Is 4k worth buying into right now? [LG 27MU67-B opinion]

[PoshDan]

Hey there!

 

Since the creation of this thread I have purchased a 4k monitor (LG 27MU67-B), I've had it for over 2 weeks now.

Here are my thoughts on it, hoping I can help some of you make an informed decision by being as verbose as I can:

 

- The screen looks nice, it's a definite upgrade over TN panel quality as the colors look more lively and generally warm and have better contrast about them. I've not really used an IPS before this one so I don't know how good is it compared to others, though I will say that this quality is not necessarily worth overpaying for unless your work revolves around graphical design. Lucky for me I snagged this one for the same price as most other TN 4ks go for, so I'm extremely happy with it. Though I think it's not worth a lot of extra money, it does make my 2 other TN monitors look "grayish" in comparison, which I actually didn't notice beforehand, so it is something to consider if you're mixing the two types on your desk or would ever consider going back to TN after having an IPS panel.

 

- DPI settings did need adjusting even in 27", though I would've preferred something in the size of 30" (as it's the limit of what the Arctic Z3 Pro monitor stand can hold which I'm planning to get), I don't think it would've changed things too much. I did end up needing a 150% DPI scaling, effectively rendering the 400% screen space real estate compared to FHD down to 266.66%, which is still pretty amazing, and in comparison 1440p would've netted me 177.77%, so it's still a really good reason to go for 4k over 1440p if you want as much screen real estate with silky smooth text!

 

As the warnings said, many applications do not support DPI scaling, so I have slightly handicapped myself in that regard. But because I still have 2 other FHD monitors I can usually just move apps to the side to make them more pleasant to look at, and some of them are not even that bad without the scaling. As a game developer who dabbles in UI design, making the step to 4k was really important in understanding the struggles of the future and preparing my projects to appeal to this problem. Windows 7 unfortunately does not support DPI scaling settings per-monitor, so due to the 150% scale I've applied, many things on my 1080p monitors have become larger in an undesirable way, this being my only buyer's remorse so far, but it can be addressed in the future by upgrading to Win10 which does support this feature, so all things considered it's not too bad. DPI scaling applies nicely to chrome so browsing websites and reading in general is pretty good.

 

- Gaming, as expected is not a strong point of 4k right now. While graphical fidelity becomes much nicer in 4k, my "measly" GTX 970 cannot handle it in some of the newer titles, but as expected I'm able to blast CSGO in 4k with antialiasing no problem! You might wonder, why the AA? Well it is much less significance, but despite the crazy DPI of the screen, seams can still be annoying on objects that are troublesome in lower resolutions as well. I'm thinking like, telephone/electric wires in the distance on Dust_2, or the seams on raised platforms in front of me (near eye level). In other games it's present aswell, chainlink fences being one of the more common offenders the same as we've had them forever. Did I miss out by not going for a lower rez 120/144 fps monitor? Perhaps, but if I get used to high framerates now, I won't ever want to return to 60fps, and given how much the positives of 4k outlast a high refresh rate (for me personally), I'll keep myself in the dark until 4k at high fps becomes a thing. I'm totally fine with it.

 

Doom actually managed a whopping ~30ish FPS ingame which is pretty amazing, but it presented an issue that would make it unplayable.. Some games seem to have the analogue mouse input messed up, as if it was choppy. I launched Skyrim to check it out in 4k aswell, and much to my surprise this issue was not due to low FPS, in fact both in Doom and Skyrim the fps was constant and without microstutters if simply looking at an animated scene, it was only when I started to move the mouse around this weird issue happened. My suspicion is that something may be wrong with the way mouse DPI is handled, as both games reverted to normal behaviour when the resolution was changed to 1440p. My mouse is set to a DPI of 1600 and admittedly it makes the 4k screen a bit cumbersome to navigate but given that I have two other 1080 monitors which it is the perfect speed for, I didn't want to adjust it.

 

Upscaling 1080p is actually surprisingly okay. I was really afraid of this because it was inevitable I'd want to play on my main (and largest) screen for games, but some games would simply not be playable in 4k, forcing an upscale. But whether it's this specific monitor that handles it really well or the whole concern was ill-placed to begin with, I don't know. I will say that 1080p upscale is not without a slight blur (so contrary to popular belief it does not scale without filtering), but both FHD and 1440p are very pleasant to look at, in fact I've traded my 1080 w/AA in GTA5 to a non-AA 1440p because it looks so much better. One final thing, the monitor has a sharpness setting that allows some adjustments to this, though it is kinda artificial-feeling in a way, it may be the solution to those who are worried about the upscale.

 

- For work, this resolution is amazing. As I suspected, I can fit 4 text documents comfortably at an increased font size for smoothness and readability, while also having plenty of space for a file list, all sorts of console/search windows and I can even pin some of my notepad windows / calculator on screen (using DisplayFusion) without it getting in the way. It is a really good timesaver for working on multiple code files at once, and is also really good for testing a game in moderate resolutions without having to look to a side monitor, or being able to do crazy 2x2 or 3x3 game window arrays for multiplayer testing is like a dream come true. Needless to say memory capacity is starting to become important at this point, the 24gigs I have right now are proving sufficient but 16 would've been too little for my heavy use (Though it's partly thanks to chrome and my tendency to leave 10 hour youtube videos open).

 

- "Flicker safe", as LG's version of "Flicker free" technology has been named, it had me worried that it may be a cheap ripoff of the real deal, though not having used an actual flicker free monitor I cannot tell whether it's active or not. In fact, I don't know if my old 1080 monitors are flickering in any way, I cannot see any notable fluctuations in brightness even on a camera recording. That being said, maybe it's placebo, but I do find it slightly more comfortable to look at this flicker safe monitor compared to my TN panels that were not advertised as such. I would like to note that I have been able to tell refresh rates apart back on CRTs and 60hz outright hurt my eyes, I don't see anything off about LCDs so far.

 

As far as my eye fatigue goes (as I described it in the original post), I'd say strain levels are roughly the same, but let's not forget I upped my lumen dosage to 3 monitors compared to just 2. This flicker safe monitor being rather pleasant to look on I am inclined to think that there is indeed some science behind it but being the average joe that I am it may well be purchase-gratification rather than a real experience. That being said, I value my eyes very much so I'm willing to pay extra in all cases to preserve them, even on the off chance that it's a stupid marketing gimmick.

 

- General impressions about the monitor, it was really cheap, I got it for ~$420 USD (in a 27% VAT country in Europe!), I'm not regretting it one bit. Build and image quality seem solid, I don't have a lot of experience with monitors but I am firmly standing on the verdict that this specific monitor is not a crappy one. There are a lot of settings I can play with, response time / input lag is really good (I tried comparing it to my TN panels by overlapping windows with animated stuff inside, I couldn't tell the difference. Overall I'd recommend this monitor if you can still get it in some parts of the world (sadly it is no longer manufactured afaik), but I'd generally say 4k is not a stupid thing to go for if you have the money and a valid reason to go for it. (which in my case was coding, but the thought of gaming in 4k a couple graphics card generations down the line is really enticing)

 

I hope I could help some of you make a more informed decision.

 

 

## The original post:

 

I'm a game developer & gamer who likes to spend a little more to ensure there's a fair amount of future proofing based on my needs, you could call me an enthusiast but I don't actually have a lot of money to get the very best all the time so I mostly save up and make my purchases count, but I do have an unhealthy desire to have the best of the best, at least for the time being.

 

I have a 4790k / gtx970 rig with a dual 1080p setup, this is my idea of future proofing, nothing gets below 60 fps at this resolution. Obviously many of us want this performance in 4k, but even with the new gtx 1080, the extra "oomph" is still missing, so I think it's not the right time to invest in 4k gaming, but for my work it would be an absolute godsend, plus some of my less demanding games would be pretty cool to run in 4k aswell.

 

Do you think buying a cheap 4k TN panel right now would be a bad decision? As I said, I do like saving up for good stuff (IPS / high framerate) so my dream setup would be three decent 4k monitors but it's tempting to take an intermediary step, which can sometimes be a waste of money, but who knows when, if ever will 4k be that affordable.

One solution of course is to buy one now and get two more later down the line, but at this rate they might become obsolete, not to mention the differences you can get on monitors if you buy them from different places or different times. I have two viewsonics of the same model, but their color scheme is very notably different (dw their settings have been checked for differences, nada), and it annoys me quite a bit.

 

1440p I'd consider but they are actually not that much cheaper than 4k TNs, the extra screen space would be nice. I'd never do SLI btw.

That being said, I'm interested in high frame rate monitors as a way to reduce eye strain which I experience frequently, and I'm wondering if higher refresh rates or flicker free technology was actually any good. As you can imagine I'm a heavy user (10-12 hours a day at least, weekends included, never had any issues back when I only spent ~8ish hours a day), so I don't know if any sort of witchcraft can even help me at this stage, but I'd be willing to invest in it, so please let me know if you know anything about this.

 

Thank you,

Dan

[szomeret]

I have a 27" 4K IPS monitor. I'd recommend it for people who look at a good deal of text. 

But for games it's not worth it. Even my GTX 1080 is not enough for many games. 

In total, unless you have a lot of spare money, I'd advise against it. 

 

[Glenwing]

11 minutes ago, PoshDan said:

Hey there!

 

I'm a game developer & gamer who likes to spend a little more to ensure there's a fair amount of future proofing based on my needs, you could call me an enthusiast but I don't actually have a lot of money to get the very best all the time so I mostly save up and make my purchases count, but I do have an unhealthy desire to have the best of the best, at least for the time being.

 

I have a 4790k / gtx970 rig with a dual 1080p setup, this is my idea of future proofing, nothing gets below 60 fps at this resolution. Obviously many of us want this performance in 4k, but even with the new gtx 1080, the extra "oomph" is still missing, so I think it's not the right time to invest in 4k gaming, but for my work it would be an absolute godsend, plus some of my less demanding games would be pretty cool to run in 4k aswell.

 

Do you think buying a cheap 4k TN panel right now would be a bad decision? As I said, I do like saving up for good stuff (IPS / high framerate) so my dream setup would be three decent 4k monitors but it's tempting to take an intermediary step, which can sometimes be a waste of money, but who knows when, if ever will 4k be that affordable.

One solution of course is to buy one now and get two more later down the line, but at this rate they might become obsolete, not to mention the differences you can get on monitors if you buy them from different places or different times. I have two viewsonics of the same model, but their color scheme is very notably different (dw their settings have been checked for differences, nada), and it annoys me quite a bit.

 

1440p I'd consider but they are actually not that much cheaper than 4k TNs, the extra screen space would be nice. I'd never do SLI btw.

That being said, I'm interested in high frame rate monitors as a way to reduce eye strain which I experience frequently, and I'm wondering if higher refresh rates or flicker free technology was actually any good. As you can imagine I'm a heavy user (10-12 hours a day at least, weekends included, never had any issues back when I only spent ~8ish hours a day), so I don't know if any sort of witchcraft can even help me at this stage, but I'd be willing to invest in it, so please let me know if you know anything about this.

 

Thank you,

Dan

For work, the thought that 4K will give you massively more workspace is really an illusion, unless you get like a 40" monitor/TV or something. On a normal 24-28" monitor, if you run at native 4K size you will get four times the desktop space of 1080p, but everything will be super tiny, text will be unreadable. You'll end up needing to scale everything up in size a bit, which makes it take more space... it turns out, from a practical standpoint you really can't get much more desktop space than a 1440p monitor at native size on a monitor. Even if you get a higher resolution monitor, you'll just end up scaling it back to the same size anyway.

 

This being the case, I'd recommend 1440p IPS over a 4K TN panel, if workspace is the main concern, you'll have pretty much the same space, but with better image quality. In terms of content like movies and games, 4K does give sharper images but in my opinion it's not really a huge improvement over 1440p. As resolution increases, the increase in graphics power needed rises exponentially, and the improvement in image quality diminishes. While it is possible to distinguish 4K vs. 1440p, in my experience it's not significant, and I only notice when I'm looking for it. I forget about it as soon as I start concentrating on what I'm actually doing.

 

Like I said though, it depends on screen size. My opinions are really only based on 28" screens or below.

[SnowyMus]

Right now, 4K is still a luxury. In many new titles, you'll need at least a GTX 1070 to run games at playable framerates at high settings, and a GTX 1080 to run many of them at 60 FPS. I'd only get 4K if you need the extra screen space.

[RangerLunis]

4 minutes ago, PoshDan said:

-clip-

4k to be honest right now is not really something to invest in for professional use, personal use if you have the cash, sure.

KNOW THIS:

Resolution isn't going to make a difference if the picture quality is horrible. I can tell you now a 1080p or 2k monitor is a much better investment unless your willing to pay the high price for a high end 4k monitor such as the acer predator. 

 

I highly recommend investing in 2k, paired with a high refresh rate and syncing technology it will give you a much better experience than standard 4k.

 

Wish you luck

[YongKang]

51 minutes ago, PoshDan said:

Hey there!

 

I'm a game developer & gamer who likes to spend a little more to ensure there's a fair amount of future proofing based on my needs, you could call me an enthusiast but I don't actually have a lot of money to get the very best all the time so I mostly save up and make my purchases count, but I do have an unhealthy desire to have the best of the best, at least for the time being.

 

I have a 4790k / gtx970 rig with a dual 1080p setup, this is my idea of future proofing, nothing gets below 60 fps at this resolution. Obviously many of us want this performance in 4k, but even with the new gtx 1080, the extra "oomph" is still missing, so I think it's not the right time to invest in 4k gaming, but for my work it would be an absolute godsend, plus some of my less demanding games would be pretty cool to run in 4k aswell.

 

Do you think buying a cheap 4k TN panel right now would be a bad decision? As I said, I do like saving up for good stuff (IPS / high framerate) so my dream setup would be three decent 4k monitors but it's tempting to take an intermediary step, which can sometimes be a waste of money, but who knows when, if ever will 4k be that affordable.

One solution of course is to buy one now and get two more later down the line, but at this rate they might become obsolete, not to mention the differences you can get on monitors if you buy them from different places or different times. I have two viewsonics of the same model, but their color scheme is very notably different (dw their settings have been checked for differences, nada), and it annoys me quite a bit.

 

1440p I'd consider but they are actually not that much cheaper than 4k TNs, the extra screen space would be nice. I'd never do SLI btw.

That being said, I'm interested in high frame rate monitors as a way to reduce eye strain which I experience frequently, and I'm wondering if higher refresh rates or flicker free technology was actually any good. As you can imagine I'm a heavy user (10-12 hours a day at least, weekends included, never had any issues back when I only spent ~8ish hours a day), so I don't know if any sort of witchcraft can even help me at this stage, but I'd be willing to invest in it, so please let me know if you know anything about this.

 

Thank you,

Dan

I feel 4K is still a luxery right now. With the hardware we have right now, we have trouble running 4K all the time or even at 60 FPS.

I would recommend 1440p+high refresh rate+ a sort of sync tech (Nvidia cards have fast sync right now. So, if you buy an Nvidia card, you might be able to save money on the sync technology but it all depends on you since they are , you know, pricy.). For content creators, I would always recommend IPS since colors are more accurate and reduce a bit of eye fatigue.

Highest refresh rate just puts more frames on the monitor giving a cleaner image when you move in game (reduce the motion blur when you flick shots or move your camera very quickly.)

1440p is making to the mainstream market but 1080p has still the majority of the market since the 144HZ panel are quite affordable, easy to run, for me personally, if you're just gaming, 1080p is fine.

But, you, who are a content creator (game developer), I cannot stress enough that a good 1440p display will do you less harm in the long run on your health if you invest on it.

As for the gpu, you could go for a single 1080 right now but I would not recommend since it's still so overpriced. The rumored 1080ti might be released during the holidays. Next year, AMD will release their Vega gpus. Maybe then, you can have a clearer choice.

