LG Offers new 27-inch Full HD 240Hz gaming monitor (27GK750F-B)

Aura89

2017-12-24 06:18

SoloCreep:

Before anyone says "but the resolution is 1080p..." Yeah, it's a gaming monitor for people who want the highest refresh rate possible. 4k is a stupid thing that has been put in people heads so they can make more money. It's not needed.

So what you're saying is, extra quality, the thing that makes a monitor, is more beneficial then some nonsense hz range past 120? And yes, this 27" monitor @ 1080p is way too low of a resolution. 1440p minimum.

#5504060

Aura89

2017-12-24 09:14

spectatorx:

Size to resolution ratio is not the worst thing in case of this screen, the worst part is TN matrix. Make it IPS and i will consider this monitor as higher resolution always can be enabled with VSR.

Except, that's not higher resolution. Resolution is physical. You can't change something that is physical. You can run something at a higher resolution that is then downscaled, sure, but that doesn't do squat for actually seeing more detail.

#5504065

xIcarus

2017-12-24 10:51

SoloCreep:

Before anyone says "but the resolution is 1080p..." Yeah, it's a gaming monitor for people who want the highest refresh rate possible. 4k is a stupid thing that has been put in people heads so they can make more money. It's not needed.

While I completely agree with you regarding the 4k hype, I do believe 1080p is a bit low for a 27 inch screen. 1440p is the sweet spot for that size. That being said, I'd always take the monitor with 120Hz or higher refresh rate regardless of resolution (okay, maybe except 720p on a 24 inch or higher screen). And in my opinion 75Hz should be the new standard. The difference is quite big over 60Hz.

#5504083

Aura89

2017-12-24 13:46

xIcarus:

And in my opinion 75Hz should be the new standard. The difference is quite big over 60Hz.

90-120Hz should be the new standard. :P

#5504169

slick3

2017-12-24 19:30

240hz is nice, but one should wonder if their rig can push past 144fps in games (assuming you currently have a 144hz or planning to buy one) to see the difference. Sure games like Overwatch and CS:GO would possibly go past that, but would one spend 549.99 USD just to benefit in some games, whereas they could go 1440p that would benefit them in all games. Plus while there is a difference, the difference from 60hz to 144hz is bigger and more noticeable than the difference going from 144hz to 240hz (imo). 1440p 144hz > 1080p 240hz in my opinion.

#5504187

nosirrahx

2017-12-24 20:14

xIcarus:

While I completely agree with you regarding the 4k hype, I do believe 1080p is a bit low for a 27 inch screen. 1440p is the sweet spot for that size. That being said, I'd always take the monitor with 120Hz or higher refresh rate regardless of resolution (okay, maybe except 720p on a 24 inch or higher screen). And in my opinion 75Hz should be the new standard. The difference is quite big over 60Hz.

Jumping from 60Hz to 144Hz is quite noticeable at any resolution or screen size. Jumping from 1080p to 2160p is noticeable contingent on the screen size. The bigger the screen, the more it matters. My laptop has a 2160p screen and honestly it is hard to tell the difference between it and a 1080p screen. I agree that 75Hz (technically 72Hz I think) should be the standard and 144Hz would be the enthusiast standard. Just 2 speeds would make the market a lot easier to understand for the consumer.

#5504262

0blivious

2017-12-25 01:19

As someone running a 144hz screen, it must be getting nearly lifelike, running 240 frames per second. It must look buttery smooth when you can make it run that fast. (which isn't going to be easy, even with low settings) As to the 27" size being too large for 1080p, I presume this is from people who don't run a monitor at over 100 frames per second. Speed is addictive. I've also used 4K. I prefer the speed by a wide margin. There is quite a noticeable difference between 60/75hz and 120/144hz.

#5504265

GREGIX

2017-12-25 02:13

Well Anything past 120Hz is major improvement in gaming. More Hz, less screen lag. Less lag, better results. But most important to me is blur reducion, CRT like mode. Personally I am TN user, benq xl2720z, so it is FHD, tn, and in gaming is brilliant. Not reftesh rate only, but blur reduction(like this LG). Recently bought my son samsung LC27FG73 (PLS or VA type)and must say, IQ is brilliant, but screen has its flaws. But it has blur reduction too, so for me is more than decent. I could use it myself and son is happy anyway. He was playin on benq too, so he has comparison. And as for Hz, only Hz does not change anything for me, TN or VA they are just less blurry, but they are blurry anyway...I can see it I can't stand it... More info https://www.testufo.com/ or https://www.blurbusters.com/

#5504269

Loobyluggs

2017-12-25 02:42

I'm still waiting for an OLED monitor...

#5504289

Aura89

2017-12-25 05:54

0blivious:

As to the 27" size being too large for 1080p, I presume this is from people who don't run a monitor at over 100 frames per second.

I have a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor. Never would i ever, ever, EVER "upgrade" to a 27" 1080p 240hz monitor, as there is no upgrade there. In every possible way, it is a downgrade. The only way a 27" 1080p 240hz is an upgrade from anything is a 24" or less 1080p 60-75Hz monitor. And yes, i do mean 60-75hz, because if you have a 24" 1080p 120hz or higher, there is no reason to spend so much money on a 27" 1080p 240hz monitor, the only upgrade from a 24" or less 1080p 120hz or higher monitor is a 27" 1440p 120hz monitor.

#5504332

xIcarus

2017-12-25 11:21

Aura89:

90-120Hz should be the new standard. 😛

One can only hope.

#5504359

IceVip

2017-12-25 14:06

Loobyluggs:

I'm still waiting for an OLED monitor...

Come back in 10 years, maybe samsung would've figured it out by then.

#5504396

Loobyluggs

2017-12-25 18:25

IceVip:

Come back in 10 years, maybe samsung would've figured it out by then.

LG make OLED panels and then sell them other manufacturers like Samsung, so my comment was really a prayer to LG. If LG make DCI OLED 4K panels, with Dolby, Technicolor, HLG, etc (like their televisions) but at 24-30 inches, instead of 55-75 inches - then we got desktop awesomeness.

#5504404

yasamoka

2017-12-25 18:47

Loobyluggs:

LG make OLED panels and then sell them other manufacturers like Samsung, so my comment was really a prayer to LG. If LG make DCI OLED 4K panels, with Dolby, Technicolor, HLG, etc (like their televisions) but at 24-30 inches, instead of 55-75 inches - then we got desktop awesomeness.

Why would Samsung buy OLED panels from LG? Each company makes its own panels; both have invested into mobile OLED, while the latter has also invested into TVs. They are rivals, they don't buy from one another.

#5504406

RavenMaster

2017-12-25 18:56

Still holding out for the Asus 4k 144hz HDR monitor coming in Q1 2018

#5504411

Loobyluggs

2017-12-25 19:12

yasamoka:

Why would Samsung buy OLED panels from LG? Each company makes its own panels; both have invested into mobile OLED, while the latter has also invested into TVs. They are rivals, they don't buy from one another.

Loobyluggs:

LG make OLED panels and then sell them other manufacturers like Samsung, so my comment was really a prayer to LG.

#5504483

IceVip

2017-12-26 02:18

Loobyluggs:

LG make OLED panels and then sell them other manufacturers like Samsung, so my comment was really a prayer to LG. If LG make DCI OLED 4K panels, with Dolby, Technicolor, HLG, etc (like their televisions) but at 24-30 inches, instead of 55-75 inches - then we got desktop awesomeness.

All of those features.. I'd like for them to start with just a 60 hz oled display with nothing else. Then advance, cuz right now we ain't got cr4p.

#5504558

Loobyluggs

2017-12-26 14:35

IceVip:

All of those features.. I'd like for them to start with just a 60 hz oled display with nothing else. Then advance, cuz right now we ain't got cr4p.

Well, Sony have a very expensive OLED monitor, but it really is beyond the reach of mere mortals: You'll need to mop up the drool after watching this: [youtube=ESzWY0hW85Y]