Not 2k, just ultrawide 1080p

But good price anyway

I'm chuckling away, as reading yours, others, and my comments it is clear no everyday consumer has a hope of understanding wtf 2k is, especially with 21:9 in the mix. However, yes, as far as I'm aware, ultra wide's best res at the mo is 3440x1440, be that 2k, Peter kay or special k with no added sugar.

We should leave stuff like "HD Ready" "Full HD" "2K" "4K" "1080P" etc to the TV people - us computer types, can we please just use the actual resolution and leave it at that.

OK Just to clear up the confusion around resolution here.

"Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a joint venture of the six major studios, published .... specification for digital cinema in July 2005.... Two levels of resolution for both content and projectors are supported: 2K (2048×1080) ... and 4K (4096×2160)".
The "2K/4K" refers to the horizontal resolution of 2048 and 4096.

Consumer Resolutions
UHD 4K 16:9 is a resolution of 3840×2160 which is not quite as wide as DCI 4K. This is why most films have black bars top and bottom to maintain the aspect ratio.
There is no consumer resolution named "2k" because that was named "Full HD" (1920x1080) instead.

21:9 Ultrawide is damn near CinemaScope (21:9 vs 21.51:9) so the closest "2k" ultrawide would be 2048x878 which is too short for a computer monitor which is why the wider and taller "2.5k" 2560x1080 is used instead (which is actually 21.333:9).

By these standards 3440x1440 would be "3.5k" if any such standard existed. and 4096x1728 would be "4k".

Format Resolution Display aspect ratio Pixels
Ultra-high-definition television 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 (16:9) 8,294,400
DCI 4K (native resolution) 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 (256:135) 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) 4096 × 1716 2.39:1 7,028,736
DCI 2K (native resolution) 2048 × 1080 1.90:1 (256:135) 2,211,840
DCI 2K (CinemaScope cropped) 2048 × 858 2.39:1 1,755,136

£144.99 now.

​Wrong. The two bigger ones are, so I assumed this was. https://community.amd.com/docs/DOC-1432

​29 and 34 do, so I assumed this does

A 25" Ultrawide would be like the height of a 21.5" stretched out horizontally.

I would rather go for a 24" 16:9 for this price. If you are going to get an ultrawide surely you should atleast get a 29" or above?

Freesync?

I'm not sure why this hot honestly, this is actually a little over the average price.
I wanted this as a second screen so I had been watching the prices and I've owned one for a few months now. It's a great second screen. Don't recommend it for gaming but very nice for productivity!

I suggest getting one from amazon warehouse, much cheaper (about £30) and probably can get one with just a damage box or minor scratches on the back. Mines came just want a bit of damaged to the box and screen was perfect.
Either way good monitor but this is standard price.

Only other issue for me is the I/O at the back if you will mount it as somethings the bracket can get in the way depending on the size so note that in mind or just buy some right angel adapters.

Bought 2 of these back in june as i love tri monitors setups. I have the 34 inch free-sync version of this as my main gaming screen and use these 2 screen for other things. The 2560x1080 resolution is brilliant and I would recommend over a 1920x1080 27 inch monitors all day.

WARNING: THESE MONITORS ONLY HAVE 2 x HDMI PORTS AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE A HDMI TO DVI/DISPLAY PORT ADAPTOR THE MONITOR WILL ONLY BE OUTPUTTING 1920x1080. SO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE HDMI CONNECTION ON YOUR GPU OR MAKE SURE TO FORCE RESOLUTION TO 2560x1080

erm ok.... believe it or not, I've had a more stressful day...:wink:
1440p always refers to 2560x1440... 1440p UW refers to 3440 x 1440

This LG monitor is 1080p UW :stuck_out_tongue:

A Acer G247HYU 24 inch 1440p IPS monitor for a similar price

https://www.alza.co.uk/24-acer-g247hyubmidp-d2358468.htm?o=1

OK Just to clear up the confusion around resolution here.

"Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a joint venture of the six major studios, published .... specification for digital cinema in July 2005.... Two levels of resolution for both content and projectors are supported: 2K (2048×1080) ... and 4K (4096×2160)".
The "2K/4K" refers to the horizontal resolution of 2048 and 4096.

Consumer Resolutions
UHD 4K 16:9 is a resolution of 3840×2160 which is not quite as wide as DCI 4K. This is why most films have black bars top and bottom to maintain the aspect ratio.
There is no consumer resolution named "2k" because that was named "Full HD" (1920x1080) instead.

21:9 Ultrawide is damn near CinemaScope (21:9 vs 21.51:9) so the closest "2k" ultrawide would be 2048x878 which is too short for a computer monitor which is why the wider and taller "2.5k" 2560x1080 is used instead (which is actually 21.333:9).

By these standards 3440x1440 would be "3.5k" if any such standard existed. and 4096x1728 would be "4k".

Format Resolution Display aspect ratio Pixels
Ultra-high-definition television 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 (16:9) 8,294,400
DCI 4K (native resolution) 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 (256:135) 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) 4096 × 1716 2.39:1 7,028,736
DCI 2K (native resolution) 2048 × 1080 1.90:1 (256:135) 2,211,840
DCI 2K (CinemaScope cropped) 2048 × 858 2.39:1 1,755,136

That doesn't change the consumer resolution though, just standardises the HDR implementation and audio.

We should leave stuff like "HD Ready" "Full HD" "2K" "4K" "1080P" etc to the TV people - us computer types, can we please just use the actual resolution and leave it at that.

UHD premium as a standard on every set can't come soon enough, a lot of people are going to be pretty upset when they realise their expensive 4k 'HDR' TV isn't what they think it is.

And they're sold as 4K UHD. We can't win :stuck_out_tongue:

True, but it was the best option as consumers are migrating from 1080p devices (1:4 pixel scaling).

This would be a great monitor for office work, esp if you work with a large spreadsheets.

Cheaper on Amazon at £143.99 with £149 being the usual price across most retailers, this isn't really a deal. Amazon link here for anyone about to buy: https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-25UM58-P-25-Inch-21-UltraWide/dp/B01BV1XB2K

Using this monitor just now. Can overclock to 75mhz via nvida control panel. Wont go back to non ultra wides now.

​All of them aren't if you're being strict about resolution. 4K should have a resolution of 4096*2160. This resolution is only used professionally as a standard. The consumer ended up with a lower 4K resolution which is 3840*2160.

This monitor isn't 2k and has been 150 for weeks, it's old stock.

AFAIK the "4k" term is derived from horizontal resolutions in the order of 4,000 pixels, which makes "2k" a near useless, and somewhat confusing term (standard full HD has a horizontal resolution of approximately 2,000 pixels).

considering this thanks OP

... and they said size didn't matter.

Btw you got 1080p/1K 1440p/2K 2160P/4K

this is the 21:9 version of the "1K" resolution

Yes I don't know why Ebuyer are pushing it as 'gaming' when LG don't themselves. It gets some good reviews over at Amazon (where it's only £144) and if you take out the rubbish like 'Only has HDMI and with my VGA adaptor it won't display full screen' to 'its smaller than my 23" monitor" most people like it.

But it's a jack of all trades master of none kind of monitor.

Yep, won't disagree with any of that. But there will be people that might think (as I did myself) that the extra width of the Monitor would be great for gaming, but it doesn't work the way that you hope, and then there's terrible ghosting and all sorts of other negatives. I learned the hard way, though I sold it on eBay and got most of my money back. Nobody should buy this if they either do a lot of gaming, or are serious about gaming. For anyone else it's a lot for your money.

Really poor Monitor in my humble opinion, hated it. Though you do get a lot for your money here in regards to specs, but even at this price wouldn't recommend to anyone who wishes to game on it. Not gonna be a chump and vote cold though as it's only my opinion, and someone else might love it.

it is because 99% of 4k monitors are not even true 4k

I'm chuckling away, as reading yours, others, and my comments it is clear no everyday consumer has a hope of understanding wtf 2k is, especially with 21:9 in the mix. However, yes, as far as I'm aware, ultra wide's best res at the mo is 3440x1440, be that 2k, Peter kay or special k with no added sugar.

Ok now it's confusing, you are saying this is not 2k whereas the same op has put another monitor on here and someone said that is not 2k as its 2560x1440 and it should be 2560x1080 to be 2k !!!

What exactly is the resolution that makes it 2k ?

Heat from me, it's always 27" 1080p at this price. I think it's a great upgrade from standard 1080p.

No, this isn't 2k. 3440 x 1440 is considered 2k. Personal opinion is that this is too small and not of a res level worth considering for ultra wide, not over a standard 16:9. Ultra wide is fantastic, but needs 34inches and 2k to make it worth it over a good 16:9.

Not 2k, just ultrawide 1080p

But good price anyway