[Streetguru]

1 hour ago, PoshDan said:

 

You might be able to use DSR to check out what a 4k desktop would look like, not sure how DSR works compared to VSR

 

Otherwise depending on the gaming you do, 144hz 1080p might make more sense to buy

 

though there is a $299 4k 28" TN free-sync display available, not sure 1440p is worth getting anymore with this thing around
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Rk98TW/aoc-monitor-u2879vf

Of course 40"+ is where 4k really shines so you can see every pixel, but I can almost use 4k on my 24" display from playing around with VSR

In any case you buy 4k for the desktop experience not the gaming experience currently, unless you can afford a titan XP that is
 

[TomaytoTomahto]

8 hours ago, PoshDan said:

Hey there!

 

I'm a game developer & gamer who likes to spend a little more to ensure there's a fair amount of future proofing based on my needs, you could call me an enthusiast but I don't actually have a lot of money to get the very best all the time so I mostly save up and make my purchases count, but I do have an unhealthy desire to have the best of the best, at least for the time being.

 

I have a 4790k / gtx970 rig with a dual 1080p setup, this is my idea of future proofing, nothing gets below 60 fps at this resolution. Obviously many of us want this performance in 4k, but even with the new gtx 1080, the extra "oomph" is still missing, so I think it's not the right time to invest in 4k gaming, but for my work it would be an absolute godsend, plus some of my less demanding games would be pretty cool to run in 4k aswell.

 

Do you think buying a cheap 4k TN panel right now would be a bad decision? As I said, I do like saving up for good stuff (IPS / high framerate) so my dream setup would be three decent 4k monitors but it's tempting to take an intermediary step, which can sometimes be a waste of money, but who knows when, if ever will 4k be that affordable.

One solution of course is to buy one now and get two more later down the line, but at this rate they might become obsolete, not to mention the differences you can get on monitors if you buy them from different places or different times. I have two viewsonics of the same model, but their color scheme is very notably different (dw their settings have been checked for differences, nada), and it annoys me quite a bit.

 

1440p I'd consider but they are actually not that much cheaper than 4k TNs, the extra screen space would be nice. I'd never do SLI btw.

That being said, I'm interested in high frame rate monitors as a way to reduce eye strain which I experience frequently, and I'm wondering if higher refresh rates or flicker free technology was actually any good. As you can imagine I'm a heavy user (10-12 hours a day at least, weekends included, never had any issues back when I only spent ~8ish hours a day), so I don't know if any sort of witchcraft can even help me at this stage, but I'd be willing to invest in it, so please let me know if you know anything about this.

 

Thank you,

Dan

Given your current setup, it would be better to wait it out for 4K to become more mainstream. As you have rightly pointed out, I believe you should wait at least for the next generation of gpus from both AMD and Nvidia to have a smooth 4K experience. By that time, 4K screens would also be a lot better in terms of quality, if not price. Also, I would advice against jumping into the 1440p bandwagon as it would be passe (for enthusiasts) very soon.

P.S.: If you are going for a multi monitor setup, I would not recommend using a cheap TN panel as the colour distortion on the screens that are not in the center can be really irritating for say, a 3-monitor setup (however, the one on the center shouldn't bother you).

P.P.S.: That being said, there are some manufacturers that have decent viewing angles on a cheap TN panel and offer great value for the price (for example AOC U2879VF). But then again, I would strongly recommend to go for IPS panels for a multi-monitor setup.

[mikat]

1440p no scaling would be your best bet imo

[PoshDan]

Thanks for all the input so far! To clear some of the points brought up:

 

I'm not expecting to play recent games in 4k, though older games should be very playable from what I could gather. I play CSGO for instance, but not too competitively, I don't think the extra ~7-15ms advantage of 120/144 fps would be that useful (especially with 60 tickrate servers), I'm more limited by my tactics. Plus I only play to have some fun with friends, we achieve that whether we lose or not. Still, I would not count on being able to play any games in 4k, but the option to try (and probably succeed with some) would be awesome.

 

My main interest in higher framerates / flicker free technology is to ease strain on my eyes. Many ppl didn't like 60hz back on CRTs, I was one of them, but with LCDs it no longer seemed to be an issue, but on the off-chance that it might make a difference in my heavy use, I'm very eager to learn about their usefulness for eye strain.

That being said, I'm afraid that if I get a taste for high framerates I will never want to do 60 fps again, making me wait even longer for an upgrade later down the line

 

Originally I had no intent to search for specific monitors with this topic so I didn't mention earlier that a vesa mount is a must for me. This eliminates the cheap AOC from consideration, I'm going to get a three-arm stand sometime in the future. (probably Arctic Z3 Pro)

I don't think viewing angles for TN panels are of concern, if I turn the monitor towards me.

 

There is a very tempting offer for an LG 27MU67-B at $415 USD including shipping, I kinda suspect there is a mistake in the price, as it is a 27" IPS display.

I'm afraid to pull the trigger though, it feels almost too good to be true, not to mention that there are actually very few reviews of it.

[MarcWolfe]

Depends on what you want to play at 4K. CSGO would be easy as hell to play. Hell, Linus did a video using an R9 285 to play a bunch of games at 4K.

here's his video. 

 

[MarcWolfe]

Maybe this will help you. This model is only about 6 months old. I'd personally save for an IPS.

 

[PoshDan]

Since then I ordered an LG 27MU67-B. It's an IPS 4k, I've had a few hours of hands-on experience with it now.

It was expected that I would end up using DPI scaling, however I don't mind it because I like the extra clarity, especially in text. There are a few sore spots like Steam, which doesn't like scaling. At its default scale it's not unreadable, but I can't say I prefer it. That being said, I can just use my secondary or third monitor for things that don't scale well on my main.

 

One sore spot is that on Win7 it's not possible to apply DPI settings per-monitor, so my 1080s have huge interfaces for some applications like chrome. I guess it was inevitable that I'd find a reason to get Win10, though I'll sleep on it a few times.

The monitor itself feels very spaceous, my coding environment had become amazingly comfy to use, not to mention it's pretty cool splitting the screen between 4 FHD windows.

 

Game-wise, the only really demanding titles that I actually play that wouldn't run well in 4k were Doom and GTA V. That being said, I will still use my 4k monitor for gaming because of the increased screen size, I find it more immersive (compared to a 21" I'd say that is understandable), 1080 upscale is not the worst thing in the world and 1440p I'd say is subtle in blurryness, so I've actually decided to start gaming on that for more demanding titles seeing as my 970 pulls above 45-50 in most of the intensive titles I've tried so far.

Antialiasing may be a thing of the past though

Oh and watching moives? I will probably not bother with actual 4k content for a while but the screen size makes such a difference, even if it has to be scaled up.

 

Flicker free/safe seems to be gimmick so far. Can't say it's notably easier on the eyes

[VioletGiraffe]

To make it easier on the eyes you probably need a PWM-free monitor. Everything else is secondary. Can't say about your new purchase cause I'm too lazy to Google it at this time.

 

I suddenly got an idea to buy a real gaming monitor once in a lifetime. I already have a 27" FHD MVA, so I need something big and stunning. I'm looking very closely at the Acer Predator X34. I don't know how good a display it is (haven't read reviews yet), but the specs suit me fine. The price seems competitive. The only problem - I basically have to work a whole month to earn it... Do you think it will give me that much more immersion over a 16:9 27" FHD screen?

[PoshDan]

It does have it, sorta...

The specs list it as "flicker-safe", not "free", which is kind of alerting, like when buy some milk only to find out the bottle reads "molk" and it's made of soy. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a different thing in this case, it could well be some cheapo alternative, but it could also be a simple stupid naming discrepancy.

I did try to do some research on it, sadly it's barely being discussed, I did read in a tomshardware post that apparently flicker-safe DOES get rid of PWM. It even had a link to prove it but now I can't find the topic either.

[VioletGiraffe]

Okay, I did a quick search and none of my favorite sites that do test displays for flicker made a review of this model.

[PoshDan]

Hey guys. Thanks again for all your previous comments, I have edited the original post to include my thoughts of 2 weeks hands-on experience with an LG 27MU67-B 27" 4k monitor.

I hope some of you will find this information useful if you are contemplating the same step I was when I made this topic.