Philips 436M6VBPAB

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors faint interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions, particularly noticeable where light shades (muzzle flashes, explosions etc.) briefly pop up on the screen. These are sometimes referred to as ‘inversions artifacts’. Alternatively, static interlace patterns can be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade. We did not observe any such patterns, either dynamic or static, on this model. Be aware of the separate issues raised earlier in relation to subpixel illumination, however.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the 436M6VBPAB, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 6.09ms (a bit over 1/3rd of a frame at 60Hz) of input lag. This was the case on both our Nvidia and AMD GPU, via DP. Note that the ‘Low Input Lag’ setting is greyed out when DisplayPort is used to connect up the monitor, but we briefly tested via HDMI with this set to ‘On’ and input lag was similar to what we recorded above using DP. We didn’t observe any degradation in image quality or other issues with ‘Low Input Lag’ enabled vs. disabled.

Note that we have no way to accurately measure input lag in the variable refresh rate and frame range environment under which FreeSync would be active. It isn’t possible for us to accurately measure the input lag in an HDR environment, either, but the HDR setting selected in the OSD didn’t seem to affect things under SDR usage. Note that the input lag measured here is influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates quite a low signal delay, which shouldn’t bother most users even if they’re sensitive to input lag.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

In our article on responsiveness, we explore the key concepts related to monitor responsiveness. Chief amongst these is ‘perceived blur’, contributed to by the pixel responsiveness of the monitor but (generally more significantly) eye movement as you track motion on the screen. We discuss a photography method called ‘pursuit photography’, which uses a moving rather than static camera to capture snapshots of motion on a monitor in a way that reflects both of these key elements of perceived blur.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the test running at 960 pixels per second. This is a good practical speed for capturing such photographs, highlighting the elements of perceived blur nicely. The UFOs move across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. All background shade levels (dark, medium and light) were used with the monitor set to all its ‘SmartResponse’ pixel overdrive settings; ‘Off’, ‘Fast’, ‘Faster’ and ‘Fastest’. The final column includes some reference shots taken on two monitors, using the optimal pixel response time setting and 60Hz on each. There is a Dell S2417DG (medium cyan background), which uses a fast TN panel with very snappy pixel responses and shows how things look where pixel responsiveness isn’t really a limiting factor. And then there is a Samsung C34F791 (dark cyan background), which is one of the faster VA models out there for 60Hz and is a good benchmark to compare with.



In all cases, the object itself appears broad and blurry without sharp details. This is the same for even the Dell S2417DG (fast reference) and reflects a moderate amount of perceived blur attributable to eye movement. You can also see varying degrees of trailing behind the object, which are weaknesses related to pixel responsiveness. With ‘SmartResponse = Off’, there is a fairly bold but very short trail behind the object. Interestingly, the trail is only marginally longer for the dark background (top) compared to the others. The trail is significantly shorter than for the C34F791 reference, at least for the dark background depicted here, and in practice this means overall perceived blur is lower. Increasing the ‘SmartResponse’ setting introduces ever-increasing levels of overshoot to the image. Even with ‘Fast’ there are some bright trails that weren’t visible before, and some conventional trailing also remains. The overshoot becomes significantly stronger using ‘Faster’ and stronger again using ‘Fastest’. We were very happy with the monitor’s performance in this test using the default setting of ‘Off’ – which very clearly still uses effective pixel overdrive. This is easily the best performance we’ve seen from a VA panel here, particularly for the dark background. We found ‘Off’ to be optimal in broader testing, too, as even the ‘Fast’ setting introduced some obvious overshoot that either wasn’t there or wasn’t as obvious using ‘Off’.

Note that we will not be including a section on overclocking, as the monitor skipped frames when set much above 60Hz at its native resolution or indeed lower resolutions such as Full HD.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield 1 (BF1) there was a moderate degree of blur, caused predominantly by eye movement and linked to the 60Hz refresh rate. As with any VA model, there were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. Most of the pixel transitions were performed fast enough for optimal performance at 60Hz or introduced some light ‘powdery’ trailing on top. Nothing eye-catching and by far the more minor constituent of the perceived blur being observed. VA panels always struggle, to varying degrees, with pixel transitions involving dark shades. Such transitions are prevalent at night but also for dark/shaded areas during the daytime on this title. Usually there will be a pronounced ‘smeary’ trailing or what we dub ‘break-up’ trailing. The ‘smeary’ trailing is a more extended version of the trailing you’d usually see, running far back behind the object and sometimes appearing like a fine powder or in the worse cases like smoke. ‘Break-up’ trailing is where some shades contained within the very dark areas (like purples and reddish-browns) that aren’t readily visible when the scene is static leach out as if you’re wetting fountain pen ink on a page. This can be quite colourful and eye-catching and is generally ‘smeary’ in its appearance.

As with our ‘Test UFO’ testing earlier, it was clear that this model employs very effective pixel overdrive and seems rather unlike your usual VA panel. We did not observe any obvious ‘smeary’ trailing nor any obvious ‘break-up’ trailing, even during transitions we know usually highlight such weaknesses. In their place during these transitions, however, there was a degree of overshoot. Not an extreme amount, by any means, but some – as the monitor was having to use strong levels of acceleration to speed up those natively sluggish transitions. Sometimes you could see a slight purple or green ‘glow’, a bit like ‘break-up’ trailing but more compact and somewhat brighter. There was also some bright ‘halo’ trailing in places. We did not find this overshoot to be extreme or particularly eye-catching and feel that users would generally find it more tolerable than the ‘smeary’ trailing that might replace it. Individual sensitivity to this varies. The overall level of perceived blur was kept at levels which were largely in line with the best 60Hz performers, so users who usually feel motion sickness from VA models may be fine with this one. The section of the video review below highlights these weaknesses.

Our observations on Dirt Rally were similar. The monitor was again rather unlike your typical VA model, performing its pixel transitions quite rapidly. There was a bit of trailing in places that slightly increased perceived blur, but nothing extreme. Where dark shades were involved, and your typical VA model would typically provide more obvious and sometimes colourful ‘smeary’ trailing, this model instead gave some overshoot. When driving at night, for example, you could see a slight glowing fringe around dark hilltops as you moved past them, with night sky in the background. We didn’t find this particularly eye-catching when we were just concentrating on playing the game and found it less obtrusive than the usual ‘break-up’ trailing you’d typically see in such scenarios. Note that individual sensitivity to this sort of thing varies. Whilst not perfect in its pixel response performance, we’d say that most users would find this to be a very capable 60Hz monitor for gaming on both the PC and console. Without the sort of stand-out weaknesses you’d expect from a VA model.

To round off, we also tested our Blu-ray test titles. We did not observe any clear weaknesses here attributable to pixel responsiveness on the monitor. These titles run at around 24fps, which greatly limits their fluidity and the pixel responsiveness requirements for optimal performance. Note that higher frame rate movie content (e.g. 60fps) exposes similar weaknesses to our game testing. Again, nothing that really stood out in an obvious and obtrusive way in our opinion.

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. The monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU, where possible. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Club3D Radeon R9 290 royalAce used in our test system. There is a list of GPUs which support the technology here, with the expectation that future AMD GPUs will support the feature too. The monitor itself must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The 436M6VBPAB supports FreeSync via DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 on compatible GPUs and systems. If fully installed, AMD drivers feature Radeon Settings, which makes activation of the technology very simple and something that usually occurs automatically. To make sure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Settings’ and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider, ‘AMD FreeSync’, is set to ‘On’. If you hover over this, it will also report the variable refresh rate display supported by the display. Note that the image below is for a different monitor and is just used as an example here.



