Looking at the product shots probably not without some sort of custom adapter to plug into the arm socket and convert it to a standard VESA100 mount. It also looks like they're following various garbage fire race to the bottom brands in crippling the height adjustment to the ever stylish precariously piled stack of random books method.
Why are are making 27''1440p monitors now? They were around for last decade already. 32''4k 100Hz factory calibrated screen under $1000 in 2018 would be very kind.
The same reason they're making 22/24" 1080p monitors and similar sized 1366x768 ones. Not everyone has an unlimited budget to buy a screen that can check every single feature box. If you don't care about the extra sharpness from high DPI (or are stuck working with software that face plants on HDPI), native 4k on anything smaller than a TV is a waste because you'd have to run the monitor in non-native resolution. For those customers picking features other than high DPI makes sense. And until AMD releases new faster GPUs next year, it's not like 4k freesync is that useful, you have to turn down the quality settings a lot to make it work with Vega.
I do understand that they also make cheaper 1080p monitors. What i don't understand why they bother with 1440p monitors in 2018 ??? 4k is around for last 5 years plus...
It looks to me that they intentionally are slowing down the progress. Tech is here already. There is no need for just another 60Hz 1440p monitor.
1080p is cheaper than 1440p as a monitor. 1440p is cheaper than 4k as a monitor. 1080p requires half the GPU to game as 1440p, that increases the cheapness factor of 1080p over 1440p. 1440p requires half the GPU to game as 4k, that increases the cheapness factor of 1440p. Vega can't do 4k without major quality setting sacrifices (and even in nvidia land 1080Ti is marginal, 20xx may change that but the higher prices cut away a lot of the nominal gain unless you can spend >$1k for the GPU), if you're gaming on AMD in 2018 1440p is a better fit than 4k. If you don't want to use HDPI 27" 1440p is a still reasonable 110DPI. 32" 4k is 140 DPI, for most people that's too small to use at native (if you can, enjoy your greater than 20:20 eyes while their youth lasts), getting 110DPI at 4k needs a 40" screen. That's enough bigger than 27 to be a no-go for lots of peoples desks.
Actually the preference for most people is 100% scaling. On a 27" monitor you can't do that with 4k. If scaling wasn't an issue, and games could comfortably run at 4k, then I would say you are correct. But neither of those are true. The feature here is easy connection with USB and a far higher brightness level than you can currently get on any $500 ips monitor.
2560x1440 at 27" is spot on if you are running 100% scaling. It's slightly higher PPI than 1920x1080 at 24". 4K would need to be 40" for the same PPI.
I would note that the LG UltraFine 5K monitor is 27" 5120x2880 , but it typically runs at 200% scaling, so you end up with the exactly the same desktop real estate as a 27" 2560x1440.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
12 Comments
Back to Article
Ej24 - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
But can it be wall mounted? Or mounted on an arm?DanNeely - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
Looking at the product shots probably not without some sort of custom adapter to plug into the arm socket and convert it to a standard VESA100 mount. It also looks like they're following various garbage fire race to the bottom brands in crippling the height adjustment to the ever stylish precariously piled stack of random books method.r3loaded - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
> 8-bit IPS panel> HDR
These two shouldn't be a thing together. HDR ought to imply a 10-bit panel.
diehardmacfan - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
Even the HDR 1000 spec doesn't require a true 10-bit panel.Blame VESA.
Ej24 - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
Wow really? I had no idea that was the case.milkod2001 - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
Why are are making 27''1440p monitors now? They were around for last decade already. 32''4k 100Hz factory calibrated screen under $1000 in 2018 would be very kind.DanNeely - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
The same reason they're making 22/24" 1080p monitors and similar sized 1366x768 ones. Not everyone has an unlimited budget to buy a screen that can check every single feature box. If you don't care about the extra sharpness from high DPI (or are stuck working with software that face plants on HDPI), native 4k on anything smaller than a TV is a waste because you'd have to run the monitor in non-native resolution. For those customers picking features other than high DPI makes sense. And until AMD releases new faster GPUs next year, it's not like 4k freesync is that useful, you have to turn down the quality settings a lot to make it work with Vega.milkod2001 - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
I do understand that they also make cheaper 1080p monitors. What i don't understand why they bother with 1440p monitors in 2018 ??? 4k is around for last 5 years plus...It looks to me that they intentionally are slowing down the progress. Tech is here already. There is no need for just another 60Hz 1440p monitor.
DanNeely - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
It's the exact same reasons as 1080p.1080p is cheaper than 1440p as a monitor. 1440p is cheaper than 4k as a monitor. 1080p requires half the GPU to game as 1440p, that increases the cheapness factor of 1080p over 1440p. 1440p requires half the GPU to game as 4k, that increases the cheapness factor of 1440p. Vega can't do 4k without major quality setting sacrifices (and even in nvidia land 1080Ti is marginal, 20xx may change that but the higher prices cut away a lot of the nominal gain unless you can spend >$1k for the GPU), if you're gaming on AMD in 2018 1440p is a better fit than 4k. If you don't want to use HDPI 27" 1440p is a still reasonable 110DPI. 32" 4k is 140 DPI, for most people that's too small to use at native (if you can, enjoy your greater than 20:20 eyes while their youth lasts), getting 110DPI at 4k needs a 40" screen. That's enough bigger than 27 to be a no-go for lots of peoples desks.
Dug - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
Actually the preference for most people is 100% scaling. On a 27" monitor you can't do that with 4k. If scaling wasn't an issue, and games could comfortably run at 4k, then I would say you are correct. But neither of those are true. The feature here is easy connection with USB and a far higher brightness level than you can currently get on any $500 ips monitor.voicequal - Wednesday, August 29, 2018 - link
2560x1440 at 27" is spot on if you are running 100% scaling. It's slightly higher PPI than 1920x1080 at 24". 4K would need to be 40" for the same PPI.I would note that the LG UltraFine 5K monitor is 27" 5120x2880 , but it typically runs at 200% scaling, so you end up with the exactly the same desktop real estate as a 27" 2560x1440.
CedarWind - Friday, August 31, 2018 - link
No 4k?!?! It's mid 2018!! This would have been nice in 2015. A 16:10 aspect ratio would be a plus too for office environments.