Philips Momentum 43" 4K HDR gaming display

gan7114 said:
All newer GPUs support HDR. This is a FreeSync display, so you wouldn't get much benefit from an NVIDIA card. Also, it's primarily aimed at consoles first, PC second, which is why there is HDMI 2.0. As such, HDMI connectivity is going to be preferred, although I will concede that it is a little odd they didn't include DP 1.4 for PC users.

Not sure what you mean by it's "only" a VA panel.
Click to expand...

1080 TI is not HDR

VA sits between IPS and TN panel here is a chart

VA-vs-IPS-vs-TN-1024x586.jpg
 
AORUS said:
1080 TI is not HDR

VA sits between IPS and TN panel here is a chart

View attachment 77809
Click to expand...
Again, what? All Pascal cards and certain Maxwell cards can process and output HDR.

And you're always making compromises no matter what type of panel you use.

VA
+ Contrast ratio
+ Black point
- Poor viewing angles causing contrast shift (worse side-to-side)
- Some video sources can exhibit black crush
- Slow response time

IPS
+ Color saturation
+ Color accuracy maintained from different viewing angles
- Glow
- Contrast ratio
- Black point
= Okay response time (some monitors use aggressive overdrive that can cause RTC error rate to increase)

TN
+ Fast response time
- Poor viewing angles causing gamma shift
- Contrast ratio

OLED
+ Color accuracy and saturation
+ Contrast ratio
+ Pure blacks
+ Response time
- Retention and burn-in
= Okay viewing angles
 
Armenius said:
And you're always making compromises no matter what type of panel you use.
Click to expand...


VA = Pastel Colors. ( see AUROS image for ref )
They don't seem to 'pop' like IPS. Then again you have to deal with the typical IPS cataracts getting in the way ... i mean glow.
 
Last edited:
AORUS said:
1080 TI is not HDR

VA sits between IPS and TN panel here is a chart

View attachment 77809
Click to expand...

Please stay on topic and don't pollute this thread with information that most people on the [H] display forum are already familiar with. We're not here to debate the merits of VA vs IPS vs TN.

If you aren't familiar with the intended use of this display or its specs, I suggest you go back and re-read the opening posts.
 
The image above is an oversimplification anyway. Color saturation and accuracy depend on the backlight, particular panel, and calibration as well. VA is the dominant panel type in TVs and the best LCD TVs ever made(Sony Z9D and Samsung Q9FN) use VA panels, no one is complaining that they have bad colors.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
So, poorly calibrated?

'Pastel Colors' would imply that the colors would be wrong, and thus miscalibrated.
Click to expand...

Good point, maybe they are. I need to look into that.

My screen is (was) calibrated and it is 'slightly' less vibrant than my other IPS screen which is also calibrated. It seems each Panel type has it's strengths and weaknesses. No matter how IPS's colors look, I wouldn't buy an IPS panel now without a TW-Polarizer for instance.

Sancus said:
no one is complaining that they have bad colors.
Click to expand...

Nobody is here either. But down to panel idiosyncrasies monitors do look different side by side. I accept, it could just be backlight technologies differing or perhaps the coatings used or maybe in my case mine is calibrated wrong.
 
Last edited:
gan7114 said:
Please stay on topic and don't pollute this thread with information that most people on the [H] display forum are already familiar with. We're not here to debate the merits of VA vs IPS vs TN.

If you aren't familiar with the intended use of this display or its specs, I suggest you go back and re-read the opening posts.
Click to expand...

Who pull you chain!, the point is Philips is always good at marketing crap about their TV/monitors over the years, having a VA panel with Pastel Colour's within a budget is a point to note when buying a VA panel over IPS. again Phillips are like Acer they hide the panel manufacturer! your images are just showing a test monitor on display.
 
GNUse_the_force said:
VA = Pastel Colors. ( see AUROS image for ref )
They don't seem to 'pop' like IPS. Then again you have to deal with the typical IPS cataracts getting in the way ... i mean glow.
Click to expand...


you should go to best buy and see TVs side by side. There's plenty of pop in VA panels.

That image is just calibrated like shit and it's based on last century VA tech.

I used to be brainwashed into thinking I had to have IPS. And then I got my 4k VA panel and thought- this doesn't look any worse than an IPS straight on, and color reproduction is even better than the typical LG Chimei shit panel in lcd monitors and laptops.
 
