LG Announces 27MU67-B Monitor: 27-in 4K IPS with AMD FreeSync

Subject: Displays | June 9, 2015 - 01:51 AM |
Tagged: UHD, LG, ips monitor, gaming monitor, freesync, amd, 4k, 27MU67-B

LG announced a new 4K monitor today, and since it's from LG you know there has to be an IPS panel inside.

View Full Size

The 27MU67-B boasts a 3840x2160 UHD/4K IPS panel and supports AMD FreeSync variable refresh rate technology, though the panel appears to only support up to 60 Hz according to the official specs. Speaking of, here's the full rundown:


  • Panel Type: IPS
  • Color Gamut (CIE1931): SRGB 99%
  • Aspect Ratio: 16:9
  • Resolution: 3840x2160
  • Brightness (cd/m2): 300 cd/m2
  • Contrast Ratio: 5M:1
  • Response Time (GTG): 5ms
  • Refresh Rate: 60 Hz: 178 / 178
  • Viewing Angle: Hard Coating (3H), anti-glare


  • DVI-D x1
  • HDMI x2
  • Display Port x1

Special Features

  • Black Stabilizer: Black Equalizer
  • DAS Mode: Yes
  • Reader Mode: Yes
  • PC: Yes
  • DDC/CI: Yes
  • HDCP: Yes (2.2)
  • FreeSync: Yes (w/ DP, mDP)
  • Factory Calibration: Yes
  • Super+ Resolution: Yes
  • Screen-split: Yes (Software)
  • Flicker Safe: Yes
  • Pivot: Yes
  • Dual Controller: Yes (Software)

View Full Size

The 27MU67-B also features factory calibration and 99% sRGB color the display could be used for more critical work (yes, gaming can be categorized as "critical").

The LG 27MU67-B has an MSRP of $599.99 and availability is listed as “coming soon”.

Source: LG

Video News

June 9, 2015 | 02:44 AM - Posted by cjflex1

27" for a 4k display, am not feeling it... Or, is that a way to cut the price, in order to make 4k a more affordable and/or standard in the marketplace?

June 9, 2015 | 04:11 AM - Posted by Danieldp

You are most likely right, look at the Samsung U28D590D, it is quite cheap for a 4k monitor but not very popular. The majour reason for this is that the pixel density is too great to make a significant difference (from a gaming or office work perspective) and the hardware you need to run a game at high visual quality is very expensive.

It is kind of like the comparison between the iphone's retina display, (Pixels not able to be seen by naked eye) compared to the samsung s6 which is a 2k monitor (you will need an electron microscope to see the pixels! haha). Where the retina display is synonymous with a 2k 27" monitor for a PC and the samsung s6 a 4k 27" monitor for a PC.

June 9, 2015 | 12:23 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The size is fine. The problem is that Windows 8.1 scaling sucks. I hope Windows 10 fix this problem, in MAC OSX for example a 27 inch will show you 1440p workspace but with imperceptible pixels because of the high resolution.

June 9, 2015 | 02:03 PM - Posted by LazyLizard

Jagged edges is still a thing at 1440p for a 27 inch monitor, so until the pixel density is big enough to completely remove the need for anti-aliasing increased density is still relevant.

June 9, 2015 | 04:36 AM - Posted by Edmond (not verified)

We all know it could have been 75hz easily

June 9, 2015 | 08:34 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Nope, DP1.2 is 4K60 max. Once DP1.3 comes out, we'll get 4K120.

It will be interesting to see if it can do over 60Hz for lower resolutions though. A lot of 4K HDTVs support 1080p120 natively.

June 9, 2015 | 02:17 PM - Posted by Edmond (not verified)

Nope yourself.

Acer just showed a 4k 75hz TN monitor @ computex.

I dont know the model number, but if you search you`ll find it im sure.

June 10, 2015 | 08:35 PM - Posted by Glenwing

Actually, DisplayPort can go up to 3840x2160 at 75Hz. It's only HDMI 2.0 that caps out at 60Hz at that resolution.

June 9, 2015 | 07:44 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

This, I think, is the advantage of Freesync over Gsync- Gsync is only really found on higher-end gaming-oriented monitors that usually already do >60hz (and therefore don't need VRR quite as much), whereas freesync also benefits normal, budget, and/or more productivity-oriented displays that tend to be limited to 60hz where VRR is very useful. VRR should be a standard feature everywhere, not limited to just flagship gaming monitors.

As for this monitor, 4k at 27" is a bit small but that price makes it quite acceptable.

June 9, 2015 | 08:16 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I have a 24 inch 4k monitor and I can tell u there is a tremendous difference. Everything is clearer and sharper.

June 9, 2015 | 09:40 AM - Posted by Big Dave (not verified)

I see the difference too I have a 28inch Samsung 4K monitor

June 9, 2015 | 10:10 AM - Posted by nevzim (not verified)

Seems like perfect pixel density for reading (It it is likely that one is twice as far from the monitor as from the typical 300dpi book/magazine).

June 9, 2015 | 10:23 AM - Posted by Coupe

We need to push more so the companies provide the minimum refresh rate for Freesync whenever they spec the devices.

June 9, 2015 | 11:16 AM - Posted by funandjam

60hz maximum at 4k? great.

maybe I missed it, but what is the minimum range for VRR on this monitor? it had better be lower than 48hz or even 45hz on the low end

June 9, 2015 | 11:21 AM - Posted by Heavy (not verified)

yea i hope they have a lower minimum VRR maybe they will since is a 60hz monitor they can concetrate on lower VRR maybe dow to 30 or 20

June 10, 2015 | 08:35 PM - Posted by Glenwing

It's 40-60Hz.

June 9, 2015 | 11:53 AM - Posted by trenter (not verified)

A reasonable price for a 4k ips panel. We're moving in the right direction, hard to go back to tn after experiencing ips.

June 9, 2015 | 01:25 PM - Posted by Master Chen (not verified)

After that Seiki BEAST, everything that's smaller than 32 inches is just DWARF and is absolutely dead-born. And this comes from a person who still has a triple-24 inch monitor setup on his main station.

June 9, 2015 | 09:19 PM - Posted by Bakath

To Small, they need to stop making anything smaller then 32" # 4K it's silly.

June 10, 2015 | 12:52 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I would rather have smaller size with higher pixel density. That 40 inch 4k display isn't any higher pixel density than current displays. A lot depends on how close you like to sit to your display though. I prefer to sit relatively close, so my 30 inch, 2560x1600 display actually falls on the low side for pixel density. The required pixel density obviously goes down the farther back you sit. I think for 4k, a 24 inch or 27 inch size would be good.

June 10, 2015 | 01:15 PM - Posted by Bakath

My 30 1600p does me fine but I picked up the 28" Acer 4k and found it far to small. Being a TN & the silly splash screen was the main reason I returned it but the size bothered me as well. It might be I am getting older and my eyes are not what they once where but I'd like to see them on the larger side.

July 4, 2015 | 10:21 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Anything 32" plus is absurd for up close standard monitor viewing (1-2 ft). Not sure where the above posters get their informatiom, but as a Samsung 4k 28" owner, there is a significant difference vs 1080p at around 2 ft away. Go to a Microcenter and see for yourself!

July 6, 2015 | 04:07 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Will I be able to use this monitor with an Xbox One or PS4? Also watching 4K movies as a TV?

July 16, 2015 | 06:57 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Man I can't wait for this one
As soon as it comes out i am buying it

October 29, 2015 | 10:28 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Any chance you can do a review of this monitor?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.