Friday, January 4th 2019

LG to Introduce the 27GL850G "UltraGear" Monitor: 160 Hz, WQHD, Nano IPS, G-Sync

In yet another entry to LG's (still upcoming) UltraGear lineup of gaming monitors, the curtains have been shoved aside for the 27GL850G to make its first appearance. While 49" and 38" monitors are all well and good, and LG does have the specs on them to make them attractive buying options, some users don't really like to have that big a black mirror in front of them. And that's where the 27" diagonal of the LG 27GL850G comes in handy.

The panel is of the Nano IPS type, with a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution and support for a 160 Hz refresh rate (after overclocking, via the embedded OSD, from the native 144 Hz ). NVIDIA G-SYNC is present, supporting a variable refresh rate range of 30 - 160Hz. A 1000:1 static contrast ratio, 178° horizontal and vertical viewing angles, and a flicker-free enhanced phosphor backlight round out the specs.It's expected that the 27GL850G, via its Nano IPS tech, covers ~98% DCI-P3 (~135%) color space. Red LED lighting is present on the back of the monitor. A VESA mount is present, and tilt, height and pivot adjustments are possible. 1x DP, 1x HDMI, 2x USB 3.0 ports (with fast-charging - plus 1x USB 3.0 upstream port), a 3.5mm headphone jack and DC power input (external power brick) are present as well.
Sources: LG, via PC Monitors
Add your own comment

70 Comments on LG to Introduce the 27GL850G "UltraGear" Monitor: 160 Hz, WQHD, Nano IPS, G-Sync

#1
Mysteoa
FreeSync variant please and maybe HDR.
Posted on Reply
#3
BakerMan1971
I do like the look of this monitor, high HZ and IPS it will be expensive, maybe worth saving up for.
Posted on Reply
#4
kastriot
5ms GTG= no go
G-sync = Big no go
Posted on Reply
#5
lynx29
depends on the price, but i might get this one. i think $650 max though, which it prob won't be that cheap, so yeah its prob a pass. but 650 is my max for these specs. but nano ips and these specs just what i been waiting for
Posted on Reply
#6
Nxodus
kastriot said:

G-sync = Big no go
G-sync = Big go mate

9 out of 10 monitors are FreeSync, about time to see some fresh G-sync stuff
Posted on Reply
#7
BakerMan1971
Nxodus said:
G-sync = Big go mate

9 out of 10 monitors are FreeSync, about time to see some fresh G-sync stuff
I agree, as a Geforce owner I want to have the G-Sync advantage, admittedly the pricing makes me stick to 60Hz at the moment
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
Nxodus said:
G-sync = Big go mate

9 out of 10 monitors are FreeSync, about time to see some fresh G-sync stuff
High price for something you can just tweak and lock down in a 0 dollar application called RTSS. Plus a vendor lock in on a monitor with a brand that has just now released the most overpriced GPUs ever with questionable returns. There is adaptive Vsync for all Nvidia cards irrespective of monitor... Or you can use Fast Sync (=free) and tweak for high refresh. All cheap alternatives that don't lock you down.

Gsync is heavily overrated. Its no surprise FreeSync is winning market share in these monitors. I expect Gsync to slowly die off, actually. It has no future when there are free alternatives, the only question is when Nvidia will start supporting it. When Intel comes to the dedicated GPU field, that will probably happen. You've been warned...

Also, going by those monitor specs it seems NanoIPS is just IPS. 1000:1 contrast... slower GTG/response times. What's new?
Posted on Reply
#9
GinoLatino
Nxodus said:
G-sync = Big go mate

9 out of 10 monitors are FreeSync, about time to see some fresh G-sync stuff
G-sync is a big no no for me mostly because it adds 100-200€ to the price for a feature that others (freesync/adaptive sync) gives for free.
Posted on Reply
#10
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Sounds like a decent monitor, just a shame about that power brick. There's no excuse not to integrate a PSU into the monitor nowadays.
Posted on Reply
#11
Nxodus
Vayra86 said:
High price for something you can just tweak and lock down in a 0 dollar application called RTSS. Plus a vendor lock in on a monitor with a brand that has just now released the most overpriced GPUs ever with questionable returns. There is adaptive Vsync for all Nvidia cards irrespective of monitor... Or you can use Fast Sync (=free) and tweak for high refresh. All cheap alternatives that don't lock you down.

Gsync is heavily overrated. Its no surprise FreeSync is winning market share in these monitors. I expect Gsync to slowly die off, actually. It has no future when there are free alternatives, the only question is when Nvidia will start supporting it. When Intel comes to the dedicated GPU field, that will probably happen. You've been warned...

Also, going by those monitor specs it seems NanoIPS is just IPS. 1000:1 contrast... slower GTG/response times. What's new?
ok you got some points there. I'm not a monitor expert, all I know is that I'm getting an Nvidia card and I'd like to get higher refresh rates than 60 Hz. So you're telling me I can get more than 60Hz out of a random 60Hz monitor with Fastsync / Adaptive sync? Also, the memes about Ngreedia + Freesync compatibility are indeed false, and I can get more than 60 Hz with the riva tuner software?
Posted on Reply
#12
atomicus
Vayra86 said:
High price for something you can just tweak and lock down in a 0 dollar application called RTSS. Plus a vendor lock in on a monitor with a brand that has just now released the most overpriced GPUs ever with questionable returns. There is adaptive Vsync for all Nvidia cards irrespective of monitor... Or you can use Fast Sync (=free) and tweak for high refresh. All cheap alternatives that don't lock you down.

Gsync is heavily overrated. Its no surprise FreeSync is winning market share in these monitors. I expect Gsync to slowly die off, actually. It has no future when there are free alternatives, the only question is when Nvidia will start supporting it. When Intel comes to the dedicated GPU field, that will probably happen. You've been warned...

Also, going by those monitor specs it seems NanoIPS is just IPS. 1000:1 contrast... slower GTG/response times. What's new?
It's not that easy and can require quite a lot of tweaking to get a satisfactory result without tearing and/or stutter. A lot of people simply don't have time for that, and G-Sync does 'just work', to use Jensen's phrase truthfully for once. Yes it adds a premium, and I'd opt for FreeSync if AMD actually had a GPU that competed at the top end.
Posted on Reply
#13
Nucleoprotein
qubit said:
Sounds like a decent monitor, just a shame about that power brick. There's no excuse not to integrate a PSU into the monitor nowadays.
External power supply is great thing - you can replace it easy when it break/burn, in other case - inside PSU you need to send monitor to RMA or after warranty you need to pay also for repair service not only for PSU.
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
Nxodus said:
ok you got some points there. I'm not a monitor expert, all I know is that I'm getting an Nvidia card and I'd like to get higher refresh rates than 60 Hz. So you're telling me I can get more than 60Hz out of a random 60Hz monitor with Fastsync / Adaptive sync? Also, the memes about Ngreedia + Freesync compatibility are indeed false, and I can get more than 60 Hz with the riva tuner software?
60hz is 60hz.

Gsync is a way to avoid screen tearing. And to avoid that, there are other ways, all of which are free and just require some software tweaks.

1. High refresh rate displays and running games at +100FPS with an upper FPS cap set for the screen's max refresh rate. Tearing may still occur but the display refreshes so fast you barely ever notice. Bonus points for the lowest possible input lag.

2. Adaptive Vsync. This is available on all Nvidia cards and simply activates Vsync whenever your FPS go above your monitor refresh rate. This eliminates most tearing. If you can keep your FPS at 60 minimums, this is 100% the same experience as Gsync. Bonus points for being able to use things like ULMB (strobing backlight). Its not possible to use such things with Gsync. The input lag penalty of adaptive Vsync is negligible. For 60hz monitors this is the best mode.

3. Fast Sync. Specifically for high refresh rate monitors & high FPS, this method holds a frame to use whenever the next frame isn't fully drawn. This means it may cause a tiny stutter here and there, but it does eliminate tearing AND has no input lag penalty.

atomicus said:
It's not that easy and can require quite a lot of tweaking to get a satisfactory result without tearing and/or stutter. A lot of people simply don't have time for that, and G-Sync does 'just work', to use Jensen's phrase truthfully for once. Yes it adds a premium, and I'd opt for FreeSync if AMD actually had a GPU that competed at the top end.
Gsync 'just works'?

LOL. You should read some Nvidia driver patch notes from time to time. Not a single one goes by without Gsync fixes.

https://windowsreport.com/g-sync-not-working-windows-10/
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/6frsr9" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">nvidia/comments/6frsr9</a>

I could go on, but.... Gsync really doesn't mix too well with many other technologies and developments, it cannot be combined with strobe, etc etc. The list is endless and the moment Nvidia stops carefully bugfixing everything, you're fucked.

Bottom line, don't be a lazy bum, read up a little and start tweaking. It has always been the optimal way for PC gaming, that won't change with some McDrive fast food approach. 'Haven't got time'... lmao. If you can't find Adaptive Vsync in NVCP, that's pretty damn sad, because really that is all you need.

Even multi monitor is hard for Gsync... and what did you say about not having to tweak?



<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/HiTMAN/comments/9wxs0r" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">HiTMAN/comments/9wxs0r</a>
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Blackops4/comments/9nw1pl" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Blackops4/comments/9nw1pl</a>
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/PUBATTLEGROUNDS/comments/95yjcm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">PUBATTLEGROUNDS/comments/95yjcm</a>

The longer I look, the more hilarious it gets :D I could fill a page with links.

Let it die, and spread the word. We don't need this, we don't benefit from this.
Posted on Reply
#15
Manu_PT
Vayra86 said:
High price for something you can just tweak and lock down in a 0 dollar application called RTSS. Plus a vendor lock in on a monitor with a brand that has just now released the most overpriced GPUs ever with questionable returns. There is adaptive Vsync for all Nvidia cards irrespective of monitor... Or you can use Fast Sync (=free) and tweak for high refresh. All cheap alternatives that don't lock you down.

Gsync is heavily overrated. Its no surprise FreeSync is winning market share in these monitors. I expect Gsync to slowly die off, actually. It has no future when there are free alternatives, the only question is when Nvidia will start supporting it. When Intel comes to the dedicated GPU field, that will probably happen. You've been warned...

Also, going by those monitor specs it seems NanoIPS is just IPS. 1000:1 contrast... slower GTG/response times. What's new?
Not to mention the uniform scanout gsync module adds, wich can cause heavy eye strain, as it creates a similar effect to flickering.

Gsync makes no sense. Only nvidia could think of an exclusive vrr tech. And it will die sooner or later
Posted on Reply
#16
Jism
qubit said:
Sounds like a decent monitor, just a shame about that power brick. There's no excuse not to integrate a PSU into the monitor nowadays.
As someone wrote in here, easy replacement when the PSU bricks up. But alot of screens from LG come with a external PSU. They are pretty efficient.

I have a 32 inch WQHD as well and this looks like a good replacement; but the Gsync can be dropped in my opinion. No need to pay an additional fee for that.
Posted on Reply
#17
GinoLatino
Nxodus said:
Also, the memes about Ngreedia + Freesync compatibility are indeed false
False, it has been proven that you can trick nVidia cards to use freesync given that you have the proper hardware (riquire to have an AMD card in the system too).
Look it up!
Posted on Reply
#18
Vayra86
GinoLatino said:
False, it has been proven that you can trick nVidia cards to use freesync given that you have the proper hardware (riquire to have an AMD card in the system too).
Yes but it never always works even though it says it does and it only works in specific situations. Hardly something to go for.
Posted on Reply
#19
atomicus
Vayra86 said:
Gsync 'just works'?

LOL. You should read some Nvidia driver patch notes from time to time. Not a single one goes by without Gsync fixes.

https://windowsreport.com/g-sync-not-working-windows-10/
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/6frsr9" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">nvidia/comments/6frsr9</a>

I could go on, but.... Gsync really doesn't mix too well with many other technologies and developments, it cannot be combined with strobe, etc etc. The list is endless and the moment Nvidia stops carefully bugfixing everything, you're fucked.

Bottom line, don't be a lazy bum, read up a little and start tweaking. It has always been the optimal way for PC gaming, that won't change with some McDrive fast food approach. 'Haven't got time'... lmao. If you can't find Adaptive Vsync in NVCP, that's pretty damn sad, because really that is all you need.

Even multi monitor is hard for Gsync... and what did you say about not having to tweak?


Been using it for years and never had a single problem, and know many others also who have no issues. Of course it's not perfect, but these things always get exaggerated. Not a single piece of tech or software doesn't have a band of people shouting about how awful and unreliable it is. If you look for a reason not to buy something because of potential issues you might encounter, you'll be sure to find it, end up buying nothing ever and consequently find yourself living in a dark cave, alone, cold and hungry.
Posted on Reply
#20
Vayra86
atomicus said:
Been using it for years and never had a single problem, and know many others also who have no issues. These things always get exaggerated. Not a single piece of tech or software doesn't have a band of people shouting about how awful and unreliable it is.
Actually no, Nvidia has a majority market share so apparently their GPUs are quite alright, irrespective of who buys them. Similarly, people using non Gsync monitors do not have pages full of search results with inconsistencies. ULMB, for example, works fine, doesn't need constant driver updates. You should read some of those links I gave - they appear on a daily basis ever since Gsync launched. You can downplay everything with 'there's always someone', but it doesn't change the fact that there are other methods just as easy and effective, that don't suffer these issues. AND are free.

Either way, it doesn't 'just work', Jensen is full of shit.
Posted on Reply
#21
GinoLatino
Vayra86 said:
Yes but it never always works even though it says it does and it only works in specific situations. Hardly something to go for.
Sure, nothing I would recommend to go for. The point is that there isn't any significant difference from G-Sync and other free solutions considering that someone can to make it work with a "stupid" trick.
Posted on Reply
#22
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Nucleoprotein said:
External power supply is great thing - you can replace it easy when it break/burn, in other case - inside PSU you need to send monitor to RMA or after warranty you need to pay also for repair service not only for PSU.
Jism said:
As someone wrote in here, easy replacement when the PSU bricks up. But alot of screens from LG come with a external PSU. They are pretty efficient.

I have a 32 inch WQHD as well and this looks like a good replacement; but the Gsync can be dropped in my opinion. No need to pay an additional fee for that.
Ok, easy replacement is perhaps why they do it. My new Sony 43" 4K TV originally sold for about £800, so it's not low end, has a power brick and I wondered why, but perhaps this is it. Still a PITA though.

G-SYNC is handy for me as I'm on NVIDIA and I'm not likely to change anytime soon.
Posted on Reply
#23
the54thvoid
Vayra86 said:
Actually no, Nvidia has a majority market share so apparently their GPUs are quite alright, irrespective of who buys them. Similarly, people using non G-sync monitors do not have pages full of search results with inconsistencies. ULMB, for example, works fine, doesn't need constant driver updates. You should read some of those links I gave - they appear on a daily basis ever since Gsync launched. You can downplay everything with 'there's always someone', but it doesn't change the fact that there are other methods just as easy and effective, that don't suffer these issues. AND are free.

Either way, it doesn't 'just work', Jensen is full of shit.
I would disagree with this. I went from 60Hz non G-sync, to 4k 60Hz G-sync, then to 1440p 165Hz G-sync.

My monitor does not support ULMB, so its implementation can be seen as screen vendor dependent. However, as far as flicker and all the other fast-sync, variable sync options go, G-Sync is far better and yes, it does just work. AMD's implementation also works but if you want the faster end of the gfx card spectrum, arguably 1080 (tying with Vega 64) or higher for Nvidia, G-sync is your option. 'Just works' implies no tweaking to get a great result. G-sync does make a huge difference to tearing (i.e. in my experience of it - it has gone entirely).

There is a lot of hate in this thread (surprise, surprise) but it shouldn't detract from what is actually a very good viewing experience. It's fine to trawl through forums picking up peoples negative experiences but unless you've tried it, it's absurd to knock it. I dismissed peoples views on 60Hz versus 120Hz. I bought a 4K 60Hz but guess what, those guys were right. I looked into screen/pixel blur and bought a 165Hz monitor instead. Huge difference. Point is, don't dismiss it so vehemently without trying it.
Posted on Reply
#24
Vayra86
the54thvoid said:
I would disagree with this. I went from 60Hz non G-sync, to 4k 60Hz G-sync, then to 1440p 165Hz G-sync.

My monitor does not support ULMB, so its implementation can be seen as screen vendor dependent. However, as far as flicker and all the other fast-sync, variable sync options go, G-Sync is far better and yes, it does just work. AMD's implementation also works but if you want the faster end of the gfx card spectrum, arguably 1080 (tying with Vega 64) or higher for Nvidia, G-sync is your option. 'Just works' implies no tweaking to get a great result. G-sync does make a huge difference to tearing (i.e. in my experience of it - it has gone entirely).

There is a lot of hate in this thread (surprise, surprise) but it shouldn't detract from what is actually a very good viewing experience. It's fine to trawl through forums picking up peoples negative experiences but unless you've tried it, it's absurd to knock it. I dismissed peoples views on 60Hz versus 120Hz. I bought a 4K 60Hz but guess what, those guys were right. I looked into screen/pixel blur and bought a 165Hz monitor instead. Huge difference. Point is, don't dismiss it so vehemently without trying it.
I did try Gsync and see no need to spend money on it. The rare, occasional tear is not worth its limitations (to me). I'd much rather spend the cash on a faster GPU or a better monitor overall.
Posted on Reply
#25
Diverge
Am I the only one who won't buy a monitor/tv's with a perpendicular mounted I/O section?

edit: I guess so. I just feel it's a poor design that adds unneeded stress to cable connectors, makes them more susceptible to breaking, and also limit's mounting if need be (more so with TV's).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment