Philips has unveiled its new 27-inch 4K display 27E1N8900/27" The display uses an organic EL panel and boasts a wide color gamut that covers 99% of Adobe RGB.... Philips 27-inch 4K OLED Gaming Monitor DisplayHDR TrueBlack 400 (27E1N8900/27)
Same, no interest in 4k Hope as the year goes by , more 2k oled monitors , with decent price will show up
I repeat this probably but I was given, for free a 27" 4K monitor (ips) by default in windows 7 (probably has improved since) the task bar was 4mm high text completely unreadable and I had to set size to 150% to even use the computer which broke most control panels like nvidia sure I couldn't see pixels but it was not useable and didn't look better if anything it looked blurrier than 1440p at the same size I gave it back and asked him why he gave it to me...same thing, useless and no point in 4k at this size also it was a matte screen which goes very poorly with too high density of pixels might be why I found it somehow blurry p.s. the 1st review of the still not available lg oled 27" 240Hz is pretty bad (another hdr obsessed guy like Linus) especially on the text side which seem to bleed colors so on very small text it can only be worst
This is office monitor with only 60hz! Well of the price will be very low its good to OLED panel in office
I would think a 32" is better suited for 4k. But the gpu's needed to run that resolution are as/or more expensive as the monitor itself. I wish I had that budget. Waiting for mainstream 4k in several years. Just went 1440p a few years ago and love it for gaming. I'm patient. Old but patient.
HDR400 and HDR400 True Black are completely different ratings. HDR400 can look worse than SDR due to being simply incapable of showing a proper HDR image and screwing things up, HDR400 True Black is a real/full HDR experience, it's just not ultra bright at the highlights, which is not necessary since it can shut off individual subpixels for close to true black as you can get. With such a contrast, a highlight of 400 nits in a tiny window is more than enough. It's a dumb monitor for being 60Hz, and 4K at only 27". It hitting a peak of 540 nits just isn't one of the reasons.
60 Hz gaming is fine for the vast majority of casual gamers, and truth be told, few gamers can actually tell the difference between 120 Hz and 60 Hz in blind A/B tests. With that said, this is being marketed by Philips as a productivity/professional monitor - not a gaming monitor. It doesn't even have VRR. But, it's only $1,100! Take my money! For those of you wondering why 4k for productivity, it's simple - sharper, clearer, easier to read text. I run a 28" IPS 4k 60 Hz monitor for productivity and it is ideal. I used a 1440p 144 Hz gaming monitor for productivity before I bought my current monitor and I'll never go back. Yes, I use 150% scaling. That makes everything just the right size, but does not affect the sharpness of text, etc. I'd love to have a 2880p monitor at 200% scaling. That would rival the sharpness of a good cell phone.
That's preposterous. 60 and 120 are night and day, 60Hz screens look like they're lagging/something is wrong. Even the difference between 120 and 240 is easily noticeable, and that's far less of a meaningful difference than what 60 to 120 feels like. A 110 year old man with almost no vision can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120Hz. 60 is so low that even 75Hz is a very noticeable improvement. Usually I refuse to even play a game if I can't get at least 90 fps, any less can easily make a game sickening depending on what it is.
Nothing about this statement is true. There's many videos of blind tests with gamers, to random users that simply browse the web. I have not met a single person, no matter their technological expertise, or lack-there-of, not be able to tell the difference between 60hz and 120, even 60hz and 75. I have had people decide NOT to get a 120hz or 75hz panel because they feel in the day to day (typically web browsers) useage of their PC they don't feel like they'd notice and therefore don't want to pay extra for it, but they absolutely still noticed and felt the difference. Very big difference between "can't tell" and "not worth it to them"
Its aimed at professional users, the screen has a wide colour gamut with 99.7% DCI-P3 and 99.6% Adobe RGB coverage quoted.
That's no excuse, it's an OLED, pushing higher than 60Hz is not difficult, and being an OLED of course it has high DCI-P3 coverage, my 165Hz QD-OLED has over 99% coverage of it as well.
Well if it's actually $1.1K that puts it at the same price as the Alienware DWF, which is also 10% off right now with the code it gives making it $990. So unless you need every last drop of colour accuracy, or the triangle RGB subpixel layout is a deal breaker for you (doesn't bother me), you might as well get the DWF especially considering it has Dell's advanced exchange warranty (includes burn-in).
@Neo Cyrus No go it curved and to big for my desk. for that price i rather go the LG C2 42 and get rid of both my monitor and tv for one, but i dont really want want get rid of my monitor even if i mounted a 42" on the wall it to close for desk sitting. 27" oLED 120hz would be nice but 60hz is fine 1440p perferable 4k but i wont want pay such a price for 27" let alone 1440p the 42" C2 is there better deal Everything Monitor is Overpiced with out being oLED
