As long as we have the LG 32UN550-W on the market, the LG 32UK50T-W instantly becomes completely obsolete, and for a good reason. The former is better in every way while being almost $100 cheaper. And while the LG 32UK50T-W is a good screen overall, it definitely shouldn’t cost around $450.
✓ Crisp images
✓ Good out speakers
✘ Dated design
Today, we have one of the first monitors the LG implemented the currently well-known 3-sided colors style that they still use today.
Believe it or not, LG, as one of the first monitor brands on the market, was also one of the first to use this classic style with different colors in each part of the display’s build. The one we have today was part of their top-of-the-line lineup back then, and it is now selling at a way better bargain.
Of course, it may have a couple of downsides due to its age and the modern features that came after its release, but we’ll check that all out in this post and see if it is worth it or not. Follow below the LG 32UK50T-W Review with the display’s pros and cons.
The LG 32UK50T-W was first out back in 2019, and you can tell it is quite an old display simply by glancing at its design.
To be fair, this display would have looked extremely nice if not for those thick bezels, but whether you like them or not, they are a dead giveaway of a monitor’s “advanced” age.
Of course, some manufacturers still build a couple of displays in 2022 following this same dated style, such as the: Dell SE2722H, but cases like these are an exception rather than the rule.
If you’re searching for a display to use in an office, I’d say you’re better off with something with a more modern feel such as the: LG 32UN650-W. If I had to use a 2- or 3-monitor setup, I’d consider against buying a monitor like this one as it’ll stand out too much in a bad way. But that is a matter of preference anyway.
Enough picking on this downside, let’s go to the benefits.
Surprisingly, the materials feel great and sturdy; you don’t get the impression that they are cheap or anything of the sort. Although primarily made of plastic, this plastic is clearly not cheap. It is also not the best, which is in line with the screen’s cost.
As previously indicated, this screen sports the traditional LG 3 color scheme, with white on the back, matte black bezels, and gray on the stand. It has quite sharp edges, which can be another indication that this is not a particularly modern display.
Fortunately, though, it is quite thin for a 32-inch display, and its bottom bezel isn’t quite as thick as the 3-sided ones, actually following barely the same size, which is great in terms of proportions.
Speaking of, this monitor has 28.7 x 8.2 x 20.4 inches and weighs 21.4 pounds, making it one of the heaviest in its category. On top of that, this stand does engulf a huge wide portion of your desk, although being kind of empty in the middle due to its U-shaped style.
Of course, it isn’t as oversized as some of the large stands for the MSI gaming monitors, but it also isn’t any smaller than the stands for the hp casual 32-inch displays. This stand isn’t really ergonomic, supporting just tilt adjustments, but you can use the VESA support to have that extra ergonomy with a better one.
Compared to the smoother versions of the same stands they use nowadays, it has a rather rough surface, but it doesn’t really add much to the overall design.
Besides that, another thing they aren’t implementing nowadays is the connectors vertically far up top near the VESA support, rather than a little bit below or horizontally under it.
Lastly, we can’t forget to mention the 5W out speakers, which are average in sound quality, but they do have a good volume making up for the lack of better bass accuracy.
All in all, considering this is quite an old screen, we were actually expecting it to have some more downsides to it, but fortunately, that’s not the case, and it still remains a solid monitor in terms of design, if we ignore the bezels, of course.
Sadly, the USB-C ports to monitors weren’t really a thing back then, and this monitor has just the basic you would expect with: 2x HDMI, 1x Display port, and 1x Headphone out.
When we take into account the lack of good connectors and some other downsides we’ll mention further, as well as its ~$400 pricing, things aren’t really looking great for this screen.
The panel we have here was definitively top-notch back then, but by today’s standards, it does have a couple of downsides that you wouldn’t easily find in this price range.
Having said that, we should also point out that, due to the problems with the IPS glow we still have today – which were considerably worse back then – IPS panels were more likely to have a higher set of downsides than VAs.
Enough talking about the past, let’s go back to this monitor here. First off, we should mention the colors are in the lower end of VA’s category compared to all the VA screens we tested here.
Those aren’t absurdly off track as you would see in a TN monitor, but they are clearly worse than what you have today in the same price range. The: LG 32UN550-W has the same price range but almost twice as better color accuracy compared to this one.
Of course, you can make it better with some calibration, but the limited gamut will be on the way. We’ll get into post-calibration accuracy in the image quality section. For now, we should also mention that, when it comes down to pure contrast, the LG 32UK50T-W is just as good as your contemporary VAs, so there’s at least one benefit for it to brag about.
The brightness also suffers from the monitor being a little dated, standing in a spot where you’d expect to see low-end displays nowadays. It has around 300 nits which is good but, once again, not the best in this price range.
Surprisingly though, the reflection handling is actually pretty solid, and you can use the display across from a window with no problems if you crank the brightness up to its peak.
Also, due to the contrasting benefits of the VA panel and the absence of the dreaded IPS glowing, you can comfortably use this display in a dark room and use the max brightness as well, giving you an awesome experience that would be difficult to have with an IPS screen.
That said, while 300 nits are, on paper, lower than the average, it doesn’t even matter that much during everyday use, while we found ourselves using less than 70% percent of its max potential. With that, the brightness turned out to be an unexpectedly good thing about this screen.
Refresh rate and Response time
After a fair deal of good features, things are bound to quickly descend to the bottom of the pit with this section.
Ever since 4k was becoming a little bit more widespread, the 60hz rate has been the staple for this resolution so far. 120hz 4k monitors today are absurdly expensive, almost double the price of a 1440p 144hz screen, which is the recommended combination for a nice smoothness/resolution balance.
That said, while we can’t mark the 60hz rate as an aging downside of this screen, we can’t deny it is still a huge turnoff for some people.
There is indeed a huge difference between 120hz+ and 60hz, and you’re bound to feel the brunt even harder if you got used to the former before going to the latter.
Of course, you can get used to it over time, but the road is going to be bumpy until you get there.
With the arrival of such great graphics cards this year delivering massive 4k rendering power, 4k 60hz is becoming less and less a “graphics card can’t go past 60fps anyways” type of justification.
Still, such a card is really expensive, and if yours isn’t powerful enough for the +60fps with the games you play, there’s probably no point in expending twice the prices on a 120hz 4k screen if you don’t plan on upgrading your GPU soon.
Anyway, to wrap this point up, we can put it like this: while 4k 60hz is currently becoming way cheaper than before, 4k 120hz is still costing the earth. Thus, 4k 60hz screens can serve as a good backup until 4k 120hz are available at better bargains.
In terms of motion blur, this screen does have a good amount, but nothing too exasperating as you’d find for some cheaper screens. In fact, the VA plays a role in this, being often slightly more responsive than the IPS.
In either case, for daily tasks, the 60hz may hinder the experience, but for casual games alone, I can see how the high resolution would easily make up for the lack of smoothness.
Additionally, we must highlight the FreeSync technology, which guarantees tear-free gameplay unless you extrapolate the 60FPS range
Due to its high PPI, the LG 32UK50T-W has an awesome crispness to its images. Some say the 32-inch is the best screen size for the 4k resolution, but some people prefer 27 inches for even more cramped pixels.
Considering how 3840 x 2160 pixels have the potential for huge screen space with solidly crisp images, going even past 32 inches is not always the oddest thing in the world. I’d say that if you want to get as many tabs open on your screen, 32 inches or higher is actually the better bet, or even an ultrawide monitor like the: Hp M34D.
Anyway, returning to the 4K topic. This resolution alone is clearly one of the masterpieces of this screen.
Going back to lower refresh ratios after being accustomed to a higher one can be a headache, but the same problem is anticipated when choosing a resolution lower than 4k after getting used to it.
As not everything is flowers, this resolution does come with a drawback, which is the amount of power the GPU needs in order to render such a huge amount of pixels during your gameplay. But that is a concern that is dependent on the needs and situations of each person, so you have to weigh it for yourself.
Even while we believe a resolution this good is suitable for work, this monitor is unquestionably not the one for the media edition.
As mentioned, the colors out of the box are quite lacking, and when it comes to dealing with media, the higher the accuracy you have the better.
That said, if you do need extra accuracy, IPS monitors are your best bet, but be prepared to spare a good amount of money because professional displays are everything but cheap. Among the better options in a reasonable price range, the: Hp U32 and the: Dell U2722D may catch your attention.
Going back to this monitor, we may also say that if you calibrate it and remove the oversaturation of the reds and greens, it may even become good for casual use, that, assuming you have a colorimeter on hand.
If you don’t and you care a lot about the monitor’s colors, I’d consider checking other VA screens such as the: LG 32UN550-W.
In any case, this monitor ended up being better than we had anticipated, and we can see it developing into a pretty decent value if it gets a little bit less expensive than it is at the moment.
When to buy it
With a couple of stacking downsides, we wouldn’t say 400 dollars is a good value for the LG 32UK50T-W. If it was, say, 100 dollars cheaper than it is right now, it would be an excellent choice considering all the good points it has to offer.
However, at the current position, we have the: LG 32UN550-W, which is a great upgrade from this one in terms of visuals and image quality, and is way cheaper, or the: LG 32UP83A-W which is another great choice but with the IPS panel instead.
Of course, it may get cheaper over time, but right now – definitely not the best one you should go for.
You may like
LG 24GL650-B Review | Cheap gaming monitor
Dell S2421HS Review | Which version to choose
Dell P2421D Review 2021 | One of the best image quality.
AOC Q32V3 Review | The best 32″ AOC monitor?
LG 32QN600-B Review | Cheapest 32″ monitor?
ViewSonic VX2478-SMHD Review | Cheapest 1440p monitor?
Acer XF270H Review 2021 | Budget Acer display
LG Ultragear 24GL600F-B Review | Cheapest gaming monitor?
AOC U2790VQ Review | The best $225 IPS 4k monitor?
LG 27QN600-B Review | Ips, 27″, 1440p $200 monitor?
LG 27GL83A-B monitor Review | The best 1440p 27″ monitor?
Cheapest 144hz monitor? | AOC G2490VX Review.
ASUS VZ249HE Review | The thinnest monitor from Asus?
Best 4k monitor under $250 ? | Philips 276E8VJSB Review
Best under budget monitor around $200? | Asus VP249QGR
Great price-performance monitor of 2020 | LG MK430H Review.