EIZO FlexScan EV4340X

[Inle]

The EIZO FlexScan EV4340X is a 42.5-inch 4K multitasking powerhouse. It's a monitor developed with ultimate productivity in mind, offering 4-source Picture-by-Picture functionality, an integrated KVM switch, a USB-C port with DisplayPort Alt Mode and 94 W Power Delivery, and several other features aimed toward professional use.

Show full review

 

[Timbaloo]

Phew... I was in complete shock when I read the 15W power delivery over USB-C until I realised the actual USB-C for USB-C DP alt mode has in fact 94W, which is a good value as expected.

Gigabit ethernet however is... okay I guess, for professional use where more than Gigabit is kinda rare (for clients)...

 

[MCJAxolotl7]

It's a huge monitor! What more can I say? I've owned flatscreen (Not CRT) TVs much smaller than this.

 

[_roman_]

It classifies more as a television with the huge panel, low refresh rate and remote control.

Do people really buy 60Hz screens for computers in 2025?

 

[D3m0n5]

Bad deal, I got the LG one for a way better price and most of the features https://www.lg.com/ca_en/monitors/uhd-4k-5k/43un700-b/

 

[Cheeseball]

It classifies more as a television with the huge panel, low refresh rate and remote control.

Do people really buy 60Hz screens for computers in 2025?

4-source Picture-by-Picture is the most useful feature of this big monitor. That means 4 separate 1080p screens.

Unfortunately there are no 120Hz+ monitors that have a controller than can support multiple active source inputs at the same time. The ultrawide Samsungs (49") can do 240Hz with a single source but gets cut down to 120Hz each side when using picture-by-picture mode and VRR/BFI is definitely disabled.

 

[Frick]

It classifies more as a television with the huge panel, low refresh rate and remote control.

Do people really buy 60Hz screens for computers in 2025?

High refresh monitors are incredibly niche.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

One would think that 120 hertz has been the standard for a few years. 120+ hertz are high refresh.

 

[Frick]

One would think that 120 hertz has been the standard for a few years. 120+ hertz are high refresh.

Grab 1000 people of the street and ask them about desktop monitor refresh rates.

 

[Timbaloo]

Grab 1000 people of the street and ask them about desktop monitor refresh rates.

We got new monitors at work. I told my collegues they could set them to 100Hz. They did not notice any difference and were surprised when I blind tested their setup and told them which were at 60Hz and which at 100Hz… so yeah

 

[_roman_]

We got new monitors at work. I told my collegues they could set them to 100Hz. They did not notice any difference and were surprised when I blind tested their setup and told them which were at 60Hz and which at 100Hz… so yeah

In my previous job many which I had to deal with saw the differences. Especially with the "good" "quality" "perfect" intel - dell laptops which could only drive one monitor with 60hz@1080p. Most of the people saw the 60Hz. dell xps 13 fresh out of the box - most high price garbage i ever had to deal with.

For some reason that freesync stuff with my pa278qv monitor claims to run at 45 fps when I game. That is totally acceptable for some reason.

The lower 60Hz Smartphone Frequency annoys me - I have to use the higher 120Hz Mode.

3 years ago I saw it kinda fast with mediocre hardware like dell xps13 and various screen and other hp microtowers with various screen. Those 60Hz I could see quite fast. Maybe the screen in question also influences the bad screen impression with 60hz.

Human does not equal Human. I think some can not hear some stuff, some can not see some stuff. That's a hard fact most likely. I can not give proof for that. Maybe there are people who can not see more than 55Hz at all.

 

[vacsati]

Even though it is marketed for "pro" users, 60hz ips for 2k usd is shame..

 

[Dr. Dro]

Nah, same problem of the other EIZO monitor reviewed recently. No matter how high-grade and accurate the panel is (entirely disregarding the "professional" label), it just doesn't have the chops for what they're asking on them, a 42-inch LG C5 OLED will put this to shame in every aspect at a far lower cost, and will handily beat this in the accuracy department, with higher gamut coverage and much better panel uniformity figures. If this purchase is meant to last 10 years, then you can just buy the far better OLED and replace it after 5 years with an even newer, better model that will be available at the time because it also costs half as much.

The only way anyone can convince me this is even remotely worth it with a "high reliability" argument is through a severe accelerated longevity test on it that would inflict the wear of 10 years' worth in less than 24 months. If it hasn't degraded in any way, then I might start considering being more accepting of it.