AOC C4008VU8 - 40" Curved 4K - Flicker Free

Rebadged version of the Phillips BDM4037UW. Good for its size, not very good for gaming apparently...
 
Right, and curvature is 3000R, not 1800R, it's very slight.

As said, it's quite good for image editing and general purposes, not so good for gaming.
 
Right, and curvature is 3000R, not 1800R, it's very slight.

As said, it's quite good for image editing and general purposes, not so good for gaming.

Why not good for gaming.. most titles i run at 4k, never exceed 60hz on the TV im testing right now, the Samsung 6290 series 4k.. i never run with vertical sync enabled either and dont usually experience tearing?

Has anyone compared this LCD (doubt it since no reviews), to the Samsung 6290 or 6300.. i'm pretty happy with how the tweaking of the samsung 6290 turned out, though it seems not as sharp as the vizio m series i have (43 inch) at least in terms of text, but the samsung color is fantastic and i believe also 10bit, running at RGB mode (4:4:4 actually seemed a tad worse) with game mode on and in dvi mode (24 ms)

If an lcd such as this AOC or even the WASABI MANGO UHD400 40" would blow the samsung away somehow, I'd probably go that route instead.. the AOC is $400 more.. the Wasabi is $200 more.. what do you gain in that price bracket.. just real power management and low response rates?

Any thoughts?
 
Read my small review on the official thread and, better, watch the PC Monitor review: it's not a matter of being only 60Hz, unfortunately the Philips (and so the AOC I imagine, as the panel is most likely the same) has serious issues in terms of ghosting and traililng as the panel is too slow to keep up with fast movements, so it's totally unadvisable for "serious" gaming.
 
Read my small review on the official thread and, better, watch the PC Monitor review: it's not a matter of being only 60Hz, unfortunately the Philips (and so the AOC I imagine, as the panel is most likely the same) has serious issues in terms of ghosting and traililng as the panel is too slow to keep up with fast movements, so it's totally unadvisable for "serious" gaming.

Ah I follow on that part now.. good to know, though, what is the link to this review? Did you mean the Philips one?

My tests on my TV Samsung 6290 dont show ghosting or any issues with FPS when connected to the PC, so maybe i'm better off there until a better LCD 40" + 4k Gsync comes along.
 
Last edited:
The curve seems not different to me, you can easily tell from the pictures that it is hardly curved like the Philips, i.e. 3000R.
I do not know why they are reporting 1800R in the specs, I have the Philips and it totally looks the same to me, even the inputs are in the same position, so I would be quite surprised if the panel is different.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry that this is about a month old necro, but given that there aren't many 4k ultrawides, I think its fair that we make it clear exactly what we're talking about here so people can refer to this thread in the future (Additionally, this thread is very high on google search results of "AOC C4008VU8" so I'm probably not the last to visit this thread).

Read my small review on the official thread and, better, watch the PC Monitor review: it's not a matter of being only 60Hz, unfortunately the Philips (and so the AOC I imagine, as the panel is most likely the same) has serious issues in terms of ghosting and traililng as the panel is too slow to keep up with fast movements, so it's totally unadvisable for "serious" gaming.


Just for clarification, the posts that you're talking about of the "official thread" is https://hardforum.com/threads/philips-bdm4037uw-40-flicker-free-curved-4k.1911173/#post-1042845044 correct? I know people can go and look that information themselves and make deductions, but if we're trying to help people its important to be as clear as possible what's relevant and what is talking about a different product--especially when products are simply rebranded.

Further, my question, being fairly incompotent noob, I can definitely see why a 5ms response time would be horrendous for games like CS:GO, Overwatch, Doom, ect that have lots of fast movement, but what about slower paced games such as Player Unknown Battlegrounds, DayZ, ect that are much slower paced with very few fast moving objects where the significantly wider viewing angle and higher pixel count would make a significant advantage as you'd be able to see objects signifcantly further away coupled with more of the horizon.

Not only that, its possible to have 2 monitors; one monitor for high fps/response time for one kind of game and another for other types of games (this is the kind of setup that I'm interested in, as I don't have a problem changing primary monitors in my setup).

I'm asking this because I don't know a whole lot of monitors, and I can definitely see how a monitor such as this would be unfavorable to "twitch reflex" games or even RTS style games; but it seems to me that it might not be so bad at all for turnbased strategy games or even Military simulations such as Arma 3. By having a second monitor that is more concerned with putting out frames faster along with a low ms response time, it seems to me that you can have the best of both worlds simply by switching the primary display. I'd really appreciate it if someone could let me know where my reasoning is wrong here.
 
I'm sorry that this is about a month old necro, but given that there aren't many 4k ultrawides, I think its fair that we make it clear exactly what we're talking about here so people can refer to this thread in the future (Additionally, this thread is very high on google search results of "AOC C4008VU8" so I'm probably not the last to visit this thread).




Just for clarification, the posts that you're talking about of the "official thread" is https://hardforum.com/threads/philips-bdm4037uw-40-flicker-free-curved-4k.1911173/#post-1042845044 correct? I know people can go and look that information themselves and make deductions, but if we're trying to help people its important to be as clear as possible what's relevant and what is talking about a different product--especially when products are simply rebranded.

Further, my question, being fairly incompotent noob, I can definitely see why a 5ms response time would be horrendous for games like CS:GO, Overwatch, Doom, ect that have lots of fast movement, but what about slower paced games such as Player Unknown Battlegrounds, DayZ, ect that are much slower paced with very few fast moving objects where the significantly wider viewing angle and higher pixel count would make a significant advantage as you'd be able to see objects signifcantly further away coupled with more of the horizon.

Not only that, its possible to have 2 monitors; one monitor for high fps/response time for one kind of game and another for other types of games (this is the kind of setup that I'm interested in, as I don't have a problem changing primary monitors in my setup).

I'm asking this because I don't know a whole lot of monitors, and I can definitely see how a monitor such as this would be unfavorable to "twitch reflex" games or even RTS style games; but it seems to me that it might not be so bad at all for turnbased strategy games or even Military simulations such as Arma 3. By having a second monitor that is more concerned with putting out frames faster along with a low ms response time, it seems to me that you can have the best of both worlds simply by switching the primary display. I'd really appreciate it if someone could let me know where my reasoning is wrong here.

Ultrawide means 21:9.
The subject monitor, however, is 16:9
http://us.aoc.com/product_feature.php?id=84
 
I bought this monitor and it seems pretty reflective.
Is that just what happens with large monitors or is it also a property of the manufacturing?

Edit: it's about mid way between matte and glossy. Personally, I would prefer the monitor to be more matte, which would make it less reflective.
 
Last edited:
The second HDMI port on this monitor is HDMI 2.0

My graphics card only has HDMI 1.4. When I connect to the first HDMI port, which is HDMI 1.4, I can get the resolution and the Hz that I want (2560 x 1440 at 60 Hz). However, with the HDMI 2.0 port, I can only get 2560 x 1440 at up to 30 Hz. Is this expected behavior or might it be something unique to the monitor?

The HDMI cable that it comes with is apparently HDMI 1.8. I had never even heard of that type of HDMI cable before buying this monitor.
 
Back
Top