According to what you are writing, it is much bigger than your display:
if your display had a 27'' diagonal, and was 25'' wide, it would be 10'' tall. (Which makes little sense: it would be a 5:2 proportion.) So it would have an area of 250 sqi.
Versus the ~350 sqi of the LG. (It is quite a jump: the rounded √2 jump, 5:7, Ax proportion, "do it twice to double".)
The steeper (or flatter) the proportion, the less the area per diagonal size.
But I guess the display for comparison is more likely a 24''x13'' scarce, ~300 sqi.
You brought the measurements of your 16:9 : yes, one of the points was that a 27'' diagonal with a 25'' side cannot be 16:9, and is in fact more like 5:2, as written. Going from 25'' to 23.5'' makes a lot of difference in proportions.
I was all ready to buy one of these until I realised it was the size of two 21” displays stacked, rather than two 27” as the resolution suggests.
I know I wouldn’t be losing any horizontal resolution, but I think 27” is the perfect width for a primary monitor and I wouldn’t really want to go smaller.
Maybe I'm bad at reading, but it would be nice if the page explained "this is the equivalent of two 20-inch 16:9 monitors stacked" instead of having to bust out the Pythagorean theorem.
My 27" display is almost 25" wide.