68 and UD58 are most popular ones (uk650 or 850 are still new and untested).
It's a shame what You guys are saying about UD58 above. It's quite cheap (although still expensive for a simple monitor) and have glossy case (ugh) but if it was good, it would all be worth it. Seems like it's a hit or miss.
There also is newer 59 model.

Does the ud68 (and presumably 69) have different panel? I though these are all 1000:1
 
HiCZoK said:
Does the ud68 (and presumably 69) have different panel? I though these are all 1000:1
Click to expand...

I've tried checking but I can't find anything for sure. The 68 has a smaller bezel, external power supply, and built in audio pass through (but no speakers), and I believe goes 50 nits higher in peak brightness.

As for the 69, all I know is what I've found on reddit
the 27UD69P-W has a slightly higher contrast ratio (1300:1 to 1000:1). This only seems to be true for the 27UD69P-W product page but not the 27UD69-W product page for some reason.
Click to expand...
I'm not keen on hardware enough to say whether or not that means it has a different panel. Just not my field at all.

I still haven't gotten a replacement monitor as I simply cannot decide between 144hz 1440 or 60hz 4k. I already have a 27" 144hz 1080 monitor so I'm not sure what suits me. LG is still by far the most affordable in decent 4K IPS panels, and man they look sweet.
 
I see.
That 1300 might be a typo on lg product page?
And ud6x series have white screen border. Not sure if that would get annoying in person.

Mode13 if You already have high refresh rate monitor, then considering 4k for single player games is maybe a good idea for eyecandy! Video content and Many games are locked to 60fps and some new games have nice motion blur that makes lower fps not as jarring.
I dont have a problem with 60 fps at all if it's stable. Even 30fps is good sometimes if played with controller and there is good motion blur like in Bloodborne.
To say the truth the only time I was disabling motion blur was on 240hz monitor. There was enough frames that i could not see any gaps.
 
I have no idea regarding the 69P-W. I'm guessing it has to be a typo because the P usually just means the stand can be rotated into Portrait mode model, so why should the non P version have lower contrast. If I knew who to email or call over at LG I would do so just to find out.

HiCZoK (didn't know you can mention here :p )
I think I lean towards agreeing with you about the refresh rate. If I want to play CS:GO or anything insane refresh, the 1080P screen I already have is enough. Just that 1080P at 27" TN doesn't look so nice after getting used to 4K IPS 27". Also, I had the 27" 4K screen for about a year and I can promise its far sharper than 1440P at the same size, distant objects in GTA5 or even Borderlands 2 were absolutely crisp. People saying you have to go 32" or above for 4k will probably change their minds once 144hz 4K screens are affordable.

There are certain games (DOOM 2016) that I think my Vega 64 [raises deflector shield] could do 1440P @ 144FPS and I'd really enjoy that, but I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant buying the 1440 monitor.

I also consider trading my AOC 144hz for a 240hz just to see what it's like. I can't imagine any more buttery smoothness than this, but I've never seen higher.

That said, it's become ridiculously difficult to pick out a monitor these days!!!!!
 
My brother has the lg-27ud58-b and it's in use for half a year now, panel was mid 2017 (september if I remember correctly) no issues so far. I think it's worth a shot.
 
Armenius said:
Rtings tested the UD58 at 989:1 contrast ratio and the UD68 at 1165:1.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27ud58-b
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27ud68-p
Click to expand...
Good find. They claim the 68 is edge lit though, which can be a problem. My lg-32ud59 is also edge lit and it shows on blacks, the middle of the screen is much darker than the sides (and I am not talking about backlight bleed, it also has some but is minimal, less light seems to get to the middle of the screen, fortunately this only shows on dark content on my unit). Granted this warries based on unit received, still getting a decent uniformity direct backlit vs edge lit is much more likely. And I would say this is more important than the contrast difference between the 2. On the other hand the reviewed units both look fine to me...
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure that 58, 59, 68, 69 uk650 and all monitors that LG produces are Edge Lit. This is the tech used for few years with all slim bezels.
But come to think of it, 58 and 59 have thick glossy(ugh) bezels... so who knows.

i thought it will be easier to choose a screen based on such a limited criteria as:
-4k, 27", ips, adjustable stand, audio output to connect speakers
-no need for any usb and gadgets
-hdr10 optional

but nope. Even though there is little to few 4k 27-32" screens, there is little info about them and what there is, is not black and white
 
lower LG models do not even cover 100% sRGB so they are utter crap
68 and 69 have better panel with more or less proper colors

and BTW without G-Sync (or AMD GPU) playing games on 4K monitor will be... well not very fun experience =(
 
Funny how we were able to play before the free/g-sync craze just fine, but now suddenly it's no fun anymore? It's an upgrade sure, but not one everybody needs to have (and the lg ones come with freesync btw). These are not the all bells and whistles monitors but their price also reflects this...
 
funny how on non-VBR mode you need laggy V-Sync and sustained 60fps to have fluid motion

it was never fun to play on fixed refresh rate 60Hz monitors and good luck avoiding massive stuttering with 4K monitor
 
I had gsync and while it was great, 60fps vsync locked with rtss is fine. Not lagging at all.
30fps rtss is also ok for me in slower single player games with controller
 
ors said:
Funny how we were able to play before the free/g-sync craze just fine, but now suddenly it's no fun anymore? It's an upgrade sure, but not one everybody needs to have (and the lg ones come with freesync btw). These are not the all bells and whistles monitors but their price also reflects this...
Click to expand...

Just like we were able to play games at 320x240 in 1995 but 3D cards made low resolution a thing of the past almost overnight. It's called progress. We always wanted variable refresh just like we always wanted higher resolutions. It just wasn't there.
 
Make sure you get one that supports HDCP 2.2 if you want to watch 4k Netflix. The one I got didn't support it.
 
Really? Had no idea. I just knew that ps pro needs 2.0 for 4k 60 output.

And that already throws away all 4k gsync monitors. These are 1.4
 
bigbluefe said:
It's called progress. We always wanted variable refresh just like we always wanted higher resolutions. It just wasn't there.
Click to expand...
And the monitors mentioned above have both, 4k and freesync yet they are still crap for some :) Granted it took way too long for high ppi to make it into monitors... For my use case and probably I'm not the only one high refresh (and variable refresh as well) is not on the top of the list, I play and watch videos 10% of the time max, rest is spent programming, where resolution and size is much more important...
 
HDCP 2.2 was supported by display port 1.3 but it doesn't mean it was implemented in all models. It is just something to double check.
 
HiCZoK said:
Really? Had no idea. I just knew that ps pro needs 2.0 for 4k 60 output.

And that already throws away all 4k gsync monitors. These are 1.4
Click to expand...
HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) is a handshake protocol required to view protected content like movies. HDCP does not affect games. HDMI is currently on version 2.0 and is required for 4k 60 Hz as you pointed out. HDMI 1.4 supports 4K/30 output with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.

The HDMI inputs on the LG panels we've been talking about are all 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 support. The HDMI input on the new 4K G-Sync HDR monitors is also 2.0 (2.0b, more specifically). HDCP 2.2 is standard in the HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 specifications.
 
Mode13 said:
Also, I had the 27" 4K screen for about a year and I can promise its far sharper than 1440P at the same size, distant objects in GTA5 or even Borderlands 2 were absolutely crisp. People saying you have to go 32" or above for 4k will probably change their minds once 144hz 4K screens are affordable.
Click to expand...

This. I have used 28 and 32 inch 4k screens over 4 years now and love the PPI. The 28 incher has gsync to boot, but it's a TN panel (8bit though which is much better than the TN of old) m
 
Nah. I am not getting TN again. You get 4k monitors for eyecandy and to mix that with a tn ? Nah... Even if colors or gamma are perfect, it probably still havr tn angles and tn clouding patches+whole sides bleeding
 
HiCZoK said:
Nah. I am not getting TN again. You get 4k monitors for eyecandy and to mix that with a tn ? Nah... Even if colors or gamma are perfect, it probably still havr tn angles and tn clouding patches+whole sides bleeding
Click to expand...
I was skeptical too until I actually used it. I am saving my pennies for a 144hz IPS 4K once those come down in price... for now this has worked really well as a carryover. I will admit I am constantly tempted to buy the gsync IPS 27" panels, though. The truth is, this thing calibrated to the equivalent of a decent IPS, and the viewing angles have been fixed to where you don't have shift except viewing from an extreme vertical (upward) angle, either.
 
HiCZoK said:
Nah. I am not getting TN again. You get 4k monitors for eyecandy and to mix that with a tn ? Nah... Even if colors or gamma are perfect, it probably still havr tn angles and tn clouding patches+whole sides bleeding
Click to expand...

Are you going to be using your monitor at an off-angle? I mean its a pretty straight-forward tradeoff. TN has better response (gaming). IPS has better image quality (productivity/movies).

Buuuut.... its highly nuanced. A good quality TN with high color gamut may actually have better image quality than a lower end IPS panel.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I was skeptical too until I actually used it. I am saving my pennies for a 144hz IPS 4K once those come down in price... for now this has worked really well as a carryover. I will admit I am constantly tempted to buy the gsync IPS 27" panels, though. The truth is, this thing calibrated to the equivalent of a decent IPS, and the viewing angles have been fixed to where you don't have shift except viewing from an extreme vertical (upward) angle, either.
Click to expand...

I've commented many times on how much I love my 31" LG MU97 10bit IPS 4k. Biggest two complaints, takes 1080 SLI to push 60fps consistently and it has a strange vertical shift similar to what you described there. I remember when 4k displays first came out many stated 55" minimum to enjoy but after this I totally disagree. The PPI @ 31" is amazingly clear and the colors vibrancy are difficult to describe. I really believe it has more to do with the quality of the panels now. 27" 1440p is great but I can't see myself ever doing 27" 4k.

I did spend some time last weekend researching 1440p/144hz/10bit HDR/g-sync displays(randomly came across a thread here on [H] too). Was bummed to find some things close but they were FreeSync and currently I don't have any AMD cards. Honestly feel that a combo like that would be amazing for current GPU's but oh well.
 
I wouldn't get hung up on Freesync/GSync.

I would have no qualms about using a Freesync monitor with an nVidia card, and i've seen a lot of folks do it - there are some really nice buys on monitors out there that just happen to have Freesync - and ideally your pushing 60+ FPS anyway and the VRR never really has to kick in in the first place. I would question your sanity if you paid all that extra Green Tax for a GSync monitor to use with an AMD card, however.
 
I dont care for gsync, freesync or 60+hz. I had all of that and while it's nice, many content is locked to 24,30 or 60fps and all in all at the end it's always about picture quality.
dexvx I've had few TN montiors and the viewing angles is not as bad really. I know ... but even when looking up front in the middle, the gamma in the middle can be 2.2 but it's +0.3 on top and -0.3 on bottom... and I still constantly see this sadly
 
HiCZoK said:
I dont care for gsync, freesync or 60+hz. I had all of that and while it's nice, many content is locked to 24,30 or 60fps and all in all at the end it's always about picture quality.
dexvx I've had few TN montiors and the viewing angles is not as bad really. I know ... but even when looking up front in the middle, the gamma in the middle can be 2.2 but it's +0.3 on top and -0.3 on bottom... and I still constantly see this sadly
Click to expand...

That's very individual though. Look at my perspective..

I absolutely love playing games like borderlands, counter-strike, even Elder Scrolls: Oblivion at 144FPS. I can't even play games with mouse look at 60hz anymore. Those all go on my 1080P 144hz monitor.

I play games that use a controller (which are always the 60FPS locked games) on my 4k monitor, and while it looks glorious a lot of games choke my Vega 64 at 4k. As long as I can hold it at 40FPS or higher (freesync range on my monitor) I can't tell it's not at 60FPS. Without Freesync I get disgusting amounts of tear and stuttering. Now I only have to worry about staying at 40 or higher instead of locked solid at 60FPS.

My TN monitor looks surprisingly nice compared to some of the older ones I have laying around. Decent color quality and uniformity, but it's absolutely crushed by the quality of an IPS panel sitting right next to it.

As for content locked at 24 or 30 FPS, I quit Holyweird years ago.. Very rare that I'll watch a movie, so that goes right out the window for my use case.


Ultimately and somewhat on topic, a 144hz IPS 4k panel (that does 4:4:4!!!!) is the ultimate screen for me right now. Since that's not affordable, my compromise is 144hz 1080P (I'd buy 1440 now since they are affordable) and 4k 60hz side by side. I pick my monitor based on content and I'm happy.
 
I understand and agree but when i had that 240hz monitor, I;ve found that many games are locked to 60 (like oblivion or skyriom physics go crazy if You disable the loc) like dark souls series.
But then, I was playing tens of hours of Bloodborne on ps4... 30fps 1080p game on a brand new aoc 240hz gsync monitor... and You know what? I was having a TONS of fun and was not really noticing lower fps after a while. But I was noticing bad gamma and bleeding all the way through.
So if I can enjoy games on consoles on the same monitor, then why couldn't I enjoy twice as fast 60fps games on pc? It's all a matter of ignorance and accepting it. if You try and give it a few days while playing your fav game, You will get used to it. We were all playing at 60 or lower for years and years. I was using 100hz on my old crt because 60hz hurted my eyes not because it looked better

Ofc there will be screens that do all of this good but for now, the image quality at 60hz is a priority. if it does the same quality at 120 or 144 with gsync then sure

edit: In short - I fucking loved 240hz. Even browsing or jsut moving the mouse was incredible experience but all in all I've enjoyed games less because they just looked worse since I've found myself adapting to fps(as long as its stable or with gsync) than image
 
Last edited:
Lets be clear on the purpose of high refresh rate monitors. I think there is a very noticeable difference going from 60 Hz > 144 Hz. But often times, to get the best response rate, you have to put the monitor in game mode, which makes the colors all washed out. If you're playing a single player game and want to enjoy the graphics, its a buzzkill. The point of high refresh rate/low response monitors is primarily for competitive multiplayer gameplay. I play Overwatch (MP/competitive) in washed out color mode, but Tomb Raider/Doom (SP) in high color gamut mode, personally.

In HiCZoK 's use case, it seems pretty clear he would benefit from a high color gamut IPS panel more. But, you are stilled tied down to the same trade-offs among IPS panels. The best color quality IPS panels have terrible (IMO) response time. Enough of a put-off or me, gaming wise. Since everyone's eyes are different, it is down to personal preference. Check out TFTCentral (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/), they do range of response time/color gamut testing on various models.
 
Thank You! I do not play competitive games and want to enjoy (drool over) single player games. That said, I still love high refresh rates even for desktop but not for the price of iq.. not to said I do not have hardware suitable really.
It's 4k 27 ips or 4k 32 va. Their price is exactly the same.
I've owned every type of panel at 1080p and while response times (ghosting) were IPS>TN>VA (yes, ips ghosts less than TN), the va also had shimmer and fading of fine details in motion but it had sweet contrast and no bleeding.
 
Can you post a link to the monitors you've narrowed it down to?

I'd love to have a 32" 4k panel in my face. I went 27" just because 32" is so massive it's getting into TV territory for me, but now I'm curious about 32" :p.

I prefer IPS myself. The colors pop a bit more and VA has some blur issues from what I've seen myself. 144hz VA doesn't seem as sharp during motion as 144hz TN to me. I think VA is best for movies because the higher contrast is nice. That said, a few weeks ago I was seeing some good sale prices for 32" IPS panels.
 
32" VA's are 32UD59-B and Samsung LU32H850.
27" ips is either dell u2718q or probably some LG.

That way or another, I feel less and less compelled to change monitor once again seeing how many drawbacks there are... I might just still wait for 4k 27-32 oled monitor.. forever
 
HiCZoK said:
32" VA's are 32UD59-B and Samsung LU32H850.
27" ips is either dell u2718q or probably some LG.

That way or another, I feel less and less compelled to change monitor once again seeing how many drawbacks there are... I might just still wait for 4k 27-32 oled monitor.. forever
Click to expand...

I waited forever and a day. There is always some disgusting flaw everyone on the forums points out and always some new feature coming next week. I'm guilty of doing that now too. I really did like the LG 27UD58P-B, just the lines it got on the side forced me to return it. I'm thinking I'm just going to give another 27" LG a try. It really was a nice monitor. The image quality is absolutely insane as far as I'm concerned and I couldn't spot a hint of light bleed on either of the two models I ordered.

That Samsung looks nice. I've never seen QLED before so I can't comment. I guarantee you will like the LG model though, as long as it doesn't get the evil lines of doom my old one had, they are gloriously nice looking panels.

Personally I'm stuck now on whether or not I can fit 32" on my desk and how bad it would look with a 27" next to it . I think sticking to a pair of matching sized screens is the best bet.

Pull the trigger !!!!!
 
I keep coming back to this forum section again and again while the situation remains the same. Everyone is still searching for the ideal 4K monitor.

I have concluded that I don't want anything bigger than a 32" 4K + a second 24" on the side. Ideally the 32" should be 100% sRGB and the second monitor 100% Wide Gamut 100% Adobe RGB.

I don't care about 114Hz but 80-100Hz would be nice along with some nice contrast and HDR. It seems that I will have to wait.
 
HiCZoK said:
32" VA's are 32UD59-B and Samsung LU32H850.
27" ips is either dell u2718q or probably some LG.

That way or another, I feel less and less compelled to change monitor once again seeing how many drawbacks there are... I might just still wait for 4k 27-32 oled monitor.. forever
Click to expand...
Can't really recommend the 32UD59-B have it at home and is a very slow panel regarding pixel transitions => visible ghosting even when browsing, price is good though so I kept it as an office monitor.

Personally I find 32" 4/5k a good single monitor setup all rounder, good for work and also for games (if the panel is fast enough). The 38" ultrawides might be better for work but will show more ips glow/VA shift, smaller ultrawides I don't like cause they sacrifice too much vertical space... I am also waiting for prices to come down a bit on non HDR ips 32" 4k monitors, not hoping for OLED anymore, seems to be DOA once micro LED comes out...
 
And how is asus pb27uq? Found some opinions that its newer lower glow 4k panel and does not even need calibration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top