HP brings 4K power to the all-new ENVY 27 Display

Last year HP released a behemoth of a screen with its 32-inch QHD ENVY display. This year, the size comes down a bit due to customer feedback, but the resolution is bumped to an impressive 4K resolution while still hitting an affordable price tag of $499.

The brand new HP ENVY 27 features dual HDMI ports, Display Port, and an optional USB Type-C port with video and power delivery along with included cables.

The display itself sports 4K 3840x2160 resolution with IPS panel technology and a 178-degree viewing angle. There is also an impressive 99% sRGB color gamut, low Blue Light settings for Night and Reading usage, and AMD FreeSync technology.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
CategorySpecs
Size27-inch display
Panel TypeIPS LED Backlit
Surface treatmentAdvanced haze
Brightness (typical)350 nits
Response timePanel native 14ms
Color supportUp to 16.7M colors
VESA mountingVESA capable
Aspect ratio16:9
Contrast ratio10M:1
Resolution3840 x 2160
Connectivity1 x HDMI 2.0
1 x HDMI 1.4
1 x USB-C (power del up to 60W)
Exterior colorBlack Onyx
Technology99% sRGB color accuracy
AMD FreeSync technology

HP also knows consumers want thin bezels so the ENVY sports 6mm bezels around a display that is only 15mm thick. They also redesigned the stand to make the screen look like it's "floating."

While not quite as impressive as my HP Spectre 32-inch LED display the ENVY line certainly steps it up a notch.

Availability should start later this month for select markets with a starting price of $449 for the non-USB Type-C variant. Tossing in Type-C will bump the price to $499.

Daniel Rubino
Editor-in-chief

Daniel Rubino is the Editor-in-chief of Windows Central, head reviewer, podcast co-host, and analyst. He has been here covering Microsoft since 2007 when this site was called WMExperts (and later Windows Phone Central). His interests include Windows, Microsoft Surface, laptops, next-gen computing, and for some reason, watches. Before all this tech stuff, he worked on a Ph.D. in linguistics and ran the projectors at movie theaters, which has done absolutely nothing for his career.

