If you are looking for a new monitor, you naturally take an ultra high-definition copy with you in your consideration. However, these are mostly still quite pricey. The exception are 28-inch models, which we already have a lot of testing. Most recently the AOC U2879VF, we compare the 10 previously tested competitors.
Typically you buy a monitor for more than a few years, so it is useful to keep account of future developments. An ultra high-definition model than the obvious one of the options that you think of. To this stick at the moment it still some drawbacks. In addition to the requirement of a solid video card (especially for games) you also need deeper pockets. They simply cost a bit more than full HD screens. The price difference with WQHD monitors is smaller, but it’s so still 25%. Furthermore, you should note that not all graphics cards can output this resolution: you need a copy with DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 2.0 for transporting 3840×2160 pixels at 60Hz. Certainly laptops will not always have here, but also older desktops can fail it here. Finally, up-to-date recommended software if you want to use image scaling.
Is your budget adequate and its hardware and software at the time, then an ultra hd monitor definitely worth considering: more workspace and more detail which benefits are beyond dispute. Moreover, today the budget requirement so bad. For less than 500 euros you can have an ultra high definition screen. The cheapest model we tested so far, the AOC U2879VF, a 28-inch model with a TN panel, is even to be found for 349 euros in our price comparison.
That’s a price that elsewhere, at most, a 27 “buys WQHD monitor with a TN panel, or a 25” WQHD copy with IPS technology. Reason enough for the AOC U2879VF who follows the previously tested U2868Pqu of the brand closer look. We compare him with 10 previously tested models with the same screen size.
The AOC U2879VF is as said a 28-inch monitor with a resolution of 3840×2160 pixels, or ultra hd. These 4K resolution is on this diagonal well for a pixel density of 157 ppi. This means that at 100% scaling (display in native resolution) display elements are on the small side. There is work, but scaling to 125% is more pleasant. The effective resolution comes down to 2880×1620, still substantially more than WQHD and more than full HD. A great combination of workspace and sharpness so.
This monitor uses a TN panel, a similar example as we saw last year in the first charge “affordable” ultra HD monitors. It means that the view from a different angle than straight from the front will suffer from loss of brightness and color shifts. Are you sitting there right, then it is not too bad, though of course you look at the extreme corners at a different angle than the middle.
AOC has put the panel in a simple foot, which, moreover looks quite nicely by the use of aluminum-colored plastic. The screen can tilt it, but not pivot or rotate; in adjustable height nor be. The connections stabbing all straight back. This is useful to place a rope quickly, but it looks less attractive than in orientation downward. As we have come to expect from AOC you have much choice in the control: dual-link DVI, HDMI, Display Port 1.2, and VGA are even present. The HDMI connector conforms to the 2.0 standard; of course, these are only dp 1.2, and the connector suited to send out to the screen in native resolution at 60Hz. Using picture-in-picture, a secondary video are shown in a smaller window. It is worth mentioning that the HDMI connector is also suitable for mhl connections. Furthermore, we see a headphone jack and the connector for the external expert nutrition. Speakers are not built; a USB hub is not present.
All in all, the physical embodiment of the screen is fine. A height-adjustable foot had been nice, as Iiyama example, it delivers on the more expensive GB2888UHSU B1, but with the price in mind we can not very heavy to lift. To see how AOC U2879VF it does in terms of display, we have subjected it to our usual battery of tests – and then some additional tests.
We test monitors in a number of ways. Most models is measured by an older Microvision road SS220 semi-automatic colorimeter. This robot not only measures color and temperature, brightness, contrast and gamma, but also the brightness under horizontal and vertical viewing angles of 45 degrees. Also, it determines the uniformity (luminance distribution) with a comparison of the brightness of 25 points.
Because the accuracy of the measurement of color fastness onto the road SS220 is limited to the older CIE1976 standard, we use in addition, a X-Rite colorimeter i1 Display Pro in combination with the advanced Spectracal Calman 5 software to also take this measure by the monitors. In addition, we record maximum and minimum brightness, contrast, gamma value and greyscale and color variations based on CIE1994. We do this because the modern CIE2000 standard is still less widely supported and we have a lot of comparison with the older standard. The new, we will in time gradually introduce in our test procedure. We use the i1 / Calman combination standard measurements such as the scenes come out of the box; if there is an sRGB mode, we propose in this measurement for the screen thereon. If there is an AdobeRGB mode, we measure them separately.
In addition to the said display measurements, we tend to also measure the reaction rate, the overshoot and undershoot, and the lag input. When gaming scenes we’re doing that in other screens where this represents a potential meaningful result. For the first three tests, we used a photometer in combination with an oscilloscope. For the input lag test, we use both a visual comparison with a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitor with the aid of high speed photo-shooting, and (where possible) an Leo Bodnar input lag tester. That tester is for the output is limited to 1920×1080 and our experience is that the results poorly reproducible at screens with higher resolution, or are unpredictable. Therefore, we do not always specify which results in higher resolution screens.
