332°
EXPIRED
LG 25UM58 25" Ultrawide IPS Gaming Monitor £149 @ Ebuyer
LG 25UM58 25" Ultrawide IPS Gaming Monitor £149 @ Ebuyer

LG 25UM58 25" Ultrawide IPS Gaming Monitor £149 @ Ebuyer

Buy forBuy forBuy for£149
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
LG 25UM58 25" Ultrawide IPS Gaming 2k Monitor

- 21:9 Ultrawide Full HD

- IPS Panel

- HDMI x2

- 5ms 
 

* Size (Inch): 25”

* Panel Type: IPS

* Colour Gamut (CIE1931): sRGB over 99%

* Colour Depth (Number of Colours): 8bit, 16.7M Colours

* Pixel Pitch (mm): 0.2286x0.2286

* Resolution: 2560x1080

* Brightness: 250cd/m2

* Contrast Ratio: (Original) 1000:1

* (DFC): Mega

* Response Time: (GTG) 5ms

* Viewing Angle: (CR≥10) 178/178

Input/Output
 

* HDMI 1.4 x2

* Headphone

Stand
 

* Tilt (Angle): -5°~20°

Dimensions
 

* Set (With Stand): W 609 x D 188 x H 383

* Set (Without Stand): W 609 x D 55 x H 287

* VESA 75 x 75

Features
 

* Picture Mode: Custom, Reader 1, Reader 2, Photo, Cinema, Colour Weakness 

* Ratio: Wide, Original

* PIP: Included in Screen Split

* DDC/CI 

* HDCP 

* Key Lock 

* Response Time Control 

* Game Mode 

* DAS Mode 

* Black Stabilizer 

* Flicker Safe 

* Smart Energy Saving 

* Automatic Standby 

* Reader Mode: Included in Picture Mode

* Six Axis Control 

* Dual Controller 

* Screen Split 2.0 (in OSC) 

* My Display Preset (in OSC) 

* OnScreen Control (OSC)

41 Comments

Freesync?

Not 2k, just ultrawide 1080p

But good price anyway
Edited by: "JimBobJr" 5th Sep 2016

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 ?

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.
Edited by: "pukenukem" 5th Sep 2016

Banned

MaxRazor

Ok now it's confusing, you are saying this is not 2k whereas the same op … 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 ?




They are incorrect, it's the other way round.

Banned

pukenukem

No, this isn't 2k. 3440 x 1440 is considered 2k. Personal opinion is … 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.




That res is considered 2k for a 21:9 yes, otherwise 2k can be 2560x1440 too

Banned

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

MaxRazor

Ok now it's confusing, you are saying this is not 2k whereas the same op … 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 ?



The whole 'k' thing is all a bit misleading. But in general 2k is considered 2560x1080 but 1080p ultra wide is probably a better description. 2560x1440 is 2.5k and 3440x1440 is 3k but usually called 1440p ultra wide.

Everybody was happy before 'ultra wide' arrived as 1080p didn't represent 2560x1080. So 2k was used unofficially.

xela333

​That res is considered 2k for a 21:9 yes, otherwise 2k can be 2560x1440 t … ​That res is considered 2k for a 21:9 yes, otherwise 2k can be 2560x1440 too



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.

GAVINLEWISHUKD

The whole 'k' thing is all a bit misleading. But in general 2k is … The whole 'k' thing is all a bit misleading. But in general 2k is considered 2560x1080 but 1080p ultra wide is probably a better description. 2560x1440 is 2.5k and 3440x1440 is 3k but usually called 1440p ultra wide.Everybody was happy before 'ultra wide' arrived as 1080p didn't represent 2560x1080. So 2k was used unofficially.



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

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.
Edited by: "TylerB" 6th Sep 2016

TylerB

Really poor Monitor in my humble opinion, hated it. Though you do get a … 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.



Yes if you are a "gamer" this is probably not the best choice. But should be nice (as far as £150 goes) as a general monitor as you can game to a degree and good for multiple windows and having the extra width gives you space for framing video. It also takes up less space than two monitors.

GAVINLEWISHUKD

Yes if you are a "gamer" this is probably not the best choice. But should … Yes if you are a "gamer" this is probably not the best choice. But should be nice (as far as £150 goes) as a general monitor as you can game to a degree and good for multiple windows and having the extra width gives you space for framing video. It also takes up less space than two monitors.



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.

TylerB

Yep, won't disagree with any of that. But there will be people that might … 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.



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.

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

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

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

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.

considering this thanks OP

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).
Edited by: "Fnz" 6th Sep 2016

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

yoyo59

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



​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.

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

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: amazon.co.uk/LG-…B2K

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

fishmaster

The consumer ended up with a lower 4K resolution which is 3840*2160.



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

fishmaster

​All of them aren't if you're being strict about resolution. 4K should h … ​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.



And they're sold as 4K UHD. We can't win
Edited by: "rev6" 6th Sep 2016

rev6

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


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.

Daz555

We should leave stuff like "HD Ready" "Full HD" "2K" "4K" "1080P" etc to … 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.



Yeah, nail on the head. Regardless if the 'brand' resolution is resolution.

jaydeeuk1

UHD premium as a standard on every set can't come soon enough, a lot of … 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.



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

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

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

alza.co.uk/24-…o=1

tahir_owen

A Acer G247HYU 24 inch 1440p IPS monitor for a similar … A Acer G247HYU 24 inch 1440p IPS monitor for a similar pricehttps://www.alza.co.uk/24-acer-g247hyubmidp-d2358468.htm?o=1


gahhh... and here's that wretched "xxxxp" thing again.

This very thread demonstrates what a rubbish way it is to categorise computer monitors, as they come in a variety of aspect ratios and it says nothing about the horizontal resolution. And the "p" (for "progressive") is completely redundant, as there's no such thing as an interlaced LCD panel and all PC monitors including CRTs have used progressive scanning since about 1990.

Really, what's so hard about simply stating the actual resolution (eg 2560x1440) which leaves no room for confusion?

VladTheImpaler

gahhh... and here's that wretched "xxxxp" thing again.This very thread … gahhh... and here's that wretched "xxxxp" thing again.This very thread demonstrates what a rubbish way it is to categorise computer monitors, as they come in a variety of aspect ratios and it says nothing about the horizontal resolution. And the "p" (for "progressive") is completely redundant, as there's no such thing as an interlaced LCD panel and all PC monitors including CRTs have used progressive scanning since about 1990.Really, what's so hard about simply stating the actual resolution (eg 2560x1440) which leaves no room for confusion?




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

This LG monitor is 1080p UW

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

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.
Edited by: "Okami" 7th Sep 2016

BIGUSHEADUS

Freesync?



​yep

jamiesirett

​yep



only the 34 inch version has freesync lol

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?

rocktoons28

only the 34 inch version has freesync lol



​29 and 34 do, so I assumed this does

rocktoons28

only the 34 inch version has freesync lol



​Wrong. The two bigger ones are, so I assumed this was. community.amd.com/doc…432
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text