33 Comments
  • Wow, sucks when companies rape people for a feature that should just start to be standard. (usb-c).
  • While $50 seems a little pricey, it actually makes sense. A 50W power adapter costs about $50, if I can plug my XPS 13 into this, charge it with 10W more and deliver video I can skip buying a docking station and just plug in. The only USB-C charger I could find was the one from Google for Chromebooks, I bought it and it is unreliable.
  • You're out of line. $500 for a slim, large 4K monitor with those kinds of inputs may not be in your cheap ass price range, but it certainly isn't rape.
  • No its not the over all price. 500 is more acceptable. It's the fact that its a 50 dollar premium for on plug type. The other mentioned pricing for parts but that's sadly retail. For instance a company can mass buy car chargers for cell phones for 25 cents but charge/d 30 dollars for the unit. I call that rape. Anyway you put it it is a big mark up for a feature all because consumers want it.
  • The $50 premium isn't for the plug type. The $50 premium is for the connector, the power supply, and the power delivery. It's not just a plug. It also delivers 60W of power.
  • Du Hast !
  • Rammstein?
  • Rammstein?
  • 16.5M colors instead of 1.06B? What a waste Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • And what use do you have for the ~1B color (10-bit) format? You need specialized hardware and software to use that. In fact, many people who get a professional 10-bit display end up with overly vibrant colors in their games due to improper calibration and the fact that ALL PC games are currently designed with sRGB color spacing. I have the LG version of this monitor, same panel. It advertised 1B colors, but that's through 8-bit + FRC. And it's equally useless for me. Now, if you do have a professional use for 10-bit, you're not looking at a $500 monitor to begin with. In other words, 10-bit on this monitor would be as useful as **** on a bull.
  • Nice specs for a decent price. Only hight adjusting misses.
  • Wow...now I just realized that......no height adjustment for $500???? No thanks.....I'd rather spend half that for the same specs, and height adjustment.
  • LG 27UD88. It's $700 retail and $600-$650 street. Same panel, similar specs (more aggressive overdrive options, matte coating comparing to HP's likely glossy), and it has a stand with tilt, swivel, pivot, and height. The $500 retail ($400) street is similar, has a basic tilt-only stand (like this HP), and lacks some of the connectivity (2xHDMI 2.0, 1xDP 1.2, audio). I'm ok with the stand so long as HP makes and includes a VESA adapter as they do their some of their other displays.
  • Interesting, AMD FreeSync, not gsync. Wonder what the future of that tech will look like. I'm not going to change cards just to buy a monitor with the opposite's company tech
  • Freesync is the VESA standard now that AMD has given it away for free. Every display going forward will have freesync aka adaptive display refresh rate due to it being a standard.
  • i hope nvidia will follow and support freesync. who am i kidding? :D  
  • While your intent was good, you misunderstand (or improperly explained) how this works. AMD didn't give anything away. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) made the Adaptive Sync over DisplayPort standard. It is an open standard (in that anyone can license it for free), but it is not open source. It works via laptop displays directly wired to the GPU (referred to as Adaptive Sync, G-Sync Mobile). Yes, Nvidia uses VESA's Adaptive Sync in laptops, and it's branded as G-Sync Mobile. On the desktop space AMD has also branded VESA's Adaptive Sync and called it FreeSync. It is NOT the same thing. FreeSync has some minor changes. First, FreeSync requires certification by AMD, and it requires AMD's drivers. Nvidia could, if they wanted, support VESA Adaptive Sync in their own drivers, but that wouldn't be FreeSync. Next, FreeSync has a feature called LFC (low framerate compensation) that allows for frame doubling below the minimum adaptive sync range, where supported in hardware, to allow for FreeSync to continue to work. G-Sync also does this, but VESA's Adaptive Sync does NOT do this automatically. Lastly, FreeSync has HDMI support. VESA Adaptive Sync is not supported. However, because AMD FreeSync uses VESA Adaptive Sync as a foundation, any monitor that does FreeSync over DisplayPort will also work with any future VESA Adaptive Sync compatible GPUs (like Intel's integrated options).
  • G-Sync costs money to implement, they have to pay for the license, and only works with NVIDIA. Freesync/Adaptive-Sync does the same thing, is free to implement, doesn't have licensing fees, works with AMD, future Intel iGPUs, and potentially others like the ARM GPUs in the future, and additionally works over HDMI instead of just DP. Posted via the Windows Central App for Android
  • Just keep in mind that Intel is supporting VESA Adaptive Sync, not FreeSync. This may seem like semantics to you, but there are differences. 1) Intel will support DisplayPort only. HDMI doesn't include VESA Adaptive Sync (that's an AMD implementation currently). 2) VESA Adaptive Sync doesn't support frame doubling (what AMD calls LFC). That's why AMD had to create, brand, and include LFC in their own driver. Intel has the option to do the same, but it's not included in Adaptive Sync by default.
  • Are there any external displays that support touch?
  • https://www.windowscentral.com/e?link=https2F2Fcrea...
  • Thanks!!
  • Ohh 99% sRGB on a 4k IPS display for $500, I'm interested.  Not convinced 4k is the way to go on a 27 incher though, QHD seems ideal in that size, with no scaling needed. 
  • I think that Windows is now pretty good at running at scales higher than 100%. It's still a little messy (but very usable) when running two different monitors at different scale rates -- UWP apps, most web browsers, and a few other applications look great, but MS Office runs at the scale of the main monitor and does raster scaling from that to the other (meaning they look a tiny bit fuzzy). Some older applications run at 100% and raster scale to all monitors. Those are the worst, but still not too bad, and fortunately not many of those really bad applications still in mainstream use. So if you this would be your main monitor, running at, say, 125%, that would look great and with the extra scaling you'd have sharper text and icons (more pixels per character/icon). Or make everything even bigger and more detailed (but fit less on the screen) by going up to 150%. In Windows 10, those look gorgeous.
  • Nice looking display. Shame for not having a USB hub or height adjustments. ​And when will Daniel learn he does not have a LED display, but an LCD display with LED back-/edge light?    
  • If it was 32" I'd get it hands down.
  • That would be the HP Spectre Studio 32 (no FreeSync in that, however).
  • I said if this was 32" I'd get it not if the spectre was. Those are completely different screens. This is the screen I want. Lol.
  • The Spectre Studio is a 32" Glossy 4k IPS screen. This display is a 27" Glossy 4k IPS screen. You said you want this...in 32"...which means the Spectre is exactly what you want.
  • Idk why you find it necessary to argue with someone on a random site about what they want but you can stop. I'm a graphics designer and while neither of these monitors are best for that, the technology behind the new envy monitor is better and for the price worth getting. Your arguing was pointless because you were fighting an imposible battle. They should have made a 32" version that would have been great. Besides the out dated spectre monitor is ugly.
  • > Idk why you find it necessary to argue with someone on a random site about what they want but you can stop. There was no intent for an argument. I apologize if it came across that way. I was trying to clarify some perceived confusion. > I'm a graphics designer and while neither of these monitors are best for that, the technology behind the new envy monitor is better and for the price worth getting. And which technology are you referring to that makes the Envy superior? I'm sincerely curious as to what you see that makes the Envy better at this. They are both 4k. They both use IPS panels. The Spectre comes color calibrated while the Envy may or may not. The Envy has FreeSync, but that's useless for your stated purpose. So please enlighten me. What about the Spectre's technology is inferior? > Your arguing was pointless because you were fighting an imposible battle. Again, I'm not arguing. I'm asking a question and awaiting an answer. > They should have made a 32" version that would have been great. The Spectre is the 32" version of the Envy, tech-wise. > Besides the out dated spectre monitor is ugly. Ugly is subjective. If you feel it's ugly, then it's ugly for your needs. But outdated? Nope.
  • > Idk why you find it necessary to argue with someone on a random site about what they want but you can stop. There was no intent for an argument. I apologize if it came across that way. I was trying to clarify some perceived confusion. > I'm a graphics designer and while neither of these monitors are best for that, the technology behind the new envy monitor is better and for the price worth getting. And which technology are you referring to that makes the Envy superior? I'm sincerely curious as to what you see that makes the Envy better at this. They are both 4k. They both use IPS panels. The Spectre comes color calibrated while the Envy may or may not. The Envy has FreeSync, but that's useless for your stated purpose. So please enlighten me. What about the Spectre's technology is inferior? > Your arguing was pointless because you were fighting an imposible battle. Again, I'm not arguing. I'm asking a question and awaiting an answer. > They should have made a 32" version that would have been great. The Spectre is the 32" version of the Envy, tech-wise. > Besides the out dated spectre monitor is ugly. Ugly is subjective. If you feel it's ugly, then it's ugly for your needs. But outdated? Nope.
  • Replied to wrong sub-thread.