Why are 40/43 inch 4k monitors cheaper than 32?

jon-

jon-

jon-

Associate
Joined
30 Aug 2010
Posts
176
Location
North London
Sorry for the slightly noob question, but I've googled a lot with no result and this seems the best place to ask.

I'm looking to replace my 32 inch IPS Samsung Ultra HD 32D850D display and I'm confused as to why are 4x inch monitors are cheaper than 32.

Examples

40" Philips bdm4037uw - Curved VA panel - £579
43" LG 43ud79-b - IPS freeync - £659
43" Dell P4317Q - £776

All are 60htz @ 4k.

32" Dell UP3216Q - 60htz - £1142
32" LG 32UD99-W - 60htz - £959.99
32" 76 htz IPS Asus PA328Q - £1041

I'm super tempted by the Philips bdm4037uw, but at that price I'm worried it'll give me eye aids. I know VA ghost a little and have poor viewing angles, but I only really play rocket league on playstation and will only use it as a monitor.
 
The Dell UP3216Q is a professional monitor for those who want colour accuracy.

The LG 32UD99-W supports freesync as well as HDR10.

The Asus PA328Q is again aimed at professionals who want colour accuracy.
 
Im not sure why they are cheaper tbh but its most likely to do with features and connections. What i can say is that i moved to a Philips 40 inch 4k monitor from a 27 inch 1080p 120htz gaming monitor and i have never looked back. Playing games like the Witcher 3 and Elite are simply amazing at that sort of screen size and resolution.

I may have a little ghosting at times and i will never become a professional CS GO player at 60htz, but then again i dont have time anymore for the practice that so it suits me really.
 
This seems crazy actually. I was just about to pull the trigger on a monitor but that Philips looks ridiculous value to me: much more screen real estate, its curved, its cheaper. I'm thinking the only drawbacks might be:

1. 60hz - I'm no professional gamer and I'm suspecting 60+hz and F/Gsync is over rated.
2. no Free/G Sync - ditto.
3. connections - Connections can be managed in other ways.
4. VA. Is ghosting just a minor issue on fast FPS type games, or is it a bigger issue? Viewing angle wont be a problem - its a monitor after all, I will be sitting in front of it.
5. Curvature. I expect, for a big monitor, it needs to be curved

Am I missing more drawbacks here? I noted Ayahuasca comments on the other listed monitors - these don't affect me, they seem like they should be considered niche products. The Philips therefore seems like a slam dunk recommendation. Seems much better than the others I was considering given me needs (Dell U3417W, X34A, etc..). What am I missing? Anything?
 
Ayahuasca said:
The Dell UP3216Q is a professional monitor for those who want colour accuracy.

The LG 32UD99-W supports freesync as well as HDR10.

The Asus PA328Q is again aimed at professionals who want colour accuracy.
Click to expand...

The LG 32" was maybe a bad example, as it is super cutting edge. USB type C too.

And I get the colour argument, but the Philips 40" offers over 99% of sRGB which is as good as any of them, plus as a VA panel the blacks are nice.

I actually wrote this post up a few days ago and didn't post, in the mean time I've bought the Philips and it's on my desk.

It's really nice, and 4k with NO scaling is awesome (couldn't do that on a 32"), but I'm still super tempted to order the LG 43ud79-b and see which is better, then just return the loser...

Elladene said:
This seems crazy actually. I was just about to pull the trigger on a monitor but that Philips looks ridiculous value to me: much more screen real estate, its curved, its cheaper. I'm thinking the only drawbacks might be:

1. 60hz - I'm no professional gamer and I'm suspecting 60+hz and F/Gsync is over rated.
2. no Free/G Sync - ditto.
3. connections - Connections can be managed in other ways.
4. VA. Is ghosting just a minor issue on fast FPS type games, or is it a bigger issue? Viewing angle wont be a problem - its a monitor after all, I will be sitting in front of it.
5. Curvature. I expect, for a big monitor, it needs to be curved

Am I missing more drawbacks here? I noted Ayahuasca comments on the other listed monitors - these don't affect me, they seem like they should be considered niche products. The Philips therefore seems like a slam dunk recommendation. Seems much better than the others I was considering given me needs (Dell U3417W, X34A, etc..). What am I missing? Anything?
Click to expand...

To reply to your points from my useage

1. I only playstation game so 60htz is fine
3. It has 2 DP and 2 HDMI and various other inputs plus usb hub. There's loads.
4. I've tried rocket league and battlefield one. No noticeable ghosting in rocket league. There is a tiny bit of smear (not ghosting) in general BF play but I think I can live with it for the size. There's also ghosting on the desktop when tabbing between windows etc, but also livable.
5. The curve is subtle but really useful
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're not a big gamer or use a console then 60Hz is fine. Having experienced 100hz G-Sync on my X34 though, I do notice an obvious difference if I go back to a regular 60hz panel or TV with console. Bottom line though, these things only matter if they bother YOU... monitors are extremely subjective so the only way you'll know is by trying one out.

As to the original question about price, I strongly suspect the price difference between many 40"+ and 32" models is down to manufacturing. I would imagine the tooling and manufacturing set-ups are far more geared towards 40"+ panels given how common they are in TV's. Not that they use identical panels in monitors and TV's, just the tooling/manufacturing process will have some crossover.
 
Just to round out this thread, after buying both the Philips bdm4037uw AND LG 43ud79-b I have returned the Philips and kept the LG.

I prefered the looks, colours it produced, size and curve of the Philips, but I couldn't get on with the VA panel lag and narrow viewing angle.

The LG feels a little big on a desk, it really needs a curve, and I'm not sure it's as sharp as the Philips, but much better for gaming. And this is just console gaming.
 
Also - remember that 40+ inch sizes are also cut for TV, whereas the sub 40 inch TV market is much smaller so 32" screens strangely cost more glass wise!

Jon- - glad you are enjoying the 43UD79, she is a beaut
 
Ayahuasca said:
The Dell UP3216Q is a professional monitor for those who want colour accuracy.

The LG 32UD99-W supports freesync as well as HDR10.

The Asus PA328Q is again aimed at professionals who want colour accuracy.
Click to expand...
These aren't actually why to he honest. It will be that 40 and 43" panels are made in much higher numbers as they'll also be made for TVs.

The whole "professional display" thing is largely BS and used as an excuse to sell monitors for ridiculously over inflated prices.
 
spoffle said:
These aren't actually why to he honest. It will be that 40 and 43" panels are made in much higher numbers as they'll also be made for TVs.

The whole "professional display" thing is largely BS and used as an excuse to sell monitors for ridiculously over inflated prices.
Click to expand...

The panels on most 40 and 43" monitors aren't used on TV's.

It might be BS but that's why the price is inflated, BS sells.
 
Ayahuasca said:
The panels on most 40 and 43" monitors aren't used on TV's.
Click to expand...


You're right, they're not, but there absolutely will be crossover when it comes to tooling and manufacturing processes which will make this size cheaper to produce. Plus if you strip down a 40" TV and 40" monitor, I guarantee they will share certain components, even though the panels themselves will be different.
 
When I was building a new setup 2.5 years ago this is what confused me and it's why I purchased a Philips 40 inch 4k monitor over a 27 inch 1440p monitor when the prices were roughly about the same..it just didn't make any sense to go for a 27 inch 1440p monitor.

1. Screen real estate is just amazing, having 2-4 windows open at the same time and still being able to see everything clearly, I tend to have Firefox open with Youtube/VLC most of the time
2. 4k gaming is awesome
3. Very immersive for gaming
4. For me personally the colours/picture quality are fine even though the monitor was only £540 when I bought it
5. I can honestly say that for gaming 60hz is enough and gives me a nice gaming experience HOWEVER for competitive FPS games you will want a 144hz monitor (I'm looking at getting one soon)

I think having a 40 inch+ 4k monitor and a 24-27 inch 144hz monitor is the best combo. Which is what I'm doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom