Philips Announces Evnia 27M2N5500 Monitor: 27-inch QHD 180Hz Fast IPS with HDR 400

[btarunr]

Evnia introduces a fresh award-winning addition to its 5000 gaming monitor series. The Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 features everything users need to enjoy an electrifying gaming experience and consistently excellent performance, while paying greater attention to sustainability: a 27" (68.5 cm) Fast IPS panel with QHD resolution, 180 Hz refresh rate, up to 0.5 ms MPRT and 1 ms GtG, DisplayHDR 400 and an all-new, environmentally friendly design.

The Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 holds a gaming edge with its Fast IPS panel, which delivers smooth gameplay and captivating visuals by balancing rapid responsiveness and brilliance. Certified with VESA DisplayHDR 400 and supporting 1.07 billion colours on high-performance panels with an impressive density pixel count, this monitor produces astonishing brightness, contrast and colours with deeper, richer blacks and a fuller palette of vibrant hues.



In addition to its punchy colours and visually captivating experience, the Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 also features a refresh rate of 180 Hz and low input lag for lightning-fast gaming with virtually no motion blur or ghosting. For an even better gaming experience, this monitor is equipped with several new features: Smart MBR Sync combines 0.5 ms MPRT and variable refresh rate (Adaptive-Sync) support for sharp as well as speedy gaming visuals free from motion blur. The ShadowBoost feature in the OSD enhances dark scenes to enjoy even more details, without overexposure. And to better hit targets in a variety of scenes, the Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 includes a Smart Crosshair for a more accurate aim.

Award-winning and sustainable design for peak performance
This monitor has a green soul and thus strives for sustainability: for the first time ever in the Philips gaming monitor portfolio, the stand's feet are made with 35% recycled plastic and the monitor's chassis is made of 85% post-consumer recycled plastic.

"With Evnia, we are clearly making an important transition toward greater sustainability," commented Xeni Bairaktari, Head of Global Marketing & Deputy Director Marketing EU at Philips Monitors & IT Accessories. "One of our core values is being a positive and impactful pioneer in the industry, and we cannot refrain from challenging ourselves to be more intentional about caring for the environment. We're proud of this new design and approach, and we hope to inspire a real change in the gaming industry."

Created with immersive gaming and high-quality performance in mind, the Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 is equipped with features specifically adapted for both long gaming sessions and everyday use, all within a monitor whose exceptional design has received a 2023 Red Dot and a 2023 iF Design Award. It thus includes an array of features designed to enhance user well-being and ensure a fuller, more comfortable experience. In addition to its SmartErgoBase, which enables a wide range of ergonomic adjustments (height, pivot, swivel, and tilt), this monitor is equipped with SmartImage game modes optimised for long sessions, new OSD features and an EasySelect menu toggle key for quick OSD access, as well as LowBlue Mode to protect the eyes from long periods of blue light exposure.

Price and availability for the Philips Evnia 27M2N5500
With this much to offer, the Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 gaming monitor is the perfect choice for anyone wishing to best support their performance or upgrade their set-up with a fast and visually immersive monitor that takes every session to the next level.

The Philips Evnia 27M2N5500 monitor will be available for purchase in May 2024 at an MSRP of £239.99. For more information, visit the product page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Ravenmaster]

Hey Philips, 2016 wants their monitor specs back

 

[Chomiq]

Hey Philips, 2016 wants their monitor specs back

I wouldn't call it 2016 specs, more like 2023 specs as FastIPS panels are fairly new, offer higher contrast (around 1400:1 compared to 900:1 for NanoIPS) and have similar motion performance to NanoIPS.

 

[Chrispy_]

Bah, another 27 QHD. They're usable but they're an awkward pixel density that doesn't scale well with the Windows scaling values. At 109ppi they're 14% more dense than the native 96ppi that just about all content targets. At 125% scaling it looks awful because that's the worst scale factor you can possibly use in Windows for all non-vector content, and at 150% where it looks a bit cleaner, you're effectively running a 960p native workspace which is stupidly cramped and also far too large at desktop viewing distances.

Welcome to some mild squinting at text that's 12% smaller than it's supposed to be and probably on a screen that's a little further back than expected by the original 96ppi standard that's been in place for print media longer than LCD matrix screens have existed for.

My solution with QHD at 27" was to just suck it up and squint for smaller fonts, but I have decent eyesight and I prefer a 30.5" QHD display, that's basically spot-on for perfect, 100%, artifact-free native resolution at the intended 1:1 ratio of ppi to dpi.

 

[TheDeeGee]

Looks good, but $239,99 means no polarizer to battle IPS Glow.

 

[Veseleil]

Bah, another 27 QHD. They're usable but they're an awkward pixel density that doesn't scale well with the Windows scaling values. At 109ppi they're 14% more dense than the native 96ppi that just about all content targets. At 125% scaling it looks awful because that's the worst scale factor you can possibly use in Windows for all non-vector content, and at 150% where it looks a bit cleaner, you're effectively running a 960p native workspace which is stupidly cramped and also far too large at desktop viewing distances.

Welcome to some mild squinting at text that's 12% smaller than it's supposed to be and probably on a screen that's a little further back than expected by the original 96ppi standard that's been in place for print media longer than LCD matrix screens have existed for.

My solution with QHD at 27" was to just suck it up and squint for smaller fonts, but I have decent eyesight and I prefer a 30.5" QHD display, that's basically spot-on for perfect, 100%, artifact-free native resolution at the intended 1:1 ratio of ppi to dpi.

Tell me about it... Although mine is a really nice one, at 100% scaling text is just too small and it's tiring my eyes fast, and at 125% scaling (I'm forced to use) some apps look just terrible. "Let Windows try to fix apps so they're not blurry" is set to off, for obvious reasons. Yes, higher PPI is nice to have, but I think I made a mistake not going for a 32" 1440p. 42" 2160p could be the end game for me. Some things just look way better on my 24" 1080p, which is kinda humiliating.

 

[Deleted member 229121]

HDR 400 is complete BS, shouldn't even be allowed to call it HDR. Garbage.

 

[Chrispy_]

HDR 400 is complete BS, shouldn't even be allowed to call it HDR. Garbage.

The problem is with the standard, you can't blame monitor manufacturers for using it if their displays meet the pitifully useless standard.
This is a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game". VESA made these useless standards, it's not manufacturers' fault that even a 1989 original Nintendo Game Boy could meet them...

Tell me about it... Although mine is a really nice one, at 100% scaling text is just too small and it's tiring my eyes fast, and at 125% scaling (I'm forced to use) some apps look just terrible. "Let Windows try to fix apps so they're not blurry" is set to off, for obvious reasons. Yes, higher PPI is nice to have, but I think I made a mistake not going for a 32" 1440p. 42" 2160p could be the end game for me. Some things just look way better on my 24" 1080p, which is kinda humiliating.

Yeah, my QHD display is a 32" Odyssey. It's a little lower dpi than ideal but since it's a large-ish display I can afford to push it back another 15cm and not worry about the 91ppi pixel density. I'm still getting all 1440p and don't have to suffer any kind of scaling problems. It's 100% guaranteed native resolution with no caveats!

 

[Deleted member 229121]

Yep know it's VESA, just sick of seeing it on so many friggin displays like it's something great.

 

[stimpy88]

Lol HDR 400 LOL

So it basically doesn't have HDR support then.

 

[Chrispy_]

Lol HDR 400 LOL

So it basically doesn't have HDR support then.

At least you know it's 400 nits (claimed).
Some panels are so bad they can't even do that!

 

[stimpy88]

At least you know it's 400 nits (claimed).
Some panels are so bad they can't even do that!

I get you, you're completely correct.

But when you have experienced real HDR, it's hard to take it seriously when this specification is applied to an LCD monitor, let alone one with a backlight that most monitors have had for 15 years now, along with their milky grey "blacks". It really is a lie to call this HDR, even HDR600 is a complete joke. Even HDR 1000 is a joke on an LCD, unless it has a FALD backlight, and even then, the haloing and flash lighting can still be a thing.

I can't wait for MicroLED, but for some reason the display gurus are focussing on delivering slightly better (drip, drip, drip) OLED year after year, which is far from optimal for PC use due to the severe degradation issues of the organic component.

Gamers Nexus Monitors Unboxed have an ongoing test on the latest MSI QD-OLED (MPG 321URX QD-OLED), which uses the latest 2.5 generation (thanks Chomiq) (even though MSI claim this is a 3rd gen panel on their site) Samsung panel, and is only being used as a standard PC monitor with a mix of gaming, web and productivity work, and after just two months in, it has the beginnings of burn-in, despite the panel doing refreshes every 6 hours or so.

We must wait for the Holy Grail of monitor tech to arrive, and not waste over a $1000 on a screen that's only good for two months.

 

[Chomiq]

Gamers Nexus have an ongoing test on the latest MSI QD-OLED, which uses the latest 2nd generation Samsung panel, and is only being used as a standard PC monitor with a mix of gaming and productivity work, and two months in, it has the beginnings of burn-in.

No, it's first gen QD-OLED. If it was 240 Hz it would be 2.5 gen.

 

[stimpy88]

No, it's first gen QD-OLED. If it was 240 Hz it would be 2.5 gen.

Sorry I fcked up, I meant to say Monitors Unboxed.

 

[Random_User]

I hear you guys, but this monitor is seems for the target audience, who is not spoiled by expensive screen technologies, and clearly cannot afford them. Maybe it's sh*t but it can be used for low demanding tasks. So far no reviews.

 

[chrcoluk]

What is HDR supposed to be? extra colour range, or extra brightness?

I used to just use fake HDR which was done on SDR screens, still very noticeable, HDR 400, still has the extra colour range, the only difference is it has lower peak brightness yes/no?

 

[stimpy88]

What is HDR supposed to be? extra colour range, or extra brightness?

I used to just use fake HDR which was done on SDR screens, still very noticeable, HDR 400, still has the extra colour range, the only difference is it has lower peak brightness yes/no?

HDR means high dynamic range. It simply leaves off where SDR ends and widens its range, so the brightest colours and whites are meant to be significantly brighter than what SDR covers, to provide a more lifelike picture. Anything lower spec than a FALD MiniLED LCD HDR1000 (with OLED being the best) screen is absolutely useless at displaying HDR, and only ends up basically making bright SDR pictures, like you take your non-HDR monitor and simply turn the brightness to 100%, that's all HDR400, and 600 do. On a real HDR screen, the black is black, and the whites are dazzling, and uncomfortably bright in a normal gaming environment, which is why HDR serves as displaying the artists vision of how something should look, not just brighter, but more dynamic, and lifelike.

HDR is not the same as colour space, so forget the colour stuff, as that is something different, but still an improvement which HDR brings to the monitor's specifications, which is why many people think HDR is all about colour.

To think of HDR and what it brings to a picture, game, movie... Think of music. Think that you have your phone's built-in speaker playing your favourite song nice and loud. Now take that phone and plug it into a $10,000 stereo system with professional audiophile quality speakers. Now listen to the same song again. It won't just be louder, but you will hear things in that song you have probably never heard before, the bass will be deeper, more powerful, something you can actually feel, it will sound more like you have taken the musicians and their instruments and put them into your living room. Thats the difference between REAL HDR and just a bright LCD monitor.

 

[Caring1]

HDR 400 is complete BS, shouldn't even be allowed to call it HDR. Garbage.

Better than HDR 10

 

[stimpy88]

Better than HDR 10

What's HDR 10?

 

[Caring1]

What's HDR 10?

It's the bare minimum to qualify as HDR

 

[stimpy88]

It's the bare minimum to qualify as HDR

Oh, your talking about bit depth, as in 10 bit colour. You do realise it's not the same thing, right?

The 400/600/1000 part is the peak brightness, nothing to do with bit depth.

 

[Chomiq]

Sorry I fcked up, I meant to say Monitors Unboxed.

32"? That's 3rd gen, kek.

 

[chrcoluk]

HDR means high dynamic range. It simply leaves off where SDR ends and widens its range, so the brightest colours and whites are meant to be significantly brighter than what SDR covers, to provide a more lifelike picture. Anything lower spec than a FALD MiniLED LCD HDR1000 (with OLED being the best) screen is absolutely useless at displaying HDR, and only ends up basically making bright SDR pictures, like you take your non-HDR monitor and simply turn the brightness to 100%, that's all HDR400, and 600 do. On a real HDR screen, the black is black, and the whites are dazzling, and uncomfortably bright in a normal gaming environment, which is why HDR serves as displaying the artists vision of how something should look, not just brighter, but more dynamic, and lifelike.

HDR is not the same as colour space, so forget the colour stuff, as that is something different, but still an improvement which HDR brings to the monitor's specifications, which is why many people think HDR is all about colour.

To think of HDR and what it brings to a picture, game, movie... Think of music. Think that you have your phone's built-in speaker playing your favourite song nice and loud. Now take that phone and plug it into a $10,000 stereo system with professional audiophile quality speakers. Now listen to the same song again. It won't just be louder, but you will hear things in that song you have probably never heard before, the bass will be deeper, more powerful, something you can actually feel, it will sound more like you have taken the musicians and their instruments and put them into your living room. Thats the difference between REAL HDR and just a bright LCD monitor.

You can improve the range without increasing the max brightness though, I guess not ideal but its done fairly easily.

Original concept was switching from 16-248 to 0-255, then after that its changing from sRGB to DCI-P3, increasing the max brightness is the final piece of that jigsaw.

Lots of fake HDR relies on combo of using 0-255 and stretching out the colour mapping to provide a more vivid image.

I think a lot of people have only experienced the new official hardware HDR so perhaps think thats the only way its done. Maybe later I will post some screenshots of before and after of fake HDR, and also with real HDR on the same game.

Main issue with me owning this IPS screen is dark scenes ironically (not bright ones), buffy the vampire slayer first few seasons in particular are a difficult watch on this screen as is really hard to see things like faces in dark scenes.

My belief of HDR is its about increasing the range, darker blacks, brighter whites are the most extreme examples, but it also applies to colours, as black and white is only part of it. Ironically I think HDR content often doesnt look more realistic, if I look at things around me, colours arent blooming, most things are subtle not bright, I prefer HDR (fake or real) for some specific visual styles, like anime type games (tales games, some final fantasy games), but anything designed to look realistic I prefer SDR appearance, some games also were designed to be vivid out of the box, and when applying HDR to them they look over saturated, although there is an argument to be made things created to be HDR out of the box should be the only way it is used rather than doing some kind of post processed HDR.

 

[Caring1]

Oh, your talking about bit depth, as in 10 bit colour. You do realise it's not the same thing, right?

The 400/600/1000 part is the peak brightness, nothing to do with bit depth.

No, I was talking about the standard, HDR10 was a thing when first implemented to be able to be classified as HDR.
HDR 400 has come to be the accepted minimum by marketing.
Although I do admit to getting confused more often now and could be wrong.

 

[stimpy88]

No, I was talking about the standard, HDR10 was a thing when first implemented to be able to be classified as HDR.
HDR 400 has come to be the accepted minimum by marketing.
Although I do admit to getting confused more often now and could be wrong.

Ahh, yeah I see where your going. But HDR10 is a encoding/metadata standard, like Dolby Vision.

So HDR10 is what most streaming services use, although some do use the superior Dolby Vision now.

HDR10 has been replaced by a new standard called HDR10+, which works on a similar principle as Dolby Vision. It uses dynamic metadata for adjusting the peak brightness of every scene of the movie, whereas HDR10 sets the peak brightness levers once for the entire movie.

But HDR 400/600/1000/4000 is not really about HDR per say, but most simply about how bright the monitors backlight can get.

So HDR10 is an encoding standard for a HDR encoding, the first.
Then there is HDR10+ the successor to HDR10, which is the poor man's licence-free Dolby Vision.
Then there is Dolby Vision, using dynamic metadata, so the TV is constantly adjusting the peak brightness, the best standard for HDR content, but it's expensive because not only does the manufacturer pay a licence fee to Dolby, but the TV itself has to meet certain standards, and has to be calibrated at the factory, so it's more expensive, and why you can't buy a Samsung TV with Dolby Vision support.

I hope this clears the confusion up.