Gawfolk GF270J vs GF005: I own both, and only one of them is worth buying

Buy the $299.99 Gawfolk GF270J, and buy two of them if you want two screens. The $149.99 GF005 is dimmer, slower, and often isn't recognized until you replug it.

Buy the Gawfolk GF270J. If you want two screens, buy two of them and rotate one into portrait. The Gawfolk GF005 is the cheaper monitor on the listing, $149.99 against $299.99, and it’s still the one I’d tell you to skip. It’s dimmer, it’s less crisp, it runs at 60Hz instead of 160Hz, and it frequently fails at the only job a monitor has, which is showing up when you plug it in.

The GF005 is worth considering in one narrow case: you find it at a deep discount, you specifically want a tall portrait screen for Slack, email and documents, and you’re willing to pull the DisplayPort cable and swap inputs to wake it up. If any one of those three isn’t true, buy the 27.

The GF270J isn’t for everyone either. Skip it if you need the brightest screen you can get, or if you want smart-monitor extras like built-in apps. I’ll come back to that below, because it’s a real limitation and it’s the one thing I miss from the monitor the GF270J replaced.

How I know

This is the rare comparison where I’m not weighing a tested product against a spec sheet. I bought both monitors myself, at the same time, and they sit side by side on my desk about 15 hours a day. Both have full reviews here after two weeks each: the GF270J as my main display, the GF005 rotated into portrait as my second screen. The GF270J scored an 8. The GF005 scored a 4.

Two weeks is the honest limit on both. I can tell you how each one behaves through long workdays; I can’t tell you how either holds up after a year, and I won’t pretend otherwise. Everything first-hand below comes from those two reviews. Prices are US list prices at the time of writing. For how a product earns a score here, see how I test.

The two side by side

The score bars tell the same story in more detail. Image quality: 8 against 5. Text clarity for work: 9 against 6. Connectivity and reliability: 8 against 3. Value: 9 against 4. The GF005 doesn’t lose on one axis. It loses on all of them.

The fact that decides it

Very frequently, the GF005 is not recognized until I pull the DisplayPort cable out, plug it back in, and swap inputs before it sees my Mac. I’m confident it isn’t the cable, because it happens with two different cables from a trusted brand.

That’s the whole comparison, really. Whether my Mac recognizes a screen every time I plug it in is one of the things I test for, and it’s how the GF005 lost its score. A monitor that needs a ritual to do its one job isn’t a cheaper monitor. It’s a worse one that costs less.

The GF270J, by contrast, gave me nothing to complain about in two weeks of 15-hour days. That’s usually long enough for a cheap monitor to show its first ugly side. It didn’t.

Where the 27 wins on the screen itself

Even setting reliability aside, the GF270J is the better panel next to the GF005, and that surprised me, because the GF005 cost more and has more pixels.

Text. I run the GF270J at the scaled option that looks like 2560 × 1440, which is the sweet spot for a 27-inch 4K panel on macOS, and documents, spreadsheets and Slack stay crisp all day. For 15-hour days, that matters more than any gaming spec. The GF005 is less crisp, despite the two panels having effectively the same pixel density.

Brightness. The GF005 is the dimmer of the two in the same room, on the same desk, at the same time of day. The GF270J is already the dimmer monitor against something like a Samsung M8, so the GF005 sits a step below that.

Refresh rate. 160Hz against 60Hz. The GF270J actually delivers its full 160Hz on a Mac, which budget monitors often promise and then quietly fail to do over macOS. It shows 3840 × 2160 at 160 Hertz in System Settings over DisplayPort on my own machine. I keep it at 120Hz most of the time and it’s plenty smooth. The 60Hz on the GF005 was the one thing I knew going in and accepted; the image gap is what caught me out.

What the GF005 actually gives you

One thing, and it’s a real thing: the shape. It’s a 3:2 panel, 3840 × 2560, and no mainstream brand sells that shape at this price. Rotated into portrait, it gives you a tall screen that fits a full email thread or a long Slack conversation without feeling like a narrow strip. On paper that’s a great second screen, and it’s exactly the pitch I bought.

The geometry is genuinely interesting. Its panel is about 15.5 inches tall, the same height as a 32-inch 16:9 screen, on about 23.3 inches of width, roughly the footprint of a 27. I worked through that math in my 27-inch or 32-inch guide.

In practice, though, 3:2 undersells itself. It doesn’t feel much squarer than 16:9 on the desk. If you’re imagining something dramatically different from a normal monitor, temper that. And when the shape is the only argument left, the connection problem wins the argument.

To be fair to it: once it’s connected and running, it does the second-screen job. Slack and email have lived on it all day, every day, for two weeks.

Who should buy the GF005

Almost nobody. The door is this narrow:

• It’s at a deep discount, well under its $149.99 list price.
• You specifically want a cheap tall portrait screen for docs and chat, not a main display.
• You accept the replug-and-swap ritual as part of using it.

Even at half the price of the 27, I’d point you to the 27. I still use the GF005 every day, honestly because I bought it, and when I upgrade it goes to my mother, who doesn’t expect as much from things as I do. That’s the most accurate review score I can give it.

Who shouldn’t buy the GF270J

The winner here has limits worth naming.

You need maximum brightness. The GF270J is rated at 350 nits. It replaced a Samsung M8 that both felt brighter to me and is rated higher, at 400. In my room it hasn’t been a problem, but if you work in a very bright space, it’s worth knowing before you order.

You want smart-monitor extras. The M8 has its own apps and works like a TV with no computer attached. That sounds like a gimmick until you have it, and it’s the thing I miss. If you want that, pay up for the M8. If you want a screen for a computer, the GF270J does the job for a fraction of the price.

You want a long-term verdict. Two weeks is a great start, not a track record.

What I’d buy instead of the GF005

Two GF270Js. Knowing what I know now, I’d have bought a second one and rotated it into portrait instead of buying the GF005 for the shape. That’s $599.98 at list for two screens that are both brighter, both crisper, both 160Hz, and both recognized when I plug them in. And it would have cost me no more than the pair I own actually did, because despite the lower list price, I ended up paying more for the GF005 than for the 27.

If you’re sizing a setup before you buy, my 27-inch or 32-inch guide covers why 27-inch 4K is the size I’d pick for a Mac desk, and my two-monitor setup guide covers when a vertical second screen is actually worth it. For picks above $300, see my MacBook Pro monitor guide.

My recommendation

Buy the GF270J at $299.99. It’s a crisp 4K panel that delivers a real 160Hz on a Mac, it costs less than half what the monitor it replaced cost me, and I’d buy it again without a second thought. If you want a second screen, buy a second GF270J and rotate it.

Buy the GF005 only at a steep discount, only as a portrait screen for chat and documents, and only if a replug ritual doesn’t bother you. Otherwise, within the same brand, the GF270J is the one I’d tell you to buy — and this is the review that proves it isn’t brand loyalty talking.

FAQ

Which Gawfolk monitor should I buy, the GF270J or the GF005?

The GF270J, at $299.99. It’s brighter, crisper and runs at 160Hz instead of 60Hz, and unlike the GF005 it’s recognized every time I plug it in. I own both and scored the GF270J an 8 and the GF005 a 4.

Is the Gawfolk GF005 worth it if it’s cheaper?

Usually not. At list price it’s $149.99 against the GF270J’s $299.99, and even at half the 27’s price I’d still buy the 27. The GF005 frequently isn’t recognized until you replug DisplayPort and swap inputs, which no discount fixes.

Does the Gawfolk GF270J really run at 160Hz on a Mac?

Yes. It shows 3840 × 2160 at 160 Hertz in macOS System Settings over DisplayPort on my own machine. I run it at 120Hz most of the time and it’s plenty smooth.

Is a 3:2 monitor better than 16:9 for work?

Not as much as I expected. The GF005’s 3:2 panel is as tall as a 32-inch 16:9 screen on roughly a 27-inch footprint, which sounds great, but on the desk it doesn’t feel much squarer than a normal monitor. I’d take a second 27-inch 4K rotated into portrait instead.

Can I use two Gawfolk GF270Js together?

That’s what I’d buy today. Two of them run $599.98 at list price, and rotating one into portrait gets you the tall second screen the GF005 was supposed to be, without the connection problem.