The Philips supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 60Hz. That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 60fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 60fps, the monitor will stay at 60Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 60fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >60fps). LFC (Low Frame Rate Compensation) is not supported by this monitor, as that requires the upper limit (ceiling) to be at least 2x the lower limit (floor) of FreeSync operation. FreeSync is therefore deactivated if the frame rate falls below 48fps, with the monitor then respecting your choice of VSync and presenting you with either stuttering (VSync on) or juddering and tearing (VSync off).

VSync is configured in the ‘Gaming’ section of ‘Radeon Settings’, where it is referred to as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. You can either configure this globally under ‘Global Settings’ or for each game individually. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. The fourth and final option, ‘Enhanced Sync’, is a relatively new addition to the driver. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature than a monitor feature.



Note that if you enter the OSD and navigate to ‘System’ – ‘Information’, the refresh rate will update in near enough real-time to reflect changes in the frame rate if FreeSync is active and things are within the FreeSync window of operation. Also note that FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory.

FreeSync – the experience

We tested a range of games on this monitor with FreeSync active and found the experience much the same on all of these, as you might expect. We’ll therefore be focusing simply on one title; Battlefield 1 (BF1). Even with graphics settings set quite low, it was common to observe some dips in frame rate below 60fps on this title using our Radeon R9 290. With FreeSync disabled, even with the frame rate falling just slightly so it remains in the high 50fps region, we noticed jarring stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). Individual sensitivity to such things varies, but we find these sorts of things very obvious at these sorts of frame rate. With FreeSync enabled, things flowed much better and these slight dips were pretty much unnoticeable. As the frame rate dropped a bit more, closer to 50fps, we noticed extra perceived blur and a worse ‘connected feel’ compared to 60fps. This wasn’t a massive difference, though, and we still found FreeSync greatly beneficial in such scenarios.

With the FreeSync range being so limited, there wasn’t really scope much beyond that. Especially if we increased the detail settings a little, we’d commonly see dips below the 48fps (48Hz) floor of operation for FreeSync on this monitor. And things would return to their usual stuttery or tearing self. It would certainly have been nice to have seen a more generous FreeSync range on this monitor, although the technology still wouldn’t be able to account for lower frame rates being lower frame rates. And the significant drop off in ‘connected feel’ and increased perceived blur associated with the drop. With the restrictive FreeSync window and inevitability of drops below that came with any real increase in detail settings, we were generally happier gaming at this resolution on our more powerful Nvidia GPU. And just adjusting the graphics settings so that 60fps was more or less constant. Again, individual sensitivity to tearing, stuttering and decreased frame rate varies. It’s also worth saying that a broader FreeSync window and LFC being supported can be nice for movie content as well. For example, 30fps or even 24fps content can run at the correct frame rate or a multiple of it if a FreeSync monitor supports LFC. This reduces juddering, which some users appreciate, even if the fluidity remains limited by the low frame rate.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

On a monitor, HDR (High Dynamic Range) requires the simultaneous display of very deep dark shades and very bright light shades. It is also necessary for a display to be able to display a large variety of shades in between, from weakly saturated to very heavily saturated shades. Ideally, the monitor would be able to control the illumination of each pixel individually OLED technology, for example). This would allow the most intricate mixtures of bright and dark to be displayed with exceptional contrast. Failing that, the use of many dimming zones (ideally hundreds, if not more) on the backlight is desirable – something referred to as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming). This does not allow the same precision and intricate contrast presentation as per-pixel illumination, but gives greater control over illumination than where fewer or zero dimming zones are used. For colour reproduction, it is desirable for a monitor to offer a gamut of >90% DCI-P3 (a Digital Cinema Initiatives standard colour space). This is the near-term target, with the ultimate goal of complete coverage of an even wider colour gamut; Rec. 2020. Finally, it is desirable if the display offers (at least) 10-bits per channel for colour processing, giving the precision required to appropriately map shades for HDR content.

For most games and other full screen applications that support HDR, the Philips 436M6VBPAB will automatically switch into its HDR mode when the appropriate setting is selected in the game or application itself. Provided that you have one of the ‘HDR’ modes selected in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD; ‘Normal’, ‘VESA HDR 1000’ or ‘UHDA’. As usual for a monitor, it is specifically the ‘HDR10’ pipeline that is supported. With the Windows 10 ‘Creator’s update’, Microsoft added a feature called ‘HDR and advanced colour’. This is referred to as ‘HDR and WCG’ (meaning Wide Colour Gamut) in some versions of Windows 10. There are some game titles will only run in HDR once this setting is activated in Windows. And if you wish to view HDR movies in a compatible web browser, for example, you would need to activate this setting as well. It will make the desktop itself look flooded and washed out so should only really be activated when it’s specifically needed. You can find this setting in ‘Display settings’ (right click on the desktop) as shown in the image below.

We’ve used a fairly broad range of monitors touting varying degrees of HDR capability – and some have clearly been better than others. On paper some ticks many boxes, some tick relatively few boxes and some barely support it at all. And use HDR as a mere marketing buzzword. We’ve also used a range of titles to test these monitors and some HDR implementations vary from title to title, with some being better than others. We tested a range of HDR titles on this monitor, but as usual found that Battlefield 1 (BF1) and Hitman offer a good HDR experience that really puts the onus on the monitor itself to perform well. They’re also titles we’ve used on many monitors in both HDR and SDR, giving us a good point of reference. We will therefore be focusing on these two PC titles for our observations in this section. You can also expect a similar experience when watching HDR movie content via DP – indeed we checked out some HDR movies and this was the case. As mentioned earlier, we used an Nvidia GTX 1070 for this section connected via DP. HDR on this monitor is not tied to any particular GPU vendor, the only requirement is that the GPU supports HDR. However; HDR did not look as it should via HDMI on this monitor when we tested on our Nvidia GPU. Things appeared completely flooded and washed out, with poor contrast and gamma issues. We’ve received confirmation from users of HDR-capable games consoles (refer to this post, for example) that things look equally poor for HDR content via HDMI on those systems. However; feedback from more recent units seems to suggest that HDR works properly via HDMI on both PCs and consoles, so the issue may have been addressed by Philips.

The Philips ticks a lot of boxes for HDR and is the first monitor to receive VESA DisplayHDR 1000 certification. It is also UHDA (Ultra High Definition Alliance) certified – which covers two of the HDR modes that the monitor has in its OSD. One aspect that’s important for a compelling HDR performance is colour gamut, which as we’ve mentioned previously should be at least 90% DCI-P3 in the near term. The Philips has an impressive specified DCI-P3 coverage of 97.6% which comfortably exceeds the 90% desired minimum. As per our measurements earlier on in the review we can confirm that this sort of colour gamut is readily achieved by the monitor. Because game developers currently have DCI-P3 in mind when creating HDR content rather than sRGB, you’ll notice some shades appearing somewhat less saturated under HDR than SDR. That is fully intended and is because the shades are being mapped more accurately to the wider colour gamut rather than simply being stretched far beyond their intended sRGB coordinates. In Hitman, for example, we found some of the (slightly too) vibrant greens were muted just a bit. But still lush and lifelike in their appearance. Skin tones also appeared more neutral, with the red hue toned down a bit. On BF1 we noticed a toning down of various green and brown tones as well – things looked more natural but still appropriately vivid. There were some bursts of impressive vibrancy in both titles, too, for example the reds, yellows and oranges of flames and fireworks lighting up the night sky. This was the case regardless of the HDR mode selected in the OSD. It is up to the game developers how vibrant they want shades to appear, and with the DCI-P3 gamut they have a larger gamut to play around with than for their constrained sRGB SDR content. The gamut of the monitor under our ‘Test Settings’ is shown below (red triangle). The sRGB colour space is shown as a green triangle and Adobe RGB colour space as a purple triangle – unfortunately our software doesn’t map the DCI-P3 gamut for comparison. But it would be close to the monitor’s gamut in this representation.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

Another important area of HDR is contrast. The ideal HDR display can simultaneously display very brilliant bright shades and very deep dark shades, with strong distinctions in between. This requires per-pixel illumination, ideally, or failing that a good number of dimming zones for the backlight. This monitor has its backlight split into 32 independently controllable dimming zones. You can see the advantage of this vs. having the backlight dim as one by referring to the contrast section. In our contrast testing, the monitor was able to have the backlight zones covering the central region very bright for the central square. Whilst having the remaining zones much dimmer, for the black background. This significantly enhanced the contrast. If you look carefully at our test methodology, the values we recorded and the VESA DisplayHDR 1000 criteria, you’ll note that the monitor should provide 0.05 cd/m² for the black point in the corner of the screen whilst it is outputting its maximum luminance (of at least 1000 cd/m²) centrally. We used a more stringent measurement from the area to the right of the bright central patch. Because the central luminance was so extreme, this area was affected by a ‘halo’ of light that brought up the black level to 0.15 cd/m² where we measured. 3 times as high as the 0.05 cd/m² corner measurement demanded. We measured 0.03 cd/m² in the same spot if the ‘Normal’ HDR setting was used instead, which limits the brightness of the bright central test patch to (a still very bright) 521 cd/m².

Measuring in this way is a bit more representative of what you can expect in the ‘real world’, we feel. Although it is still just a measurement of ‘white’ and then some distance away ‘black’, so it clearly doesn’t tell the whole story. And indeed, this was reflected and some gaps filled with our gaming experiences. On both BF1 and Hitman (and various undocumented additional testing), if the monitor was set to either ‘VESA HDR 1000’ or ‘UHDA’ the monitor provided exceptional luminance for bright shades. Observing bright muzzle flashes, sparks, flames, fireworks and the moon in the sky provided a brilliance that simply isn’t provided under SDR. We found this marginally uncomfortable in a dark room, although not worryingly so – and just fine in a properly lit environment. The darker shades surrounding these elements didn’t really have the depth we’d like. They didn’t look completely flooded, which is down in large part to the strong native contrast performance of the VA panel. But the black point was clearly raised beyond what is ideal, so there was a distinct lack of depth. We found setting the HDR setting to ‘Normal’ was preferable. This maintained a pleasing depth to dark areas and still had brilliant bursts of brightness – in other words, delivering the sort of experience you should expect from HDR. Although the bright shades had obvious brilliance, they did not cause obtrusive ‘halos’ that leached out far across the screen and affected black depth in areas of the image covered by (potentially distant) neighbouring dimming zones. The lack of pronounced ‘halo effect’ in general was rather impressive in this more constrained HDR setting, and better in many respects than the 384 dimming zone IPS implementations we’ve used. With their inferior light blocking capabilities, even with many more dimming zones, IPS-type models struggle to convincingly mix together very bright and dark shades (see ASUS PA32UC HDR section). With the Philips, there’s less of a disconnect between ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ elements, with mixed but predominantly dark content having good depth and structural detail even if it is quite close to significantly brighter shades. The higher native contrast, superior light blocking capabilities and excellent strong black depth really come into their own, even though a mere 32 dimming zones were used rather than 384. Furthermore, there is no danger of ‘IPS glow’ creeping in if bright and dark shades intertwine near the periphery of the screen.

