Samsung S27D850T
Samsung S27D850T
78 Images
Share on

Loading image...


Overall Score

Samsung S27D850T

A multi award winning and 3 year old 2560 x 1440 LCD screen
27" 2560 X 1440 Pixels LED No Jun 2014
Display Diagonal Display Resolution Display 3D Release Date

Sorry, currently not available from shops in the United Kingdom.
Check international prices

Notify Me When Available
You are subscribed to price alerts for this product
Sorry, no international prices found
Searching for international prices ...

Assumed Exchange Rates

Samsung S27D850T Review

With excellent reviews but at over 3 years old, we have scored the Samsung S27D850T as follows for Summary.
21 Reviews + 3 Awards
Missing Some Features
3 Years Old
£221 Over 8 Years
Overall Score

Why Has it Scored 44?

It has great expert reviews and great user reviews with 100% of buyers recommending this PC display to others. This PC monitor has received three awards including a "Recommended" award from plus one other site and a "Bronze" award from NEC flatpanel monitors also have excellent reviews in general.
It is over 2 years old and it is likely that newer PC screens with better features are available. However this Samsung PC monitor has good reviews so it may still be worth considering. View the latest PC displays 2017.
The S27D850T has an energy efficiency classification of C, and its running costs of £221 over 8 years are in the most expensive 5% of all 2,768 PC monitors that we have compared it to.
It is missing some features:
Does not have a built-in speaker(s)

Samsung S27D850T In-Depth Analysis

Product Identifiers

Manufacturer Part Numbers samsung electronics ls27d85ktsnen, samsung electronics s27d850t, samsung ls27d85ktsnen, home ls27d85ktsnxu, code ls27d85ktsnxu, samsung p205567p, samsung s27d850t, code s27d850t, home s27d850t
Barcodes 00887276057521, 00887276057637, 04053162536647, 08592978026561, 08806086267434, 08806086274241, 08806086293167, 08806086379441, 08872760575218
Cheaper to run by £138.20
25% faster response time
Expert review Rating is considerably Worse