Finally, we measure the energy consumption using calibrated flowmeters, both displaying a full black as a completely white image, and in the standby and off mode.
In all tests, we tested the monitors as they come out of the box: so most users this will also deploy. Here we make these exceptions: the color temperature measurement, we try to put in standby screen where the 6500 Kelvin is approached closest, the sRGB and Adobe RGB measurements we use as stated above modes, if present. If no sRGB mode is present, we do the Calman measurements in the standard (after restoring to factory settings) display. Furthermore, we do all measurements at 100% brightness, both for the sake of a fair comparison, as to keep the test manageable.
Often ask readers to calibrate monitors, either the settings to adjust the color, brightness and contrast are optimized. However, we do not, for two reasons. In the first place, the majority of the monitor, virtually all consumer models, only to calibrate software. This means that you have a color profile allows for combination of video card and monitor: profile will only work with that particular combination and then, moreover, only for the specific screen you use. Also, identical monitors can in fact be small differences between them, which require a different profile. Lets you set so actually the signal of your video card.
Only monitors for the professional market and then the section for graphics applications have the ability to calibrate the hardware. Still remains that the institutions that we use does not necessarily make sense for a copy to purchase the reader. The second reason is that calibration is a time consuming process. What we can do is to report whether our test results indicate that calibration will lead to (almost) perfect view. Calibration always delivers an improvement, but the required colorimeter for most users too expensive to do it yourself – good ones cost more than most consumer displays.
For clarity, we see preferably values above 250 cd / m² maximum brightness and under 0.3 cd / m² for minimum brightness. A brightness of 300 cd / m² is actually not useful except for use in extremely bright environments and therefore provides no additional points. Maximum contrast is ideally above 800: 1 1000: 1 is good there (well) above is excellent. We must also note that contrast values are often much lower in non-darkened rooms, and a contrast greater than 100-300: 1 in practice is exceptional. The given values are a particular indication of performance in use: higher is better.
For the color temperature is 6500 Kelvin value that approximates as closely as possible is desirable; This corresponds to normal daylight exposure. Values between 6000 and 7000K are good enough for ordinary use, as far above or below yields on negatives. Values between 6400 and 6600K are excellent.
The gamma value should approach as close as possible to the 2.2. In addition, it should be appreciated that it is also important here is that the part measurements from 10% to 100% brightness also so close as possible to this 2.2, compensating for outliers each other are not desirable.
Greyscale and color value deviation is sufficient if it is less than 5, good as it is less than 3, and excellent if it is less than 2. Values over 5 make sure we will not recommend the product for non-recurring image editing.
The reaction times, we note both parts (rise and fall) when combined. The main values are not the Combined 0% -100% -0% and 20% -80% -20% values, as the ‘optimal’ measured values. Which gives the results back from the institution minimize overshoot and undershoot, but approximates the desired minimum speed of 16 ms. We note as well the results without overdrive as maximum and optimum overdrive, provided above settings are available. Provided artifacts remain limited by under- and overshoot are values of 16ms and less adequate, 10ms and less good and 6ms and less excellent.
Input lag is a phenomenon of which to contest the disturbing effect is but values greater than 16 ms ensure that we will not recommend it for gaming screen. It is important to remember that the results of the comparison to CRT exlusive the response time of the panel are to be read, and that of the Leo Bodnar tester including those times.
The power consumption depends on the judgment of the measured value from the screen size, resolution and color space (Adobe RGB monitors consume more complex by a backlight). What is certain indeed is not desirable standby consumption over 0.5W and a power consumption above the 0W. A standby power consumption lower than 0.5W is also contrary to EU law.
The AOC U2879VF is an ultra high definition monitor that quite a lot for a very modest asking price offers. Who really for as little money as possible will get a fair amount of pixels on the desk, this model should definitely consider. The viewing angles are a weakness, as with most TN monitors, though it is still so bad compared to what you would find on a budget TN screen of 100. The color reproduction is not bad, but we would not recommend editing screen.
For games it is appropriate having regard to the response times and Free Sync, but the input lag is an obvious flaw. If the primary purpose is, you can still improve some more to invest in a model that does not suffer from it.
The most obvious alternative is the Iiyama G-Master Gold Phoenix GB2888UHSU B1 – that screen costs on average 439 euros (roughly 40 euros more than the AOC), has an ergonomic foot, speakers, and a greater range of 35-60Hz Free Sync . Although the viewing angles are similar, the results are better color reproduction. The AOC is doing better in terms of brightness, contrast and uniformity, but only the latter is a significant difference. You can compare them side by side in this table.
If the AOC U2879VF actually had cost around 349 euros, we would reward him with a Great Value award, but as yet there is at time of writing but a store that offers him for that amount – possibly a limited time offer. For that amount, it is simply a purchase with an excellent price-performance ratio: actually buy a uhd monitor for the price of a WQHD instance. On average, however, is the price 50 euros higher and then the distance to the competition smaller, and we would advise however to invest some extra bucks – in the longer term, for which you still buy a monitor, you will have fun with it.