So; the mixture of ‘light’ and ‘dark’ was impressive overall – especially if your character was standing in a dimly lit environment looking out at a bright light source. For example, standing in an unlit building at night peering at a bright candle on a table outside. But it is also important to consider shades between those extremes and more intricate mixtures of light and dark shades. The image above is an example of a scene that highlights the advantages of HDR on the monitor nicely, beyond just extreme light and dark. The image is only used as an illustration and in no way shows how things looked when viewing the content first-hand on the monitor – that is, after all, clearly impossible. The backlight control helped make the moon appear very impressive and eye-catching – and the same for the glint from the moon on the weapon. This had a life-like quality to it that really did add to the immersion in this scene. The dark shadowy rocks appeared relatively deep. But the precision under HDR allowed some much clearer distinctions to be visible. The moon was not just a single bright object (as it appears in the image) but had a structure to it with many different white, off-white and bluish grey shades. Likewise, the rocks did not just appear ‘dark and shadowy’ with very limited detail as they do under SDR. They had more distinctive structures. Again, the backlight control at appropriate levels is important to bring these details out without things looking ‘flat’. But the monitor is also able to map things with excellent precision under HDR, as HDR10 makes appropriate use of its 10-bits per subpixel capability. We also found medium shades were represented better than we’ve seen on some HDR models, as daytime maps appeared nice and bright in an appropriate way. Rather than appearing either flooded/washed out or overly dim.

It’s fair to say that the HDR experience was the most impressive we’ve come across on a monitor, at least using the ‘Normal’ HDR setting. It would have been nice if the dark areas could have been maintained in a deep and atmospheric way using the ‘VESA HDR 1000’ and ‘UHDA’ modes (which, by the way, appeared largely similar in how they represented things). That would’ve added extra contrast and extra ‘wow’ to the bright elements – although we still felt they stood out nicely in the more constrained setting. It would also have been nice to have many more dimming zones, or ideally per-pixel illumination. This would allow more intricate mixtures of bright and dark shade to be displayed in a more appropriate and lifelike way. Coming back to the image above, for example, there are some very dark shades on the gun and some shadowy rocky areas that could’ve done with extra depth. That would really have made the bright elements stand out with great ‘pop’ and add definition and structure to these elements. It could help add even more intensity to the already good ‘dark atmosphere’ for dark scenes, especially for viewers who like to experience HDR in a dark room. But as a reviewer, it would be surprising if we came across a “perfect HDR” solution this early on in the timeline of HDR displays. And perhaps a bit boring – we need something to look forward to!

The ~43″ ‘4K’ UHD experience

We’ve explored the 3840 x 2160 ‘4K’ UHD resolution on screens of various sizes, including ~27” screens in our dedicated article on the topic. We find this distinct ‘UHD look’ to the image, in terms of detail and clarity, is largely preserved on ~32” UHD screens with a pixel density of ~139.87 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). With its 42.51” UHD screen, the 436M6VBPAB has a pixel density of 103.64 PPI. This is significantly lower, but still decent – not far off the pixel density of a 27” 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) screen. So whilst it doesn’t give the same clarity and detail as significantly smaller UHD screens, the detail level provided is still good. Especially when the glossy screen is taken into account. You also have the pixel-rich 3840 x 2160 at your disposal, giving you a great deal of desktop real-estate to work with. Because the pixel density isn’t extreme, either, many users will find content very comfortable to read without using any scaling or application-specific zoom. The photos below give an idea of the work space provided on this screen. They show a desktop, some multi-tasking (web browser and word processor) and an Excel spreadsheet, respectively.

As noted earlier, the pixel density is just shy of a 27” WQHD (2560 x 1440) model. And therefore the level of detail when gaming or viewing images is very similar. Having the image spread out over such a vast area certainly changes the experience, however. We initially found the size of the screen quite overwhelming, even coming from a 27” 16:9 screen beforehand – so not exactly tiny. We soon adapted to the larger screen, though, and found it perfectly fine to use on a range of tasks. On the desktop, watching movies and playing games. Even from a viewing distance of 80cm, which is a bit further than we’d generally sit from smaller monitors, it engaged the peripheral vision very well. This provided an excellent level of immersion, drawing us into the gaming world. It also made it easier to admire some of the decent texture detail that was brought about by the pixel density. Again, this was not at the level of smaller UHD screens – but was still good. The images below show a variety of games being played on the monitor; Battlefield 1, Battlefront II and Hitman. They in no way represent what the monitor looks like when viewing it first-hand and are simply there to fire up your imagination.

Interpolation and upscaling

The 3840 x 2160 (‘4K’ UHD) resolution is graphically demanding, requiring a great deal of GPU power to run properly. Some systems, including many games consoles or Blu-ray player, will not support output at a resolution this high anyway. It may therefore be tempting or indeed necessary to run the monitor at a lower resolution, such as 1920 x 1080 (‘1080p’ or Full HD). The monitor has some scaling settings in the ‘SmartSize’ menu of its OSD which is available when the monitor is connected via HDMI. These are explored in the OSD video earlier in the review. There is a 1:1 pixel mapping feature included there, which will use only the pixels called for by the source resolution, with the remaining pixels forming a black border around the image. The default setting, regardless of connection, is for the monitor to use an interpolation process to map the source resolution to use all 3840 x 2160 of its pixels. Unless the GPU takes over the scaling duties, that is. For AMD GPU users the monitor will handle the scaling by default, when gaming at non-native resolutions. Nvidia users should open the Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. They should ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown below.

The monitor’s interpolation process is very effective and is able to output 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) with minimal softening compared to running the resolution natively on a monitor of similar size. 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) is more difficult to assess as you don’t get ~43” screens of this resolution, but from our assessment it appeared to handle this resolution well. There was some extra clarity and detail compared to Full HD and no obvious softening of over-sharpening. This proved a useful stopgap between Full HD and UHD, with clarity and detail levels as well as GPU horsepower requirements some way between the two. Also note that users have access to the ‘Sharpness’ slider in the OSD and can fine-tune according to preferences if they prefer a softer or over-sharpened look instead.

As usual, If you’re running the monitor at 3840 x 2160 and viewing lower resolution content (for example a video over the internet or a Blu-ray, using movie software), then it is the GPU and software that handles the upscaling. That’s got nothing to do with the monitor itself – there is a little bit of softening to the image compared to viewing such content on a native monitor of that resolution, but it’s not extreme and shouldn’t bother most users.

Video review

The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action. The video review is designed to complement the written piece and is not nearly as comprehensive.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
Responsiveness

Conclusion

We’ve used a considerable number of monitors with the ‘4K’ UHD resolution, with a good variety of screen sizes. With a screen just shy of 43”, the Philips 436M6VBPAB is at the upper end of what we’ve tested. Whilst the pixel density isn’t as tight as smaller UHD models and you don’t get quite the same clarity and detail, it’s still decent. And coupled with the considerable desktop real-estate and huge physical screen size, it gives exactly the sort of practical and immersive experience some users are after. This certainly isn’t a monitor you’ll want to sit too close to. Not only because it would be ergonomically unsound, but because we identified some ‘interesting’ subpixel illumination issues. These issues affected the crispness of text and ‘solidness’ of various shades, by causing a slight fringe and woven appearance. From what many would consider a sensible viewing distance for a screen of this size (80cm), we found these issues far less obvious and much beyond that everything just blended together nicely so the issues were not visible at all. It’s also fair to say, as we spent more time with the monitor and stopped focusing on this issue, it stopped jumping out at us even when we were sitting closer to the screen.

Another intricacy of this screen is its glossy screen surface. That demands more careful control of room lighting to avoid unwanted reflections. That isn’t to say you need to sit in a dark room – that’s unpleasant to many non-cave-dwelling specimens – but you need to make sure the room’s not too bright and where possible that lights aren’t striking the screen area directly. Once you’ve got the screen seated in an appropriately lit room and you’re sitting a decent distance from it, there’s plenty to enjoy. The glossy screen surface brings a crispness, clarity and ‘wet look’ to the image that really makes it ‘pop’. This is especially true when combined with its strong contrast; we measured values exceeding the already pleasing 4000:1 specified for this model. The monitor didn’t have any particular issues with ‘VA glow’ (and, obviously, no ‘IPS glow’) and overall gave a very convincing contrast performance with quite inky-looking dark shades. There was a moderate degree of ‘black crush’, related to the gamma behaviour of the VA panel and perceived gamma changes related to viewing position. Bright shades stood out very nicely against darker backgrounds, with the screen surface keeping such elements crisp and clear. There was a very mild graininess from the slight anti-glare surface applied to cut down on reflections slightly, but to most eyes this will be unobtrusive if even noticeable at all.

