Tuesday, March 12th 2019

Philips Launches the 252B9 Monitor - 25", 16:10, 1920 x 1200, IPS

Philips is launching the all-new Philips 252B9 B-Line LCD monitor with PowerSensor. This 25" (63.4 cm), 16:10, WUXGA (1920 x 1200) 3-sided frameless monitor brings together high-performance features to enhance productivity, sustainable design to lower energy costs.

The Philips 252B9 is a champion of sustainability. Its unique PowerSensor can detect human presence using harmless infrared signals, in order to automatically reduce screen brightness when the user is absent. The result is a reduction up to 80% in energy consumption as well as extended monitor life. In addition, the Philips 252B9 is equipped with a zero-watt hard switch, which entirely cuts off the monitor from AC power, putting an immediate end to latent energy consumption when the monitor is not in use. Compliant with such energy standards as EnergyStar 7.0, EPEAT, WEEE, and RoHS, the monitor features 85% post-consumer recycled plastic and 100% recyclable packaging material to further reduce its carbon footprint.
Users of the Philips 252B9 are given the advantage of numerous innovative features to improve productivity and ensure optimal comfort. The SmartErgoBase enables users to lift, lower, tilt, rotate, and swivel the screen to the precise height and angle that best suit their needs, easing the physical strain of long work hours. An integrated VESA pattern offers the added flexibility of mounting the monitor using hundreds of compatible solutions.
The Philips 252B9 also offers multiple comfort-enhancing technologies for visualization such as Flicker-Free, LowBlue mode for greater wellbeing, and EasyRead mode for an enjoyable paper-like reading experience. Two built-in speakers as well as multiple connectors for VGA, DVI-D, DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 1.4 complete this powerful, forward-thinking monitor. Sources: Philips, via Guru3D
Add your own comment

20 Comments on Philips Launches the 252B9 Monitor - 25", 16:10, 1920 x 1200, IPS

#2
xorbe
Tasteful monitor.
Posted on Reply
#4
king of swag187
Durvelle27 said:
If it was 120Hz I’d buy it
I'd buy it in a heartbeat, but alas....

There are some old 3DVision 1200P/1050P 16:10 monitors floating around, but they're expensive as balls
Posted on Reply
#5
MrAMD
1920x1200... Haven't seen that in awhile. 16:10 is welcome to come back.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vayra86
MrAMD said:
1920x1200... Haven't seen that in awhile. 16:10 is welcome to come back.
With Ultrawide, 16:10, curved and flex displays out in the wild now I think we will see more exotic panel sizes in the near future. It looks like the manufacturers have a pretty cost effective way to push a number of different panel sizes out now, as opposed to that eternal load of 16:9 24/27 inch we've seen for so long. They woke up and noticed there is a market here.

Progress... but still using inferior tech for 99% of all products, sadly, each with its notable drawbacks (IPS/VA/TN).
Posted on Reply
#7
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I really want a 2560x1600, 144 Hz, FreeSync 2 display for a reasonable price. Even if it could only manage 120 Hz, I'd seriously consider it.

I really don't want to go from 8:5 to 16:9. 16:9 is too squatty--meant for films on 60"+ screens, not computer operation.


Vayra86 said:
With Ultrawide, 16:10, curved and flex displays out in the wild now I think we will see more exotic panel sizes in the near future. It looks like the manufacturers have a pretty cost effective way to push a number of different panel sizes out now, as opposed to that eternal load of 16:9 24/27 inch we've seen for so long. They woke up and noticed there is a market here.

Progress... but still using inferior tech for 99% of all products, sadly, each with its notable drawbacks (IPS/VA/TN).
8:5 is not "exotic." It is VESA standard established with DVI.

Virtually all 8:5 monitors sold today are targeting business offices--higher productivity.
Posted on Reply
#8
Joss
Vayra86 said:
It looks like the manufacturers have a pretty cost effective way to push a number of different panel sizes out now
Hear, hear.

FordGT90Concept said:
I really want a 2560x1600, 144 Hz
Same here.
Posted on Reply
#9
lexluthermiester
Vayra86 said:
Progress... but still using inferior tech for 99% of all products, sadly, each with its notable drawbacks (IPS/VA/TN).
No display is perfect. One has to choose what's important to them.
FordGT90Concept said:
I really want a 2560x1600, 144 Hz, FreeSync 2 display for a reasonable price.
I'll join that centiment! 24" and 27". Oh yeah.
Posted on Reply
#10
Vayra86
FordGT90Concept said:

Virtually all 8:5 monitors sold today are targeting business offices--higher productivity.
Of course, I mean the target market is shifting.
Posted on Reply
#11
John Naylor
I loved 1920 x 1200 as could play on a 1080p window and have that extra 120 pixels at the bottom for easy access to utilities, web etc. But if it doesn't check all the boxes ,,, I'm not buying

a) AU Optonics IPS 10 bit panel.
b) 144 Hz or bettah
c) Motion Blur Option
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
1999 is here claiming its monitor back :D:D:laugh::laugh::laugh::rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#13
lexluthermiester
Prima.Vera said:
1999 is here claiming its monitor back :D:D:laugh::laugh::laugh::rolleyes:
Monitors in 1999 were all CRT based 4:3 aspect ratio. You're thinking of 2008ish when 16:10 was all the rage.
Posted on Reply
#14
Fx
Yep, I also love my 16:10 monitors and have been using them since around 2008, but I have every intention of upgrading from 60Hz to >120 for the first time ever. It also must remain IPS.
Posted on Reply
#15
lexluthermiester
Fx said:
ep, I also love my 16:10 monitors and have been using them since around 2008, but I have every intention of upgrading from 60Hz to >120 for the first time ever. It also must remain IPS.
I agree and miss the extra vertical screen real-estate. 16:10 is the perfect balance between widescreen aspect and vertical screen space. I've tried using the ultra wide screens that are available, but can't stand them. Of course that's just a personal preference coming from my computing habits and methodologies.
Posted on Reply
#16
Joss
lexluthermiester said:
Of course that's just a personal preference
Maybe it's more than that.
16:10 (8:5) is an aspect ratio mostly used for computer displays and tablet computers. The width of the display is 1.6 times its height. This ratio is close to the golden ratio which is approximately 1.618.
Some twentieth-century artists and architects, including Le Corbusier and Salvador Dalí, have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio—especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio—believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing.
Posted on Reply
#17
xorbe
2560x1600? I'd rather have 3840x2400! I believe there have been some medical 5120x5120 screens iirc, insanely priced of course.
Posted on Reply
#19
Joss
looking at the pics with more attention, that 16:10 looks more like a 16:9
What do you guys think?
Posted on Reply
#20
xorbe
Joss said:
looking at the pics with more attention, that 16:10 looks more like a 16:9
What do you guys think?
Indeed, the head-on shot is 664x373 pixels, or 16:9. That's pretty far from 664x415 (16:10) so it's not a measurement error. Seems like Philips took a 16:9 image and simply squished it to 16:10! Everyone else just grabbed the raw image. Here's a screenshot of the Philips site which is actually 16:10. But if you 'view image' it's 16:9 ...

Posted on Reply
Add your own comment