Last edited:
Kdawg said:
I used to be brainwashed into thinking I had to have IPS. And then I got my 4k VA panel and thought- this doesn't look any worse than an IPS straight on, and color reproduction is even better than the typical LG Chimei shit panel in lcd monitors and laptops.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after 5 years of different IPS panels, I got a 4K TV that uses a VA panel and use it as my main monitor. Suddenly I realized that the colors I'm getting are just as good as my previous IPS monitors, but I have way better black levels and contrast. So, IPS "superiority" is a gross over-generalization. VA for the win, as long as it's a good panel. I'm keeping this 40" 4K VA panel until micro-led is mainstream :)
 
When others have said that VA type panels are very similar to IPS in some cases regarding color and features etc... (ie As euskalzabe above), is it possible it may break down to the type of panel? For instance, I've noticed that panels listed as "AH-VA" are often listed as "IPS Type" and are supposed to, at least come close to IPS colors and whatnot. Maybe this differs from other VA panels that are labeled as MVA/PVA or just VA , and are more "traditional VA" features versus those AH-VA types that could be specifically designed to be "IPS like"?

I guess the question would be if this particular monitor is more "traditional VA" or "IPS like AH-VA" in terms of performance?

In any event I think its nice to see another "large but still fits on the desk" monitor with good specs and a reasonable price. It is a little disappointing that it can't do 120 / 144hz but otherwise seems nice indeed. I wonder why it is not FreeSync 2.0 certified? Given it includes the free/adaptive sync feature, and is capable of even HDR1000 compliance, quantum dot etc... it should definitely comply with AMD's requirements?
 
AHVA is synonymous with and behaves like IPS. It is not a VA panel.

If it uses AHVA, it will say so.

Anyhow, lcd tech has improved greatly, as we get higher bit panels and wider color gamut.
Different types of panels will have their own advantages, but lately, I've seen even TN panels get a bump in spec, with 90+% adobe rgb color gamut.
Same with VA panels getting wider color gamut.

These aren't the shit panels of yesteryear.
 
euskalzabe said:
Yeah, after 5 years of different IPS panels, I got a 4K TV that uses a VA panel and use it as my main monitor. Suddenly I realized that the colors I'm getting are just as good as my previous IPS monitors, but I have way better black levels and contrast. So, IPS "superiority" is a gross over-generalization. VA for the win, as long as it's a good panel. I'm keeping this 40" 4K VA panel until micro-led is mainstream :)
Click to expand...
I used to be an IPS snob, too. Now, I'm all in for a quality VA panel for computer use. I'm totally converted to OLED for TV, though. (y)

EDIT: Fixed ;)
 
Last edited:
Wonder if this is good enough to replace my 43X800D...

MVA - CHECK
No PWM flicker - CHECK
4ms pixel response - CHECK
 
People keep talking about the dithering, but the reviews I have seen say its hardly a thing. Not sure what to believe. I really like this monitor other than that.
 
at 43", you are going to notice the static dithering, because you will be sitting the same distance from the screen as you would with a 23" monitor.

It's a step down from a regular 23" monitor, which typically uses temporal dithering rather than static dithering.

Compare this image, and see how much further back you need to be for the right side to look as good as the left, where you don't notice the dots anymore.

wHtj3Xv.jpg
 
Kdawg said:
at 43", you are going to notice the static dithering, because you will be sitting the same distance from the screen as you would with a 23" monitor.

It's a step down from a regular 23" monitor, which typically uses temporal dithering rather than static dithering.

Compare this image, and see how much further back you need to be for the right side to look as good as the left, where you don't notice the dots anymore.

View attachment 83697
Click to expand...

Hmm. Based on this test it seems like 6-7 feet is where I'd have to be. But that contradicts the reviews which suggest 3-4 feet is where it starts becoming less noticeable. Guess I am going to just have to wait and see what more reviews say.
 
The size of that image will vary based on the user's monitor and also I'm not sure why you'd be sitting the same distance from a 43" screen as a 23" screen. You can't sit much closer to a 43" screen than ~30 inches unless you want to be head turning. Most people will probably be more comfortable at 36-42" away, or maybe even further.
 
Sancus said:
The size of that image will vary based on the user's monitor and also I'm not sure why you'd be sitting the same distance from a 43" screen as a 23" screen. You can't sit much closer to a 43" screen than ~30 inches unless you want to be head turning. Most people will probably be more comfortable at 36-42" away, or maybe even further.
Click to expand...

People who use multiple monitors don't sit farther away, why would a single large monitor be different?
 
Luke M said:
People who use multiple monitors don't sit farther away, why would a single large monitor be different?
Click to expand...

? A single large monitor is not normally used as a replacement for multiple monitors, unless it's one of the ultrawides or superultrawides that are more like having two side by side monitors with no bezel. Even then... it's less convenient because the software methods of dividing a single display are pretty janky. Plus then you'd be limited to playing games in a window or something, which is also pretty unpleasant. That kind of usage can make sense for a pure work display, but that's about it.

I'm sure there are some people who insist that this is a good idea but it's just.. not.
 
I'm accustomed to using 16:10 or 16:9 monitors in portrait orientation so to me 16:9 is ultrawide.

If you're using it as a living room display, that's different. You would set your OS to 2x scaling and sit back.
 
prne10 said:
Hmm. Based on this test it seems like 6-7 feet is where I'd have to be. But that contradicts the reviews which suggest 3-4 feet is where it starts becoming less noticeable. Guess I am going to just have to wait and see what more reviews say.
Click to expand...

The image is magnified, but the point is that you would need at least double the distance to not be able to resolve the dots of static dither.

Cheap TVs do this static dither because they assume you will sit far from it.

But desktop displays should never do this ugly shit.


Sancus said:
The size of that image will vary based on the user's monitor and also I'm not sure why you'd be sitting the same distance from a 43" screen as a 23" screen. You can't sit much closer to a 43" screen than ~30 inches unless you want to be head turning. Most people will probably be more comfortable at 36-42" away, or maybe even further.
Click to expand...

exactly. My desk is 30" deep, and I sit 30" away from my 23" as I do my 43".
and i don't mind a little head turning. Don't want my neck stiff.
 
Looks intruiging "on paper." Long/short I scoured the Internet and some of the youtube video reviews and they mentioned some black crush and the static dithering but you have to be pretty darned close to see it. I'll be interested to see how this thread evolves as some of you likely nab this and take it for a spin. :)
 
Yeah I ended up grabbing a refurb acer 43" 4k. So far so good. I think this Philips is just too much given the cons.
 
It sounded really good at first, the more I read about the more I think it's not worth it.
 
Actually, I still think I want one. There are two questions I have:

Is the dithering really that bad? I'm not sure I've seen this before. Using a Samsung KU6300 now, and I like the VA picture quality but HDR and Freesync make me interested in an upgrade.

Can Freesync be overclocked on this set? Pcmonitor said the Freesync range is 48 - 60Hz, but the monitor itself supports 23 - 80Hz. If the Freesync range can be expanded that would make this killer.
 
go to best buy and look at their 43" 4k tv's to see what static dither looks like.
Both the Sharp and Insignia 43" have this shit.
 
AngryLobster said:
Well besides the dithering, there is just way too much DSE that just makes it unusable especially in HDR games. The entire screen is bathed in splotches/spots/banding when panning the camera in BF1. IMO, the 43 TCL S517 I have is a better panel.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you have seen the 436M6VBPAB in person or are you referring from a review somewhere?

I am considering if the 436M6VBPAB is to replace my BDM4065UC that I have been very happy with for now close to 3½ years. Main reason to make the switch would be the BDM4065UC sadly doesn't have HDMI 2.0, but I also think the extra 3" in size should be nice.
But I wonder if perhaps the 436M6VBPAB will be a step backwards when it comes to using the screen for non-gaming stuff ie. programming and office work in general, so I would love if anyone can offer some insight or even have had the chance to compare the old and the new.
 
Interesting review here: https://www.prad.de/testberichte/test-philips-436m6vbpab-monitor-fuer-konsolenspieler#Einleitung (Google Translate may be handy for those that do not read German).

Interestingly and certainly news to me was a question posted at the review where a reader asked Prad.de what version of the monitor was tested.
He asked which of these two:
  • 436M6VBPAB/00 Ultra Wide Color-Technologie
  • 436M6VBPAB/01 mit Quantum Dot color
and Prad.de replied that their test was on the 436M6VBPAB/00

So news to me that there is apparently two different version. Anyone know more on this subject - is it just marketing speech that differs acording to country/region or does the 00 vs 01 matter?
When doing a search on the web I find Philips mentioning both and on the Danish website I tried to compare the specs listed without spotting any difference, the only I could find was that the 01 was labeled with a "New" flag ie. as being a new product while the 00 had no such flag.
 
Last edited:
AngryLobster said:
The digits at the end I believe are based on the market it's being sold in. For example /27 is North America.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, but then why does the Danish Phillips website have both the 00 and the 01.
Here in the EU the UK is using one type of wall socket design and the rest of us(AFAIK) are all using a different a bit more compact one, so that could like explain why there are two packages and that they only differ in a power cable. Only again then why have both versions on the Danish website - since it is all in Danish the site is only targeted at Denmark.

I have emailed Philips and hopefully they will get back with a good answer.

Regardless I am on the fence on getting the 436M6VBPAB and am looking for some reviews to gain knowledge - especially I want to learn more on how the screen is for non-gaming use ie. text work and so on. Unfortunately the Prad.de review did only look at gaming perspective, so while I really trust their work this time I did not learn much from them.
 
Pcmonitors have a review and I know TFTCentral have one coming soon apparently
 
So I've managed to get a hold of the monitor and it appears to be able to accept 4k hdr 10bit 4:4:4 via displayport. Which I thought was impossible given the displayport is v1.2 only...?!?!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top