Tuesday, March 12th 2019

Philips Unveils the DisplayHDR 600-rated 326M6VJRMB Ultra HD Monitor

Philips today unveiled the 326M6VJRMB, a 31.5-inch 4K Ultra HD monitor certified by VESA to meet DisplayHDR 600 standards. Backed by an AMVA panel, the monitor puts out 10bpc or 1.07 billion colors, 178°/178° viewing-angles, 4 ms response time, and 3,000:1 static contrast ratio with 600 cd/m² maximum brightness. Two features let you care for your eyes - a blue-light reduction mode that makes the display less irritable to your eyes, and a flicker-free brightness adjustment, which uses a non-PWM method to reduce brightness of the LED backlighting. The monitor features RGB LED-based ambient lighting. You get plenty of inputs, including a DisplayPort 1.4, three HDMI 2.0, an analog audio line-in from your PC, and a USB 3.0 input to drive the 4-port USB 3.0 hub. In-built 5W stereo speakers make for the rest of it.
Add your own comment

18 Comments on Philips Unveils the DisplayHDR 600-rated 326M6VJRMB Ultra HD Monitor

#1
stimpy88
This looks great, then I found the 60Hz (40Hz-60Hz FreeSync) refresh rate... Damn, this was almost an instant buy for me.
Posted on Reply
#2
fynxer
Won't even touch a 60Hz screen with teen foot pole. 60Hz on a new screen with these specifications is just ridiculous.

"and people, don't even start with commenting that you don't need more than 60Hz, you do not now what you are talking about pure and simple."

The ABSOLUTE MINIMUM industry standard of today should be 75Hz for low end monitors and 100Hz for medium and 120Hz for high end monitors.

Extreme standard for gaming should have 144Hz and more. 240Hz is max today for consumers but 500Hz is not far off.

When CRT went out of fashion they where pushing 120Hz then when TFT took over we like went back to 60Hz for the next following 15 years. The TFT industry has been rotten to the core and several time reveled price fixing cartels, they have been holding back development to milk their old 60Hz technology and factorys like forever. FINALLY we have more actors pushing development to catch up, soon most gaming screen will be a minimum of 144Hz with most extreme modells going over 200Hz.
Posted on Reply
#3
Manoa
120 I will take :)
60 I will pass :)
200+ ? it the myau :)
Posted on Reply
#4
Mescalamba
fynxer said:
Won't even touch a 60Hz screen with teen foot pole. 60Hz on a new screen with these specifications is just ridiculous.

"and people, don't even start with commenting that you don't need more than 60Hz, you do not now what you are talking about pure and simple."

The ABSOLUTE MINIMUM industry standard of today should be 75Hz for low end monitors and 100Hz for medium and 120Hz for high end monitors.

Extreme standard for gaming should have 144Hz or more.

When CRT went out of fashion they where pushing 120Hz then when TFT took over we like went back to 60Hz for the next following 15 years. The TFT industry has been rotten to the core and several time reveled price fixing cartels, they have been holding back development to milk their old 60Hz technology and factorys like forever. FINALLY we have more actors pushing development to catch up, soon most gaming screen will be a minimum of 144Hz with most extreme modells going over 200Hz.
HDR will be limiting factor there. Its very hard to make really fast brightness changes which would still hold HDR rating. I think it will take quite a bit of time to have both high refresh speed and high HDR standard.

As for 60 Hz. Let me put it this way..

I have old Eizo (S-PVA) monitor, which obviously is 60 Hz.

Doesnt prevent me from obliterating most ppl in any FPS. Yes, more Hz would obviously allow me to be even better, but to be fair I dont think 60 Hz is that much limiting factor for most ppl. Also taking into account ridiculously low sync rates of most FPS (tick rate), it doesnt actually matter much. Ironically only game where I would want more Hz is LoL. :D
Posted on Reply
#5
stimpy88
Mescalamba said:
HDR will be limiting factor there. Its very hard to make really fast brightness changes which would still hold HDR rating. I think it will take quite a bit of time to have both high refresh speed and high HDR standard.

As for 60 Hz. Let me put it this way..

I have old Eizo (S-PVA) monitor, which obviously is 60 Hz.

Doesnt prevent me from obliterating most ppl in any FPS. Yes, more Hz would obviously allow me to be even better, but to be fair I dont think 60 Hz is that much limiting factor for most ppl. Also taking into account ridiculously low sync rates of most FPS (tick rate), it doesnt actually matter much. Ironically only game where I would want more Hz is LoL. :D
I don’t buy your HDR is hard to do excuse. Others, including years old HDTVs do it with no issues.

And your second point... Once you have used a 120Hz monitor, you simply cannot go back, not without realising how shit it is. Even the Windows UI, and browsing the Internet is a vastly superior experience, let alone how much better most gameplay is.

Hell, even my iPad Pro has made me realise how crap the 60Hz display on my phone is.
Posted on Reply
#6
fynxer
Mescalamba said:
HDR will be limiting factor there. Its very hard to make really fast brightness changes which would still hold HDR rating. I think it will take quite a bit of time to have both high refresh speed and high HDR standard.

As for 60 Hz. Let me put it this way..

I have old Eizo (S-PVA) monitor, which obviously is 60 Hz.

Doesnt prevent me from obliterating most ppl in any FPS. Yes, more Hz would obviously allow me to be even better, but to be fair I dont think 60 Hz is that much limiting factor for most ppl. Also taking into account ridiculously low sync rates of most FPS (tick rate), it doesnt actually matter much. Ironically only game where I would want more Hz is LoL. :D
I don't see a back light problem, if you are talking about Displayport 1.4 you should be able to get around 85Hz HDR content and 120Hz non HDR at 4K.

I am a hardcore gamer but also work lots with graphics mostly vector in CorelDraw and i cannot work with 60Hz. Once you have taken the stepp to higher Hz and worked with 100Hz+ smoothness you will not want to go back to twitchy 60Hz.

As for gaming, if i go under 100Hz i feel that something is wrong, get nauseous and uncomfortable while playing FPS games.

Sure, if you are used to 60Hz and know nothing else you can surely play ok with that BUT once you go 144Hz+ you will never ever go back to 60Hz.

Also a BIG PLUS, i do not get headaches anymore at 144Hz when playing longer sessions like i used to get with 60Hz monitors.

I trust ny brain and if it says high Hz monitors is best for me i am going with it.
Posted on Reply
#7
Mescalamba
fynxer said:
I don't see a back light problem, if you are talking about Displayport 1.4 you should be able to get around 85Hz HDR content and 120Hz non HDR at 4K.

I am a hardcore gamer but also work lots with graphics mostly vector in CorelDraw and i cannot work with 60Hz. Once you have taken the stepp to higher Hz and worked with 100Hz+ smoothness you will not want to go back to twitchy 60Hz.

As for gaming, if i go under 100Hz i feel that something is wrong, get nauseous and uncomfortable while playing FPS games.

Sure, if you are used to 60Hz and know nothing else you can surely play ok with that BUT once you go 144Hz+ you will never ever go back to 60Hz.

Also a BIG PLUS, i do not get headaches anymore at 144Hz when playing longer sessions like i used to get with 60Hz monitors.

I trust ny brain and if it says high Hz monitors is best for me i am going with it.
Hm, guess I have special 60 Hz, cause it never felt bad. I really didnt like low frew CRTs before (60 Hz on CRT is really horrible flicker show). But on LCD? They dont flicker.

stimpy88 said:
I don’t buy your HDR is hard to do excuse. Others, including years old HDTVs do it with no issues.

And your second point... Once you have used a 120Hz monitor, you simply cannot go back, not without realising how shit it is. Even the Windows UI, and browsing the Internet is a vastly superior experience, let alone how much better most gameplay is.

Hell, even my iPad Pro has made me realise how crap the 60Hz display on my phone is.
Kinda depends if those HDTVs can actually adhere to HDR 600 standard. Which I really doubt they can, especially if you consider that HDR 600 requires quite a bit bigger color space than sRGB. And most TVs probably dont get even sRGB, let alone larger one.

All that said, there are displays that do 4K and HDR and 144Hz. Just a little bit expensive.. :D

Another thing is, 4k at 144Hz and HDR.. with what graphic card? Tesla V? Cause thats probably only thing that can do that reliably.
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
stimpy88 said:
I don’t buy your HDR is hard to do excuse. Others, including years old HDTVs do it with no issues.
OLED TVs may be up to the task, but LCD (the backlight, actually) really isn't.
HDR on most TVs is crap anyway. FALD gives you less then 400 independently controllable brightness zones, everything else gives you 20 or less.
Posted on Reply
#9
B-Real
fynxer said:
Won't even touch a 60Hz screen with teen foot pole. 60Hz on a new screen with these specifications is just ridiculous.

"and people, don't even start with commenting that you don't need more than 60Hz, you do not now what you are talking about pure and simple."

The ABSOLUTE MINIMUM industry standard of today should be 75Hz for low end monitors and 100Hz for medium and 120Hz for high end monitors.

Extreme standard for gaming should have 144Hz and more. 240Hz is max today for consumers but 500Hz is not far off.

When CRT went out of fashion they where pushing 120Hz then when TFT took over we like went back to 60Hz for the next following 15 years. The TFT industry has been rotten to the core and several time reveled price fixing cartels, they have been holding back development to milk their old 60Hz technology and factorys like forever. FINALLY we have more actors pushing development to catch up, soon most gaming screen will be a minimum of 144Hz with most extreme modells going over 200Hz.
Why should it be 75 Hz when consoles usually get 30 fps only? People interested in 4K and HDR are interested in higher details, 75, or especially 144 or even more Hz monitor users are usually competitive gamers interested in higher refresh rates. Moreover 4K and even 75 Hz monitors are mutually exlusive as you can only get 75 fps by lowering detail level. Not to speak of 4K 144Hz monitors.
Posted on Reply
#10
Sabishii Hito
Someone is severely underestimating the difficulty with creating high resolution panels capable of high refresh rates. The Asus PG27UQ (27" UHD 144Hz) was announced back in January 2017 and it took until late 2018 for AUO to be able to produce enough panels to get to retail. The Asus PG35VQ and Acer 35x, both 3440x1440 VA panels at 200Hz refresh rate, were announced around the same time and still aren't available for purchase, likely due to AUO having issues with yields on the screens. And really, how many people at this point in time have the GPU power to push frames that high at those resolutions? Even an RTX 2080 ti isn't going to sustain much over 60Hz at UHD on newer games at High/Ultra settings.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
B-Real said:
Why should it be 75 Hz when consoles usually get 30 fps only? People interested in 4K and HDR are interested in higher details, 75, or especially 144 or even more Hz monitor users are usually competitive gamers interested in higher refresh rates. Moreover 4K and even 75 Hz monitors are mutually exlusive as you can only get 75 fps by lowering detail level. Not to speak of 4K 144Hz monitors.
I really don't know why people assume competitive FPS is the norm. Cause that's pretty much the only genre where high refresh can make a difference. Sure, we can talk about "smoothness" in many scenarios, but I'm pretty sure nobody plays CivVI better because they have a high refresh rate monitor.
So while high refresh is desirable, there's really no reason for people to act so surprised for each and every monitor release that doesn't include a high refresh panel.
Posted on Reply
#12
medi01
Sabishii Hito said:
Someone is severely underestimating the difficulty with creating high resolution panels capable of high refresh rates
Lower resolution then?

And, damn it, why can't we have 1/4's of OLED TV, for 1/4th of OLED TV price? Those are 120Hz and easily beat 600 nit requirement.
Posted on Reply
#13
bug
medi01 said:
And, damn it, why can't we have 1/4's of OLED TV, for 1/4th of OLED TV price?
Because price doesn't scale linearly with surface maybe?
medi01 said:
Those are 120Hz and easily beat 600 nit requirement.
Yeah, they beat that so easily DisplayHDR had to come up with separate certification levels for OLED.

And would so love to see you stare at a 600nit screen for half an hour if you think 600nits is a requirement.
Posted on Reply
#14
Mescalamba
I will add to competitive gaming just this..

You dont need or even want 4K for that. Or HDR. You actually do want 200Hz and FPS if possible, especially if game in question is CS. :D And probably couple others, provided tick rate is actually high enough, which definitely isnt in for example OW, you can easily play that at 100Hz and its already pretty much double of tick rate.

Long time ago, I was afraid that my low Hz monitor will be an issue for FPS, but behold.. servers became so bottlenecked by tickrate, that it actually didnt matter. Talking mostly about Battlefield series. Which also was host of another set of graphical issues, that it didnt actually matter what LCD you had, mostly it was just toss if your game will crash due memory leak or only get slideshow FPS, cause something again was broken in last patch. :D

HDR and 4K is nice for like Far Cry 5, but that hardly requires more than 60 FPS (or Hz).

Selling those 4K, HDR, 144Hz might be issue cause apart ppl that are literally made out of money, nobody needs that. Its cool, its sorta future proof and its also bloody expensive and kinda pointless.
Posted on Reply
#15
bug
@Mescalamba I agree with you, except that nobody needs all that. Sure, at current prices you have to pick and choose, but ideally I wouldn't mind a monitor that can handle both fast action and high resolution/HDR. Even if not in the same title.
Posted on Reply
#16
PrEzi
stimpy88 said:
This looks great, then I found the 60Hz (40Hz-60Hz FreeSync) refresh rate... Damn, this was almost an instant buy for me.
60 Hz? 40-60 FS? No FRC?
http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com

Pity... I have hoped it would be at least 40-75 so the FRC could kick-in.... insta-buy.... but now... it's meh.
Posted on Reply
#17
jabbadap
PrEzi said:
60 Hz? 40-60 FS? No FRC?
http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com

Pity... I have hoped it would be at least 40-75 so the FRC could kick-in.... insta-buy.... but now... it's meh.
!? It has 10bit panel so probably 8bit+FRC, or did you mean no LFC?
Posted on Reply
#18
medi01
bug said:
Because price doesn't scale linearly with surface maybe?
Yeah, except It is the other way round, bigger screen cots more than 4 times to make.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment