Philips BDM4065UC - 40" 4K 60Hz monitor thread

I would buy one of these, but the last display I purchased from Korea on eBay had serious problems. I ended up selling it and taking a loss of ~$200.

Being that it appears this display isn't going to be released in the US, I'll probably end up buying the Seiki.
 
You don't need to order from korea, you can order from the EU. The price ends up being similar and everything (Suspect 900$ should cover everything).
 
You don't need to order from korea, you can order from the EU. The price ends up being similar and everything (Suspect 900$ should cover everything).

I'm in the United States, do you know where I should buy it from the EU? I'm checking out the Italian site Hw1.it right now.
 
I would buy one of these, but the last display I purchased from Korea on eBay had serious problems. I ended up selling it and taking a loss of ~$200.

Being that it appears this display isn't going to be released in the US, I'll probably end up buying the Seiki.

I wouldn't rule out a US release just yet.

http://www.pcgamer.com/philips-bdm4065uc-monitor-review/

"The Philips BDM4065UC is though a bit tricky to get hold of at the moment, though we are assured the US release is on track for Q1 this year."
 
Keep in mind that was posted over a month ago so timelines may have changed.

Could have changed, but it's encouraging, as was the FB post by the Philips rep confirming a US release. Nothing is set in stone but considering the astronomical costs to ship the monitor overseas to be repaired in the event of a problem, I'm going to exercise a little more patience before resorting to that route.

edit: ^ aldoxzx beat me to it :)
 
Is anyone running two of these side-by-side and can share a picture and post comments? I'm looking to replace a (3) 30" 2560x1600 setup.

I've been reading the thread and see a lot of talk about VESA mounts being irregular screws (M4), I was wondering if anyone has a specific recommendation on a very high quality stand that includes the necessary hardware that fully supports this monitor.
 
I just don't want to buy it overseas because if I have to service it it would be a nightmare. At this point I'm only going to purchase US sold items.

If I had known a 40" 4k display was coming (at reasonable prices) I would have held off on purchasing the 34UM95. Nice display, but I'd rather have a big screen 4k display.
 
Is anyone running two of these side-by-side and can share a picture and post comments? I'm looking to replace a (3) 30" 2560x1600 setup.

I've been reading the thread and see a lot of talk about VESA mounts being irregular screws (M4), I was wondering if anyone has a specific recommendation on a very high quality stand that includes the necessary hardware that fully supports this monitor.

akg102 has two and posted a picture a few pages back, reposting here.



As you can see, they're not side-by-side, but honestly side-by-side would probably be impractical given that your canvas would be six feet wide, so you'd have severe off-angle viewing issues for a lot of the area unless you wanted to roll your chair around -- and even then you'd probably want two keyboards and two mice to make that workable. Swiveling them inward so that the center was closer to the rear of the desk than the outside edges might help with the off-angle viewing, but even then it would be tricky -- plus then you've got a pair of bezels at the center of your view. And centering one of these on your keyboard with the second one flanking it an angle probably wouldn't work either.

The Ergotron LX Tall Pole and the Mount World adapter plate here will give you everything you need to mount this display. Slide the Ergotron arm that wraps around the desk pole about halfway up the length of the pole for the widest height adjustment range that still allows you to bring it all the way down to the desk, then use the countersunk screws included with the adapter plate to fasten the plate to the Ergotron mounting surface, and finally use the thumbscrew bolts included with the Ergotron to run through the adapter plate into the display's mount holes. I'd strongly recommend attaching the part of the Ergotron incorporating the mount surface (and adapter plate) to the display while the display is face-down on a table/floor and then lifting that entire assembly onto the rest of the Ergotron assembly rather than assembling the entire Ergotron and trying to attach the display while propping it up against the Ergotron mounting surface. From there, you'll just need to adjust the tension on the Ergotron as documented in the manual to ensure it's held in place vertically, and then change the tension on the other areas to suit your preferences.

Also, you may want to install the locking screw that prevents the Ergotron from allowing rotation to portrait. I can't see that feature being useful on a 40" display, and it's one less adjustment you'll have to deal with when making things just so.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I'm in the United States, do you know where I should buy it from the EU? I'm checking out the Italian site Hw1.it right now.

Personally there is only 2 stores that have the monitor in stock right now and I would buy from, you have overclock.co.uk which was what jphughan used to buy his monitor, and you got caseking.de they are both pretty well known European hardware stores.
To clarify no idea if caseking.de sends it to the US, and at what cost, but I would expect similar prices to overclock.co.uk since they are partners.

