Friday, January 19th 2018

LG Releases the 27UK650-W Monitor: 27" 4K, HDR, IPS Panel With AMD FreeSync

LG has released a new addition to their monitor lineup. The 27UK650-W is an interesting monitor, marrying a 27", 16:9 4K (3840 x 2160) IPS panel with HDR 10 support. The static contrast ratio of 1000:1 means the monitor has a dynamic contrast of 5,000,000:1 (not that that particular spec matters much). The maximum brightness, however, leaves much to be desired on a HDR-enabled monitor: the LG 27UK650-W only manage to deliver 350 cd/m² brightness, which is lower than even the lowest HDR standard AMD considers as being HDR capable (a minimum brightness of 400 cd/m² is required for that). The sRGB 99% Color Gamut coverage is good, however, if not that rare a feature nowadays.

The panel features a 5 ms response time, aided by the implementation of AMD's FreeSync tech, which should help gamers achieve more fluid frame-rates. Flicker free and blue-light reduction technologies are also on board. As for connectivity, 2x HDMI and 1x DisplayPort are available on the LG 27UK650-W. This LG monitor gets rid of the company's hallmark glossy black in the color department, and instead adopts a glossy white and gray finish. The LG 27UK650-W will be available from January 26th for an appealing $529.
Source: LG
Add your own comment

21 Comments on LG Releases the 27UK650-W Monitor: 27" 4K, HDR, IPS Panel With AMD FreeSync

#1
bug
I still don't get it: how can a monitor support HDR, but only cover sRGB?
Posted on Reply
#2
AnarchoPrimitiv
bug said:
I still don't get it: how can a monitor support HDR, but only cover sRGB?
I know right? I assumed if it was a good enough panel to do HDR, then it should be able to do at least 90% of the AdobeRGB gamut or an even wide one....but then again, I'm not really well versed with HDR technologies in display panels and maybe it relies more on post-processing or something than it does color gamut.
Posted on Reply
#3
bug
AnarchoPrimitiv said:
I know right? I assumed if it was a good enough panel to do HDR, then it should be able to do at least 90% of the AdobeRGB gamut or an even wide one....but then again, I'm not really well versed with HDR technologies in display panels and maybe it relies more on post-processing or something than it does color gamut.
Neah, HDR is about supporting a larger luminance range. You can't physically do that, if you're constrained to a limited color space to begin with.
The way HDR has been done so far on PCs needed tone mapping. But that just "crushes" a HDR image back into the standard color space. (Check out wikipedia for details.)
Posted on Reply
#4
the54thvoid
Beware the fallacy of HDR.

Nvidia uses HDR10 standards and AMD has a laxer approach but even this doesn't meet AMD's standard yet it's still sold as HDR? Bullshit.
Posted on Reply
#5
Casecutter
To bad you can't find a graphics card that supports it. Must suck to be a panel maker in this climate.
If there were AIB Vega 56 cards for $380, this could have a chance...
Posted on Reply
#6
Xzibit
Casecutter said:
To bad you can't find a graphics card that supports it. Must suck to be a panel maker in this climate.
If there were AIB Vega 56 cards for $380, this could have a chance...
They also came out with the LG 34WK650-W $399

34" Class 21:9 UltraWide® Full HD IPS LED Monitor with HDR 10 (34" Diagonal) FreeSync
Posted on Reply
#7
bubbly1724
They real question is how IPS can even show HDR when 1000:1 static contrast ratio translates to ~10 stops of DR.
Posted on Reply
#8
londiste
bubbly1724 said:
They real question is how IPS can even show HDR when 1000:1 static contrast ratio translates to ~10 stops of DR.
Ssh, you are not supposed to ask that :)
I cannot find any technical details on what the backlight is but in this price range I doubt it is FALD.
Buzzwords! Buzzwords everywhere!
Posted on Reply
#9
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
So, basically this is my LG 27UD69P-W but "with HDR"?
Posted on Reply
#10
Captain_Tom
bug said:
Neah, HDR is about supporting a larger luminance range. You can't physically do that, if you're constrained to a limited color space to begin with.
The way HDR has been done so far on PCs needed tone mapping. But that just "crushes" a HDR image back into the standard color space. (Check out wikipedia for details.)
I have to say that I agree.

-120-240Hz is definitely enough for now. We don't need higher framerates, or at the very least CPU's can't even produce higher yet lol.
-Nice things like viewing angles, screen tearing, and even response times aren't really an issue anymore at all in even midrange displays.
-Monitors have even been around 1/4th as expensive as I remember them ever being 10 years ago. Back then a midrange 720p display above 23" was $500! This 4K IPS display is about the same price lol

What we NEED right now is significantly better color and contrast. There's nearly no performance hit, and excellent color reproduction can look just as good as going from 120 to 240 Hz. I really gotta say that I am fed up with how long it is taking for decent HDR monitors and Quantum-Dot/OLED to enter the market. I don't need a 240Hz monitor lol.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
@Captain_Tom Well, I think proper HDR will incur a performance hit. Why? Because if we're talking about larger color spaces, 8 bit per channel won't cut it anymore. We'd have banding all over the place. And moving from 8 to 10 bits per channel, mean we need +25% bandwidth right off the bat.
We'll get there, of course, but I'm just saying, HDR will require more HP than SDR.
Posted on Reply
#12
Captain_Tom
bug said:
@Captain_Tom Well, I think proper HDR will incur a performance hit. Why? Because if we're talking about larger color spaces, 8 bit per channel won't cut it anymore. We'd have banding all over the place. And moving from 8 to 10 bits per channel, mean we need +25% bandwidth right off the bat.
We'll get there, of course, but I'm just saying, HDR will require more HP than SDR.
Maybe I should have been more clear - I am aware that there is a performance hit.


But correct me if I am wrong, it's very slight isn't it? I swear I read 5-10% lower framerates for substantially better color and contrast. I would say that's far better than the required DOUBLING of horsepower needed for 240Hz lol.
Posted on Reply
#13
bug
Captain_Tom said:
Maybe I should have been more clear - I am aware that there is a performance hit.


But correct me if I am wrong, it's very slight isn't it? I swear I read 5-10% lower framerates for substantially better color and contrast. I would say that's far better than the required DOUBLING of horsepower needed for 240Hz lol.
Well, if your colors need 25% more bandwidth, that's the performance hit we're looking at. Fortunately, the performance will take that hit only if we were bandwidth starved to begin with. If not (think lower resolutions), then your 5-10% is probably the upper limit.
The thing is, when done right HDR is absolutely gorgeous. So it's worth the (any) performance hit.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheGuruStud
Are they just too cheap to make 32" or larger 4K monitors? Why would I want 4k on such a tiny screen? I'd have to max out font dpi to read anything.
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
TheGuruStud said:
Are they just too cheap to make 32" or larger 4K monitors? Why would I want 4k on such a tiny screen? I'd have to max out font dpi to read anything.
Hear, hear. I'm also waiting for a decent 4k 32"-er.
Posted on Reply
#16
Sabishii Hito
LD 32UD59-B is a good 31.5" UHD monitor with a VA panel that won't break the bank.
Posted on Reply
#17
bug
Sabishii Hito said:
LD 32UD59-B is a good 31.5" UHD monitor with a VA panel that won't break the bank.
I think its overpriced for the features offered (i.e. standard gamut, no HDR support).
Posted on Reply
#18
Sabishii Hito
bug said:
I think its overpriced for the features offered (i.e. standard gamut, no HDR support).
Currently $399.99 with promo code from NewEgg, I don't see how that's overpriced for a 31.5" UHD monitor...
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
Sabishii Hito said:
Currently $399.99 with promo code from NewEgg, I don't see how that's overpriced for a 31.5" UHD monitor...
Yeah, well, many thing are priced reasonably with a discount applied. But this is $499 MSRP.
Posted on Reply
#20
Zeblade
If one is looking for REAL HDR10 gonna cost ya. IF you dont like it don't buy it lol ...wow
Posted on Reply
#21
bug
Zeblade said:
If one is looking for REAL HDR10 gonna cost ya. IF you dont like it don't buy it lol ...wow
The problem is many of the pricier option will happily take HDR10 signal, yet still output in the standard sRBG space :(
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment