Philips 492P8 display is double-wide and extra-large

The only way a monitor can provide more immersion than an ultrawide panel is if it's ultrawide and really big. Philips' 492P8 is wider-than-ultrawide, and its 49" diagonal measurement is sure to warp the sense of scale in any room. Anandtech took a minute to check out the monitor at the IFA show that just wrapped up in Berlin.

The 492P8 is built around a 49" VA panel with 1800R curvature, a 32:9 aspect ratio, and a resolution of 3840×1080. Depending on whether one is an optimist or a pessimist, that's either double the resolution of a Full HD display or half that of a 4K panel. Either way, the display's brightness is specified at a sizzling 600 cd/m², the contrast at an impressive 5000:1, and the viewing angles are reported to be 178°. The resolution and screen area of the big screen are comparable to running a pair of 27" 1920×1080 monitors next to each other. 

The monitor sports one DisplayPort, a VGA input, a pair of HDMI jacks, and a USB Type-C connector. The Type-C port also supplies a connection for a pair of USB Type-A ports and a Gigabit Ethernet jack, and can also charge an attached laptop computer. The display also has a pair of 3.5-mm jacks for audio input and output.

Philips' 492P8 is missing some of the keywords gamers look for like high refresh rates, fancy backlighting, and adaptive refresh technology. The upside is that the price will be €899 (about $1080) when the display comes to market in the second quarter of 2018. Samsung's recently-released CHG90 has a similarly-sized panel, but costs $1500 at Amazon and Newegg.

Comments closed
    • Omniman
    • 2 years ago

    I’m surprised to see the 600 cd/m² brightness. Generally you don’t see that unless you buy Radiology diagnostic grade monitors.

    • Zizy
    • 2 years ago

    The big issue is that Windows is pretty nice to quickly position 4 thingies on 2 screens, but 4 thingies on 1 screen is a pain unless you are stuck to 8.1. Add lack of gaming and the thingy is only good for movies and even there it is too wide for most. 65″ OLED TV would be as wide and can show anything from 3840×1080 to 3840×2160 better than this. But it costs way more and you would have to buy 2016 model to get it curved.

    • Liron
    • 2 years ago

    A double-wide!
    -Heath Slater

      • krazyredboy
      • 2 years ago

      Remember to invite Rhino!

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Um, it’s not for gaming with those specs, so it’s basically two 24″ monitors without the bezel in the middle?

    32:9 is too wide even for 2.35:1 so this must be for productivity and honestly a couple of €100 24″ monitors will do the job just as well, and you’ll still have the cash left to buy [i<]seven more[/i<].

      • willmore
      • 2 years ago

      Yep, and the two cheaper, separate monitors will have two cables that won’t be stressed to refresh them at 60Hz.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      Two 27″ monitors.

        • Chrispy_
        • 2 years ago

        Good point.
        Damn you Pythagoras!

        Still, IPS or VA 1080p 27″ monitors are still pretty cheap, if not quite as cheap as the 24″ variety. Perhaps €899 would only buy you six monitors instead of nine 🙁

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 2 years ago

    3840×1080? So it’s half of a 4k TV for twice the price of a 4k TV. Awesome.

      • willmore
      • 2 years ago

      It is a VA pannel, so that’s sort of nice. But, yeah, that’s a lot of cash. What’s fry’s selling 50″ 4k sets for? $229 or something crazy?

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 2 years ago

      I paid $300 for a 40″ 4KTV that does 4:4:4 Chroma and has a VA panel. Eh, I think this ultrawide is a bad deal, but if you really wanted ultrawide… we should find a way to slap an ultrawide resolution in the middle of one of these cheaper 4K panels on a larger TV…

      The only thing I wish this TV had is Displayport.

    • willmore
    • 2 years ago

    Forget eye strain with this monitor, you’d have neck strain from turning right and left so much.

      • Quiet Sun
      • 2 years ago

      A facetious remark? I have never noticed any neck strain from working with multiple monitors all day, and neither have I heard anyone else complain.

        • D@ Br@b($)!
        • 2 years ago

        Yur LOLed

    • gerryg
    • 2 years ago

    That seems like a decent display especially for people with so-so eyesight.

    If I could have my two 30″ Dells with 2560×1600 bonded together in a single 53″ 1800R display at 5120×1600, I would totally go for it. The vertical resolution is what I really need. VA or IPS both are fine for advanced office or non-print graphics work. I work with software architecture/system engineering models and they get pretty big, I need as much resolution and sheer square footage as I can. 🙂

    For gaming, need something else entirely, but for home/office work with a deep enough desk, I think this display is fine.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      Rotate your 30″ Dell monitors to portrait mode and you’ll have 1.6 times as much vertical resolution as you have today – for free!

      I’ve currently got a 24″ 1920×1200 U2410 in portrait mode as my secondary monitor. The top edge of the screen is a bit higher than ideal, but it’s usable.

    • Cannonaire
    • 2 years ago

    This looks like exactly what I’m [i<]not[/i<] looking for in a monitor. I'm sure it's perfect for some people, though.

      • Laykun
      • 2 years ago

      I know what you mean, I need my monitors to be at least triple wide.

        • CuttinHobo
        • 2 years ago

        Is this a monitor for ants??? It needs to be at least… Three times this big!

      • LASR
      • 2 years ago

      It’s sad that your average consume is stupid enough to not realize that you can purchase triple curved 4K monitors with 6x the screen real estate for $1500.

      This ultra-wide low-res phenomenon exists because people are stupid enough to want them.

      Come up with a 2160p ultra wide and I’m sold.

      But 1080p come on. And I’ve had furious arguments with coworkers who insist that this crap is just like having multiple monitors side by side with no bezel. So this is better. Ahem, have you heard of 4K UHD? Sucker born every minute.

        • Kretschmer
        • 2 years ago

        I enjoy my 21:9 3440×1440 monitor as a good compromise between gaming and productivity:
        -Having the wide space is great for work applications where an uninterrupted workspace is useful (for me, that’s mostly some of the hideously-complex Excel documents that I run into
        -3440×1440 is feasibly driven by today’s GPU tech, whereas my 1080Ti would choke on 4K
        -3440×1440 is currently available at 100Hz, and I’m never going back to 60Hz.

        That said, the XXXXx1080 widescreens leave me puzzled. Less space than 1440P 16:9 monitors, worse gaming specs than 1440P 16:9 monitors…they seem to be without purpose.

          • willmore
          • 2 years ago

          That’s a 43:18 monitor, FWIW.

            • Duct Tape Dude
            • 2 years ago

            Huh. I never realized 3440×1440 wasn’t actually 21:9. That might explain some additional black bars I’ve seen.

          • f0d
          • 2 years ago

          i prefer my 2560×1080 because it isnt expensive to drive with a video card at high framerates
          i dont care about desktop real estate only gaming immersion (which is great with ultrawide)
          i have a budget and 3440 monitors were much more expensive than my 2560

        • f0d
        • 2 years ago

        i have a 1080p ultrawide and im totally happy with it
        before i purchased it i compared 4k and high res monitors and they were nice but they were too expensive to drive with a video card (im not buying an equivalent of a 1080ti every year just to play games)

        i get great framerates with a r9-290 on my 2560×1080 on just about any game and imo framerates are way more important than more pixels

        super high res just isnt worth the extra money for the monitor and graphics card for me

          • willmore
          • 2 years ago

          Same here. And it’s IPS. And I only paid $150. And I’ve already had it for a year.

      • Quiet Sun
      • 2 years ago

      I dunno. I have a hard time imagining how this would be a good product for anyone. Anyone at all.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This