Overlockers would run you for around 885$ + P&P + Extra expenses (coin conversion charge, custom fees that sort of stuff).
Caseking would be 766$ + P&P + Extra expenses.

To clarify I'm not saying there aren't other European stores that have the monitor in stock and are trustworthy, just that those are the only two I know.
 
Anyone successfully overclocked the monitor without frame skipping please ?
Can you post your results ?
I would like to overclock mine

Thanks :)
 
I guess their production runs weren't big enough. And now they're apparently bringing it to NA so maybe they're want stock for that. In any case according to Philips the availability should get better in March, at least here in Finland.
 
Hi guys! i m new in the forum !
But I am interested on this monitor... sorry for my bad english. Today i saw on youtube this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md3irsi9CRY it is normal to have the stripes on the monitor ? Is the Refresh or the PWM ? those who have this monitor do you see the stripes in reality ? This guy has 4 video whit the monitor and on 3 videos u can see the stripes...
 
According to TFTCentral this monitor has an input lag (signal processing + lag) of ~23ms. Is this 'ok' for moderate competative gaming?

I hope it is, I have already ordered the monitor.
 
but why are there horizontal stripes anyway?

The stripes are a the frame-rate of the camera and the frame-rate of the monitor syncing up. The human eye can not perceive this therefore it is not something to worry about when considering this monitor or any monitors, unless you plan on recording the screen.
 
According to TFTCentral this monitor has an input lag (signal processing + lag) of ~23ms. Is this 'ok' for moderate competative gaming?

I hope it is, I have already ordered the monitor.

TFT Central also provided a class rating with that measurement. That response time puts it in their Class 2 category, which they say is fine for general gaming.
 
TFT Central also provided a class rating with that measurement. That response time puts it in their Class 2 category, which they say is fine for general gaming.

When you say "General Gaming" do they mean Farmville and Solitare or do they mean Far Cry 4 and Dying Light? The term General Gaming leaves a lot to be answered. While I am not a gamer for money like some people are, I am a competitive gamer personally with games like BF4 and Combat Arms. Does this "General Gaming" category mean it will be fine for gamers like me or grandma who wants to play mahjong?
 
Are you a professional CS player that needs zero input lag? If not then the monitor should be fine.
 
When you say "General Gaming" do they mean Farmville and Solitare or do they mean Far Cry 4 and Dying Light? The term General Gaming leaves a lot to be answered. While I am not a gamer for money like some people are, I am a competitive gamer personally with games like BF4 and Combat Arms. Does this "General Gaming" category mean it will be fine for gamers like me or grandma who wants to play mahjong?

Do you play in competitions? For money? Then don't play on 4k 60hz. Do you play games for fun? This monitor will be fine.
 
When you say "General Gaming" do they mean Farmville and Solitare or do they mean Far Cry 4 and Dying Light? The term General Gaming leaves a lot to be answered. While I am not a gamer for money like some people are, I am a competitive gamer personally with games like BF4 and Combat Arms. Does this "General Gaming" category mean it will be fine for gamers like me or grandma who wants to play mahjong?

You should probably read TFT Central's description of their own ranking system if you're worried since I was just paraphrasing from memory, but from what I recall they mean acceptable for FPS enthusiasts, but not world-class twitch gamers who play for money where every frame counts -- and who therefore would buy displays expressly marketed as gaming displays. I'm not sure how you could have thought General Gaming to apply to FarmVille, solitaire, and mahjong in this context though. Is there any amount of input lag that would affect the playability of those games??
 
What if sum1 plays mahjog for money?

Anyways I guess this should be fine. I am a competative gamer, as in I play alot on Starcraft 2 ladder, Left 4 Dead 2 confogl, CSGO and I always want to get high rank/better etc. But I don't play for money.

In that sense I guess it should be fine.
 
But the good news is alas the max the board in the panel can handle is 75hz @ 1080p and 70hz @ 4k. I would still call that a win in any sense of the word :).

Thank you for a preliminary answer to my question about max refresh rate at 1080p resolutions.

You should try using 24AWG Display port cable. like this.

It may sound preposterous on my part, buy you did check your results taking photos of the UFOtest, right? Nothing worst than believing that a given monitor can overclock, when UFOtest shows that it is simply skipping frames.

http://www.testufo.com/#test=frameskipping
 
Thank you for a preliminary answer to my question about max refresh rate at 1080p resolutions.

You should try using 24AWG Display port cable. like this.

It may sound preposterous on my part, buy you did check your results taking photos of the UFOtest, right? Nothing worst than believing that a given monitor can overclock, when UFOtest shows that it is simply skipping frames.

http://www.testufo.com/#test=frameskipping

Not sure why my reply earlier in the thread didnt go through but no it doesnt go past 70hz. It does skip but still has a perceivable smoothness. It does drop frames, I am having issues with drivers at the moment so I am not doing anything crazy with it.
 
When you say "General Gaming" do they mean Farmville and Solitare or do they mean Far Cry 4 and Dying Light? The term General Gaming leaves a lot to be answered. While I am not a gamer for money like some people are, I am a competitive gamer personally with games like BF4 and Combat Arms. Does this "General Gaming" category mean it will be fine for gamers like me or grandma who wants to play mahjong?

I play BF4, SC2, Dota 2, 7 Days to Die, Dying Light, Evolve...the list goes on, none of which I have had an issue with because the games I play keep fps around 60...sometimes creeping to the 80's and 90's in less complex scenes. Highest I get is 170fps @ 4k in SC2 but being an RTS even crazy scrolling has no tearing for some reason.

All in all during my play sessions the only thing that holds my performance and kill counts back is either I am drunk...or it's my mouse DPI profiles while interacting with the game UI's. Everything apart from that is perfect.
 
What if sum1 plays mahjog for money?

Anyways I guess this should be fine. I am a competative gamer, as in I play alot on Starcraft 2 ladder, Left 4 Dead 2 confogl, CSGO and I always want to get high rank/better etc. But I don't play for money.

In that sense I guess it should be fine.

Hi, I made this account specifically because of the incorrect information people have been giving about 60hz refresh rate. If you are an average player it will probably not effect you that much, BUT if you are good then you will definitely notice a difference. Players way below professional level are limited by the refresh rate of their monitors.

I have always played on 60hz and have ALWAYS felt there is a huge delay and blur in the monitor during competitive FPS games like CS and CoD. I barely play games anymore and still feel frustrated when play FPS like CS:GO due to the limitation of the monitor. I am 30 and way past my prime of "twitch gaming" but the simple fact is your eyes are capable of seeing objects much more clearly when they are not blurred and so your accuracy will be better if they arent blurred (at 60hz they WILL be blurred). I have not tried a 60hz G-sync monitor yet so I can't say whether G-sync is sufficient to fix the problem.

If you are buying the monitor SPECIFICALLY for gaming and you prefer to play FPS then a 4k 60hz is probably not your best option. I am trying to decide between this monitor and the upcoming Acer XB270HU (144hz or 120hz and has G-sync, and IPS panel). The only reason I am considering this is that I barely play games anymore and may benefit from the larger screen to multitask while working. If you prefer non-competitive games like single player RPGs (Skyrim ect) it would probably be nicer to have the 40in 4k, but for FPS there is no comparison.

Edit: I just saw you play Sc2 also, and I assume if you play competitively your APM is >150, in which case a higher refresh rate would likely improve the accuracy of your mouse clicks, and possible increase you apm a few points. Either monitor will require an SLI $1000+ gpu setup to maintain the highest framerates (100+ fps for the acer @ 1440p and 50-60 for the Phillips @ 4k), unless you turn off texture detailing/shadows ect. I am running an older system and am going to do a rebuild just to take advantage of the new monitor tech, I wish current GPU tech wasn't so slow though. I heard the GTX 980 ti isn't even coming out until 2016, and the R9 390x probably won't be out until the end of this year.
 
Last edited:
I think its worth mentioning that Phillips is very stupid for not releasing this monitor in the US, and they probably lost millions by taking so long to do so. A lot of people were looking forward to this, but due to the delays will probably go for other options.

If this had come out in Dec like it did in Europe I would already have 1 or 2, but given the company's obvious incompetence, I think I will go for the Acer or perhaps an Asus since those company's actually make an effort to please their customers.
 
I think its worth mentioning that Phillips is very stupid for not releasing this monitor in the US, and they probably lost millions by taking so long to do so. A lot of people were looking forward to this, but due to the delays will probably go for other options.

If this had come out in Dec like it did in Europe I would already have 1 or 2, but given the company's obvious incompetence, I think I will go for the Acer or perhaps an Asus since those company's actually make an effort to please their customers.

If Phillips is constrained by supply (which they seem to be), they make the same amount of money if they're selling BDM4065UCs in one region or all over the world. They're still selling all of the monitors that they can make. There really aren't any competing monitors in the US, so Phillips hasn't lost anything.
 
Why are monitors so far behind TV's in terms of cost and image quality? Most industries don't take 5 years to adapt the latest technology. We should already have quantum dot 45inch 4k monitors at 60hz for $500, instead we have ancient TN panels in most new releases and almost never over 30 inches. Why is it so hard to convert TV tech to monitors? I had a CRT in 1997 with 1440p and better colors than anything I have seen from LCDs, so basicly technology has gone nowhere in almost 20 years except decreased the size of the box the screen is held in.
 
If Phillips is constrained by supply (which they seem to be), they make the same amount of money if they're selling BDM4065UCs in one region or all over the world. They're still selling all of the monitors that they can make. There really aren't any competing monitors in the US, so Phillips hasn't lost anything.

That makes sense, but there are competing monitors, just not in that size. If LG or Samsung does the same thing (convert TV to monitor), Phillips will have no chance at getting a foothold in the US market. You can be damn sure they don't produce tiny amounts of an item that's in high demand. Most companies these days do their research and upscale their facilities before releasing a game changing product.
 
That makes sense, but there are competing monitors, just not in that size. If LG or Samsung does the same thing (convert TV to monitor), Phillips will have no chance at getting a foothold in the US market. You can be damn sure they don't produce tiny amounts of an item that's in high demand. Most companies these days do their research and upscale their facilities before releasing a game changing product.

Depends, they will probably not have a hard time getting a foothold, they just won't have a monopoly ;) I would of already spent the money as I really want this but as there is NO one else, I guess I am waiting.. Though the Seiki is looking tempting. Also who knows what they thought was going to happen, honestly a 40" 4k seems gigantic for the average user and I think they thought it was not going to take off as much as it did. There is still not tens of thousands of people lined up to buy this monitor, so maybe they are gauging the interest further.
 
Hi, I made this account specifically because of the incorrect information people have been giving about 60hz refresh rate. If you are an average player it will probably not effect you that much, BUT if you are good then you will definitely notice a difference. Players way below professional level are limited by the refresh rate of their monitors.

It's always a noticeable difference, it's even noticeable in normal desktop use, but it's not going to make you lose or win games, it's extremely unlikely for the skill between players and all the other far bigger factors to be so balanced that the monitor is actually the factor that is going to make the difference.

Matches between professional players are OFC far better balanced, so this difference plays a bigger part in the equation, which is why people usually say that unless you are playing professionally you can go with 4k 60hz, since if you are not playing professionally, it is very likely that image quality is of some importance for you.
Not that 120hz doesn't affect the viewing experience in that way too, but that is currently tied to crappy panels, and inferior resolutions, so one can easily make the case that as far as image quality goes, the 4k 60hz in this quality level is preferable.

When it comes to the actual playing experience this is OFC far more arguable.

Why are monitors so far behind TV's in terms of cost and image quality? Most industries don't take 5 years to adapt the latest technology. We should already have quantum dot 45inch 4k monitors at 60hz for $500, instead we have ancient TN panels in most new releases and almost never over 30 inches. Why is it so hard to convert TV tech to monitors? I had a CRT in 1997 with 1440p and better colors than anything I have seen from LCDs, so basicly technology has gone nowhere in almost 20 years except decreased the size of the box the screen is held in.

In short Economies of scale.
No one was lining up to buy 30/40" 1080p TV's to use as monitors, since they are honestly pretty terrible for that, the PPI is pure and simply awful, anything bellow that resolution was usually reserved for not so great panels since there wasn't that big of a market for high end or even good quality 24" TV's. This before taking into account possible problems with image retention, high lag, which while not present in all TV's, are certainly far more common in the TV space (they are a smaller problem for TV use).
I suspect most people didn't really thought how 4k would actually change this, and even if you were to think of this and you were in the TV/Panel making business, you would still need to convince the people in charge that a 40" Monitor using a panel you were going to make for a TV, was something with enough market to be worth the trouble, which was/is likely a problem on itself.

Now that Philips has proven (or is proving) the concept, I suspect we will see an increasing number of Panels made for TV's coming to monitors, which likely means we will see the quality/price gap decrease relatively soon, assuming that the 40" (or lower) TV's continue to have a strong enough market presence to justify high quality panels.
 
If Phillips is constrained by supply (which they seem to be), they make the same amount of money if they're selling BDM4065UCs in one region or all over the world. They're still selling all of the monitors that they can make. There really aren't any competing monitors in the US, so Phillips hasn't lost anything.

that's not true. Seiki is out for pre-sale at amazon. So if philips doesn't want the $ from consumers, then people will move to Seiki. They are both 1 yr. warranty anyway
 
that's not true. Seiki is out for pre-sale at amazon. So if philips doesn't want the $ from consumers, then people will move to Seiki. They are both 1 yr. warranty anyway

Seiki is bad quality though, I think a lot people are going to hold out on the seiki till it gets cheaper. The old 39" Seiko got really popular when it dropped in price a ton, it was pretty expensive when it came out. I have one and for $350 it's a great deal, for the price it came out at I feel like it's a terrible deal. They really had lots of quality issues with it, mine drops the picture about once every hour for 10 seconds, one hdmi port is already dead. I knew pretty much before buying it that it would probably have that quality issues and it wasn't a big deal at the price I got it for. But if they want me to pay the amount they want for the newer ones they have to step up quality big time.
 
It's always a noticeable difference, it's even noticeable in normal desktop use, but it's not going to make you lose or win games, it's extremely unlikely for the skill between players and all the other far bigger factors to be so balanced that the monitor is actually the factor that is going to make the difference.

Matches between professional players are OFC far better balanced, so this difference plays a bigger part in the equation, which is why people usually say that unless you are playing professionally you can go with 4k 60hz, since if you are not playing professionally, it is very likely that image quality is of some importance for you.
Not that 120hz doesn't affect the viewing experience in that way too, but that is currently tied to crappy panels, and inferior resolutions, so one can easily make the case that as far as image quality goes, the 4k 60hz in this quality level is preferable.

When it comes to the actual playing experience this is OFC far more arguable.



In short Economies of scale.
No one was lining up to buy 30/40" 1080p TV's to use as monitors, since they are honestly pretty terrible for that, the PPI is pure and simply awful, anything bellow that resolution was usually reserved for not so great panels since there wasn't that big of a market for high end or even good quality 24" TV's. This before taking into account possible problems with image retention, high lag, which while not present in all TV's, are certainly far more common in the TV space (they are a smaller problem for TV use).
I suspect most people didn't really thought how 4k would actually change this, and even if you were to think of this and you were in the TV/Panel making business, you would still need to convince the people in charge that a 40" Monitor using a panel you were going to make for a TV, was something with enough market to be worth the trouble, which was/is likely a problem on itself.

Now that Philips has proven (or is proving) the concept, I suspect we will see an increasing number of Panels made for TV's coming to monitors, which likely means we will see the quality/price gap decrease relatively soon, assuming that the 40" (or lower) TV's continue to have a strong enough market presence to justify high quality panels.

By "notice a difference" I didn't mean you can tell the difference between the two, I meant your kill/death ratio would significantly increase, and therefore your chances of winning games. If you play CS:GO try turning on motion blur (amplifies the effect of normal blurring) and see how far your performance drops. Or try playing on a laptop monitor with the same setup (everything else) and see how much hard it is. You can't see enemies as clearly and thus it is much harder to hit them when they are moving. If they happen to have a 144hz monitor and you are on 60hz, you would have to be A LOT better than them to be able to kill them first.
 
Well saying that it becomes a significant problem when you activate motion blur, is kind of irrelevant IMO, since unless it is a mandatory option in clan matches (or any other form of "casual" competition), I suspect most people caring about their match performance will disable motion blur, personally I don't even active motion blur in SP games, since I completely abhor the effect, granted yes if you care about motion blur, and you wish to keep it on, I suspect 120/144hz will improve things (so will having a better panel really), but it doesn't fix the underlying issue.
Also don't think the laptop comparison is apt here, since you get differences that are unrelated to the refresh rate, I mean I would easily argue that regardless of the refresh rate, if you are playing on say a 15" you are going to have a harder time seeing things, than if you were on a 27" or more, in fact if visibility is the issue, the 40" will for obvious reasons take the lead here.

To clarify have never used a 120/144hz on CS:GO, so it could be the case that in that game this makes such a significant difference in the player performance, as to be the difference between winning and losing matches despite all the other perceived bigger differences.
When I got a 120hz monitor CS:GO didn't exist yet, and they were still being sold for the 3D effect (samsung 2233RZ), but from what I tried back then, I honestly didn't feel like I was performing better because of it, games felt more fluid, but that's about it, there was always far bigger issues at play in matches, like ping and skill difference.
 
Back
Top