The monitor also outputted a pleasing palette of punchy colours. The colour gamut was very generous, coming close to DCI-P3 and lifting the vibrancy and saturation of standard ‘sRGB’ content in a way many users will appreciate. Without crushing shades or introducing a gaudy or ‘cartoonish’ look. There were some inconsistencies in colour, with some saturation losses towards the bottom and side edges of the screen. These always appear to some degree on VA panels, especially ones as large as this. The monitor also put in a very competent HDR performance, which accentuated its strengths in contrast and helped games and other HDR content make better use of its colour gamut. Being capable of outputting (over) 1000 cd/m² looks very impressive on paper, as does being the first monitor on the market with VESA DisplayHDR 1000 certification. In practice, the extreme brightness was noticeable. But even with a 32-dimming zone backlight solution, there was an undesirable leaching out of light into areas of the image that should be kept much darker than they were. Fortunately, there was a more moderate HDR setting that gave less extreme but still very impressive luminance output of around half that. Plenty to make bright elements stand out with eye-catching brilliance, whilst at the same time keeping the depth and atmosphere required in dark areas. The upshot of this; easily the most impressive HDR performance we’ve come across yet on a monitor. Even more impressive than the ASUS PA32UC and its 384-dimming zone solution. Which, don’t get us wrong, was impressive in some respects. It’s just that VA panels are much better at blocking light and can deal with mixed very bright and very dim content better. The holy grail for HDR, of course, would be per-pixel illumination – but we’re not there yet.

After our experiences with the BDM4037UW, we had a bit of a nervous sweat when it came to testing the responsiveness of this monitor. Fortunately, our fears melted away when we saw this thing in motion (so to speak). The obvious smeary trails and extreme break-up trailing was a distant memory. There were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, but they gave no more than a slight powdery trail in places. This thing was distinctly ‘un VA-like’ in many respects. There was evidence of strong and highly effective pixel overdrive being employed as there was some overshoot, even with ‘SmartResponse’ (inappropriate naming) set to ‘Off’. But we didn’t find this particularly strong or eye-catching and believe most users will find this entirely tolerable. And preferable to the usual smeary trailing that most VA models present. The monitor also provided little input lag, with quite a low signal delay that even sensitive users should find just fine. It’s still limited to 60Hz, which doesn’t give the same fluidity as higher refresh rate and frame rate combinations, however. The monitor also supported AMD FreeSync and that worked as we expected to combat tearing and stuttering. But with a 48 – 60Hz range, it’s very limited and more of a token bonus feature than anything.

So there’s a lot to like about this 43” Momentum model, especially with the fairly keen price that Philips are targeting it at. The vibrant colour output and strong contrast under both SDR and HDR (via DP) will be very appealing to some. As will the relatively good pixel responsiveness for the panel type. The subpixel-related issues certainly aren’t ideal, but this can be overcome by a suitable (and not necessarily extreme) viewing distance. And given the marketing of this product as a console gaming monitor, viewing from some distance seemed to fit. Following publication of the review, we received confirmation that the monitor does not behave properly under HDR on games consoles, confirming observations we made on the PC via HDMI as well. However; feedback from more recent 436M6VBPABs seems to suggest that HDR works properly via HDMI on both PCs and consoles, so the issue may have now been addressed by Philips.

The bottom line; a feature-packed monitor with strong contrast, vibrant colour output and convincing PC HDR – just make sure you’ve got a big enough desk.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.