24 ms·

Can Dell’s 6K monitor beat their 8K monitor?

248 points by secure 3y ago

I_am_tiberius 3y ago
Great review. Are you returning the monitor? Also, have you kept the Kinesis 360 keyboard and did you get used to the plam pads? Personally, I'm using the palm pads of the Advantage 2.
- secure 3y ago
  Yeah, I’m returning it. I kept the 360, but am currently using the Advantage 2 again. I never got used to the 360 palm pads.
  - I_am_tiberius 3y ago
    Funnily, I was trying to buy the monitor as well last Friday in Austria, but was informed that the inventory nr on the website was wrong - so my order was cancelled. After your review, I guess I'll be waiting for the Samsung ViewFinity S9 (5k). Re Kinesis: I have mixed feelings as well but in the meantime I got used to the 360 model. With the old palm pads, it feels more like the Advantage 2. I'm a bit sad that I didn't order the pro model. I really liked my Advantage 2 as well, but I can't go back to it as some electronic part seems to be damaged. It just seems to send random characters without touching the keyboard.
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    Why are you returning it? I am keeping mine because I don't know of anything better. Also, check out the MoErgo Glove80 keyboard.
adamgamble 3y ago
Although I haven’t used these monitors, my experience with high dpi on windows and Linux has been a nightmare compared to OSX. It’s surprising me the non Mac world hasn’t made this a bigger priority.
- drcongo 3y ago
  High DPI screens with Windows really show how bad the font rendering is.
  - hocuspocus 3y ago
    At high DPI the difference in font rendering between ClearType, Freetype and macOS diminish greatly, it's mostly a matter of taste, and at least Microsoft hasn't crippled low DPI rendering in recent Windows versions like Apple did with macOS.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago
  I actually think Windows does it better than OS X (and Gnome, Wayland, and anything that does not support true fractional scaling). OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always look blurry.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always look blurry. I genuinely have zero idea what you are talking about. Typing this from my macbook connected to a 5k LG ultrawide monitor, and it is as crystal sharp as it can get. As opposed to my windows 10 desktop (connected to the same monitor) having some occasional application windows render fairly blurry and inconsistently (one of the main offenders of this is, ironically, task manager). And don't even get me started on font rendering in general.
    - xnyanta 3y ago
      macOS will render at the next highest integer scale factor and then downscale to fit the resolution of your monitor instead of just rendering at the fractional scale in the first place
      - Aaargh20318 3y ago
        It’s effectively supersampling. The resulting image looks excellent.
Matheus28 3y ago
Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable bandwidth or absurd price tag…
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  I run the DELL G3223Q (144Hz 4K) and mine calibrated at ~98% DCI-P3 for reference. I'm quite happy with it. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q
  - f001 3y ago
    I have the same monitor but would get an 8k equivalent in a heartbeat. I run it at 100% scaling, and would love that sweet sweet 200% scaling
- malfist 3y ago
  8k@120Hz is going to need one heck of a video card
  - dogma1138 3y ago
    Not for productivity.
  - densh 3y ago
    I’d argue that AI driven super resolution like DLSS should be more than sufficient to upscale 4k to 8k with minimal performance loss and acceptable image quality even for gaming.
  - justahuman74 3y ago
    Not for tmux + firefox
    - walrus01 3y ago
      Unless people are far more sensitive than I am, I don't see how >60Hz is needed for a desktop workstation environment. High frame rate is really only noticeable for very fast reaction time gaming. 4K 120Hz may be noticeable if editing ultra high frame rate video on a video editing workstation, but if you are a video production crew with a camera capable of recording at that framerate, you probably already know that.
davidhyde 3y ago
Just give me a 2K monitor that turns on instantly, doesn’t hunt for sources, consumes less than 20W of power and I’ll be a happy guy. Bonus for having physical buttons to select explicit input sources without delays.
- dogma1138 3y ago
  You ain’t getting a modern monitor with less than 20W of power unless you want something very small and very dim with very low refresh rate.
  - glowingly 3y ago
    Nowadays, I think it is doable with modern displays. My 165Hz 1440p 32" (31.5") LG with 8 bit color and two external speakers consumes ~20W, measured at the wall. My 14" laptop screen is about 19.8% of the area of that display. I have loosely measured it from ranges of ~<1W at min brightness to ~8W at max brightness. It is 1440p, 60Hz, 14", HDR (DV). I usually run it at ~20% brightness, which seems to be around 3W. My office has the usual LED lighting at night or a large window + sliding glass door during the day. Not a dark cave by any means!
- coder543 3y ago
  I would say that less than 30W might be a more realistic goal[0]. Maybe lower end monitors consume less power than these... I'm not sure. Also, it just seems strange that anyone is asking for a 1080p monitor in 2023 outside of Esports. Are you sure you want 1080p (2K) and not 1440p (2.5K)? It bothers me when people use 2K to refer to 1440p. 1080p is 2K[1]. [0]: this chart has a few recent monitors and gives a general idea of how much power monitors consume: https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527 https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution is very clear on this subject, and I agree completely. 1080p is much closer to 2000 horizontal pixels than 1440p.
  - davidhyde 3y ago
    Yeh, I meant 1440p. 16:10. Was not aware these were referred to as 2.5k, thanks! I actually have a 32” one so no scaling is required and I think it only takes about 30W so it doesn’t feel like I’m sitting in front of a heater in summer. Honestly, anything below 50W is fine. My biggest gripe really is that it takes 7 seconds to turn on.
densh 3y ago
The comments regarding matte vs glossy and text sharpness resonates with me. It’s really hard to use any non-Apple screens since their color is completely washed out and lifeless and text lacks crispness on all screens at a range of price points I’ve ever tried. What’s even more puzzling is how a large number of people online seem to adamantly defend widely sold lower-dpi 32” 4k matte screens as a superior product. It’s been over a decade since first retina products shipped and somehow 200 dpi+ desktop screens is still an extremely niche product.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  The M1 MacBook Pro 14" shipped with a GtG response time of 58.4ms. The U3224KB featured in this review has a GtG response time of 5ms in fast mode, which is considered average but not great. Most high-end monitors manage GtG response times of around 1ms. With OLED it's closer to 0.5ms. 58.4ms is unacceptably bad.
  - densh 3y ago
    Sure, they are not fast response gaming screens, but I am specifically calling out reading all forms of text (web/email/documents/coding) as a main use case. OLED would be great if we could finally get 27” 5K. Currently all the gaming screens sit at around 1440p pixel density and are often coupled with non RGB pixel layout that causes color fringing on text: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing-issues/ https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing-...
    - hedora 3y ago
      You should be able to set the font anti-aliaser's subpixel order unless you're running a terrible operating system.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      To be clear, a 58ms response time is so bad that it produces a ton of ghosting while just scrolling text. Apparently Apple screens have always been this bad and Mac users just live with it.
stalfosknight 3y ago
Why is it that pretty much all displays in the PC world have such dismal pixel densities (< 226 ppi)? It would be nice to be able to shop for a new desktop display without having to give up Retina in macOS.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  Most people buying high-end monitors prioritize high refresh rates over pixel densities.
  - api 3y ago
    Gamers do. For coding I prefer high contrast and clarity. I’m disappointed there haven’t been any huge genuine OLED screens. MicroLED could be nice too.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Right, and most people buying high-end monitors are gamers.
      - addisonl 3y ago
        Interesting, I’d assume it’s professionals in the video/photography/production space spending the serious money on high end displays. Where are you getting your data?
        jccalhoun 3y ago
        Well there's "high end" consumer and then there's "high end" professional which is a few times higher in price
    - kitsunesoba 3y ago
      Yeah the extra frames do nothing in my text editor. The only part of your typical gaming display I want in a work/daily driver monitor is adaptive sync to reduce video judder and to allow the GPU to idle even more deeply when nothing is being redrawn (which is part of why M-series 14/16” MBPs get great battery life: their screens can go down as far as 1hz). I won’t turn down a higher peak framerate if it comes without cost to the rest of the monitor’s functionality of course, but it’s not worth trading anything away for.
steveBK123 3y ago
Friends dont let friends buy Dell monitors.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  What do friends let friends buy?
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Eizo, Apple, LG, maybe a Viewsonic or Samsung.. Basically go read rtings.com for whatever size/resolution/price class you are looking for, and look at the in depth reviews for the things that matter to you. In my case I have a bright office, so glare/reflection and backlight brightness are extremely important. A good monitor can last you 2-3x as long as the compute you hook up to it, and your eyes are important.. I think its not the place to skimp on cost in the total home office setup.
    - SomeRndName11 3y ago
      Have you tried LG or Samsung service? Not better. Generally my observation is that outside of warranty problems HP and Dell monitors have better calibration and balanced feature set in OSD compared to Asian ones, when they have all kind of unnecessary things in settings and lack what I want (unlocked sRGB for example).
- dewey 3y ago
  What's the issue with Dell monitors? I'm still using my Dell P2715Q (4k) from > 5 years ago every day and the only reason that would make me switch is that it doesn't support the latest HDMI connections any more.
  - sedatk 3y ago
    Yeah, until I got enamored by 144Hz, I'd exclusively buy Dell monitors because of their great price/performance.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bentcorner 3y ago
I wonder what impact Apple's VR headset is going to have in, say, 10 years. Hopefully prices for their headsets as a complete unit will have dropped, and at that point, while I'm no optical scientist, we must be approaching the limits of eye clarity, no? So eventually VR headsets will offer effectively 360 degrees of "monitor" that can't be matched by any panel, and the only actual pixels they will need to produce are a postage stamp sized thing in front of your eyeball. I can imagine that a lot of personal computing is going to transform into some kind of "screen+lens+eyeball" as COGs for these kinds of headset displays are going to be lower than traditional monitor (or possibly even smartphone) displays.
- anon373839 3y ago
  Unless they can manage to shrink the headset to the weight of a pair of glasses, I don’t see this as competition for monitors. Just to name one out of dozens of issues: if you have your face supporting a heavy VR mask for hours a day, it’s really going to show after a few years.
swader999 3y ago
6k is even way too much to spend.
- fadedsignal 3y ago
  > Dell’s 32-inch 6K monitor (U3224KBA), a productivity monitor that offer.. I stopped reading after this lol
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
I just purchased 2 of the 6Ks and I am keeping both. AMA. I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090 via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows) and I don't think 8K with 1:2 scaling would give suitably sized OS components for me, so it would be fractional scaling either way. The startup time doesn't matter in practice because they still wake up from sleep instantaneously. The mini-DP IN port would be inconvenient but Club3D makes a bi-directional adapter that makes it regular DisplayPort for about $20. I am fine with the camera defaulting to ON for Windows Hello to work in my 2 computer setup. My only serious complaint is the piss poor speakers and the fabric covering them. I would also prefer a glossy display, but in practice I just don't find it makes any difference. I arrange my office for no reflections anyhow, which results in an equivalent experience. Additionally, the Dell 6K has excellent blacks. It has much better blacks than any IPS panel I have used.
- j45 3y ago
  I have 3 24" Benq 2K video grade monitors running at 2560x1440 giving me nearly 11 million usable pixels. It has a huge boost in productivity for me. 4K TVs only seem to become usably readable with Chroma 4:4:4 at 38" or above, ideally curved, to get 4 usable 1920x1080 quadrants. When the screen sizes go smaller, absolutely detail and quality increases, but for software development or text centric work is concerned, am I missing something when it comes to 6K or 8K Monitors?
  - 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
    32" displays are a sweet spot in size for me as long as the pixel density is >200 ppi, but more for graphics applications than text editors. For 3D applications especially, it's very beneficial to have a lot of area on one screen since the GUI default layouts tend to fit best on 16:9 screens or close to that and larger screens give you larger multi-viewport layouts. 24 inch displays just couldn't come close here. 32" allows me to work in a 4 viewport layout all day long. It's also nice in IDEs, but my main purpose is various graphics applications. And sure I could fiddle endlessly with multi-display layouts but that's such a time suck and every application is completely different so I wouldn't bother no matter what my screen size is.
tedunangst 3y ago
People are happy using DSC for a pixel perfect monitor? I'd never trust it for graphics work.
- secure 3y ago
  I wouldn’t say happy, but it’s currently the only choice. Maybe as drivers advance we can have non-DSC links — the hardware should support it per the spec…
mynonameaccount 3y ago
Dell cuts cost anywhere they can. Their power cable, keyboard, and mouse have the tiniest gauge wire I have ever seen and this is a $2500 system. Do not buy Dell.
- bluedino 3y ago
  The mouse cables are hilariously short these days. I know, I know, get a $30 bluetooth mouse that is better in every way, but I remember the days of like 8 ft mouse cables.
diziet 3y ago
I think there are three groups of people with opinions regarding 120Hz vs 60Hz refresh rate. Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz. Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options. Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolution 120Hz displays with higher resolution 60Hz displays. I think a lot of people mistakenly think they are in Group 2 when they are in Group 3.
- boyter 3y ago
  I thought I was in 2... till I actually got a 120Hz screen. Since I flip between my desktop at 120Hz and Macbook Air M1 at 60Hz frequently I discovered I really notice. Its always so much nicer when I leave the Air. Everything is so much smoother.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Same difference between 30 and 60hz I imagine. Feels like you go from mega choppy to smooth as butter.
    - boyter 3y ago
      I get used to 60 pretty quickly, but I really notice it when I move back.
    - rjh29 3y ago
      A variable rate between 30-60 is absolutely worse than consistent 30fps.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        If you display those frames on a 60Hz screen, it's an awful effect. If the screen natively supports variable frame times, there's a lot more upside and a lot less downside.
  - 3y ago
bluedino 3y ago
You'll never pry my Retina MacBook from my hands, and I love my original USB-C LG 4K, but I've really started to like my 42" 4K TV that I have been hah g the last two years. It was $300, the color isn't perfect, it has a little glare, it can be choosy when it comes to ports and cables, but having such a large desktop is great. It's a large enough screen to run at native resolution. I'm interested in things like Apples 6K monitor but the cost and the fact that it's only really work with my Mac, as well as not giving me that much usable space, make it an easy decision to not buy.
- manmal 3y ago
  Is the TV wall mounted? I‘d be interested how this could be done in an ergonomic way (eyes in line with top of the screen).
  - raihansaputra 3y ago
    Wendell from LevelOneTech has a custom setup that does this, but in my own experience it's better to have a "main part" of the screen in the ergonomic zone and use the rest of the space for auxiliary windows. Window management tools is a must for me when using the 42" tv.
qaq 3y ago
The top part looks really bad to my eye at least. Would totally buy it if didn't look this ugly
jwells89 3y ago
I also bought one of these, but ended up returning it. The technical aspects of this review are interesting, especially the wide range of machines tested. I finished writing a review of my own[0] a few days ago, which is less technical but goes into some other aspects of the monitor. [0]: https://www.wells.dev/dell-ultrasharp-u3224kb-squandered-potential/ https://www.wells.dev/dell-ultrasharp-u3224kb-squandered-pot...
- phillco 3y ago
  > One might surmise that Dell is aware of the issue given the monitor's Mac-inclined target audience however, which makes the lack of mention of it anywhere in marketing materials or documentation feel somewhat dishonest. Wouldn't be the first time. My previous Dell monitor, the U3818DW, had a bug with its USB-C implementation that only affected Macs (somebody proved via protocol inspection that they were actually implementing part of the protocol wrong; it just didn't manifest on Windows). Their support forums for the issue are full of a single Dell representative whose sole response was to remind all of the Apple users that _technically_, Dell never qualified this monitor for macOS, and it's their fault for not carefully reading the technical documentation before purchasing. (Naturally, many of the reviews on Amazon are of people plugging it into a MacBook Pro.) Really soured me on the idea of buying a Dell monitor for anything Apple related after that.
- frozenport 3y ago
  Expected apothesis but got a computer monitor. Its not clear what the alternative monitor would be.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    I returned it not because it wasn’t perfect, but because its list of issues was too long. With exception to the antiglare coating grain (it was one of the most bothersome), I could’ve lived with some of its problems if they weren’t so numerous. No monitor comes totally problem free after all. The other issue is its cost. Expectations raise alongside price, and at an MSRP of $3200 they’re pretty high, and this monitor in my opinion doesn’t meet the bar… with its build quality, problems, and lack of polish it’d maybe make sense at half that price, but even then that antiglare coating would make it a hard sell. They’d need to at least change the coating to make it resemble that of a more traditional matte monitor (which has no grain or sparkle effect). And you’re right, there isn’t really an alternative except the Pro Display XDR, which is priced far beyond what many of us would find reasonable, uses increasingly dated local dimming tech, and has no extra functions beyond the hub on its back. That’s part of why I was disappointed: everything was lined up for Dell to have been able to knock this one out of the park — it would’ve been easy — but they didn’t.
j45 3y ago
I find a 2Kish (2560x1440or1600) resolution on a 24-27" Monitor to be the most usable for text. I understand things like fonts render smoother on a 4-6-8K monitor but it also draws more power usually to power all those pixels. The use of a Chroma 4:4:4 capable 4K tv is also often really helpful because one 4K screen at large enough size gives four 1920x1080 working surfaces. 4K seems to become useful at 38" Or so in a TV. Is there something I'm missing out on in terms of option that are superior to 2K for external monitors in terms of usability? Many of the ultrawide monitors sometimes have worse or close to the same resolution as a single 2K monitor.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kuschku 3y ago
  Why are you conflating 2K (2048x1080/1920x1080) and 1440p (2560x1440)? They're not even close to the same resolution.
  - j45 3y ago
    1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. Confused, not conflated. Same comment and question about 1440p then, please :)
    - kuschku 3y ago
      > 1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. By whom? The only reference to 1440p being called "2K" I can find are cheap rebranded monitor sellers that defraud their customers with all other specs anyway.
      - j45 3y ago
        This seems to really be upsetting to you. I like monitors too. “2K” monitors are widths that fall around the 2000 pixel range. It’s a resolution category, not a specification. 2K monitor categorization emerged when 4K started to be used as a rough mid point. 2560x1440 is often shortened to 1440p, but 2K is often easier to remember. Still, officially it’s called Quad HD (QHD) or even WQHD. With slight variations beyond it. Since we’re trying to be precise the category for this res can also be called 2.5K. But like you said, we won’t always be able to search for that. Finding the spot between FHD and 4K has this fuzzy category. Every retailer Amy display it different depending on how and when their sites were built and evolved. The newer ultra wide monitors can do a lot of sleight of hand to stretch a lot more pixels horizontally to make the screen seem bigger. “5K” monitors might give as many pixels as four 2560x1440, but it won’t be 4 monitors worth of work space. All I know is my wife won’t give me back my QHD screens since she started using them because she can fit more on 2 monitors.
closeparen 3y ago
I switched from a pair of 27" 4K to a 34" Ultrawide and I like it but I miss the pixel density. Hope we get a "Retina" Ultrawide before too long.
- bas3l1ne 3y ago
  This is why I've stuck with my pair of older 24" 4k dell monitors. Before them I was using regular 2k monitors, and would get headaches staring at a monitor for a full workday 8-10 hours and my eyes were so strained I usually ended up just going to bed right afterwards. I've never used an ultrawide, but I'd be really interested in trying one out IF I can get a similar PPI (~192 or higher)
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  We have multiple, there's a "5k" LG /MSI and a 4k x 2 Dell
- InvaderFizz 3y ago
  I have the Alienware 38" Ultrawide. The ratios are just slightly off for my eyes comfort. At a full 1:1 pixel ratio, the text is too small. Scaled up slightly the size is right, but the blur is really annoying. I think it would be prefect for me if it were like 45" with the same resolution, or if it were still 38" but instead of being 3840, native it was 3200 or something like that. If I scale it to 50%, it looks phenomenal, but who wants to work on a screen with the equivalent real estate of 1920x720? I now spend most of my time on the built in display of my 16" M1 MBP. The text sizing is fine for me.
r2vcap 3y ago
The larger the monitor, generally the better. However, considering GPU performance and power consumption, compromises must be made somewhere. I have a $500 Dell 4K 32-inch monitor, which is the maximum I can accommodate in terms of desk space. (The desk space is greatly influenced by real estate prices, currently estimated at $12,000 per square meter based on my home.)
keyle 3y ago
I'm surprised no one is talking about the Dell screen bugs with macOS/M1/M2. I have the 27" and 32" curved monitor, and they both suffer from massive flickering issues with some hues. And yes I have it pegged at 60hz, unlike the "solution" says, removing the variable rate does not solve the problem. Buyers beware of Dell screens with macOS on Apple Silicon. And yes I've tried many different cables... :)
- claytonjy 3y ago
  Is this specific to the curved ones? I've got the Dell G3223Q, a flat 32" 4k 144Hz, no flickering on my M2 MacBook pro or my Framework with PopOS. I run it at 1080p (2x scaling) on both and connect through a CalDigit TS4 w/ DisplayPort. I like it enough I'm considering a second. Only downside is no usb-c.
  - keyle 3y ago
    It's not specific to curved ones, I have a flat S2721SQ that does it as much as the curved S3221QS. I believe this is why it's not a problem for you: [...] both and connect through a CalDigit TS4
- Cannabat 3y ago
  I have a LG 38” ultrawide which I would love, except it also has this problem with specific hues. It took me a while to figure out that it was related to certain colors. I found that if change the color profile I can mitigate the issue, but then it doesn’t look quite as nice. On the LG, not only is there flickering but a transient burn-in which still appears when the TB cable is disconnected! It fades after a few hours. Many owners have the same issue with their M1 devices so I assume it’s not something that is fixable.
orliesaurus 3y ago
I feel like a fish out of water - I understand the importance of having an external monitor, maybe even 2 monitors if you're on desktop, but...8K ? 32 inch? curved? 120hz ... wow I feel like I have absolute no problems sitting here with a 27 inch 60 hz monitor alongside my Macbook pro...
- francislavoie 3y ago
  Higher refresh rate does make a noticeable difference, if you have 60hz and 120hz or higher side by side you notice it instantly from the mouse cursor movement and scrolling websites etc, it's just buttery in comparison. Definitely not a must, just nice to have. I don't see the benefit of going higher than 1440p or 1600p though, any higher res just means I need to increase scaling otherwise things are too small to read comfortably for me.
  - Saris 3y ago
    High res with scaling does make text and stuff really crisp though which is nice
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "but...8K ? 32 inch? curved?" It depends much on the type of work one is doing. I don't have 8k but I'd surely love to have one when I'm editing high resolution 48-bit TIFF files (≥1GB) which I do quite often. Normally for other work 1920x1080 is more an adequate.
veidr 3y ago
Absolutely, hell no, if you are talking about the screen itself. The difference in crispness between the Dell UP321K (~280ppi at 7680x64280 at 31.5 inches) and this new U3224KBA (~220ppi at 6144 x 3456 at 32") is dramatic. The new Dell 6K is about the same as the Apple 6K (the XDR Pro Display). I had that 6K Apple and the 8K Dell side-by-side on my desk for a few months (until I could find a buyer for the dramatically inferior Apple). During that time, I asked anybody who happened to stop by to look at the screens and compare them. Almost everybody could see the difference immediately. A few people, admittedly, said they looked pretty much the same. I think there's a certain level of eyesight required to discern the difference. Having said that, I got my first prescription glasses 2 years ago, and I can easily see the difference with glasses on or off. I cannot see pixels on either one. But what I can see is a slight fuzz at the edges of letters on the lower res display. Moreover, I need my glasses to use the 6K for long stretches and I don't even really need to wear them with the 8K. That's what made me so attached to this monitor. I was therefore bummed to see Dell release this 6K. I want a modern version of the 8K! Two cables sucks, it's quite a compatibility nightmare to get configured properly on Linux if you want to use cheaper monitors alongside it (because the software support for multiple displays at different scaling factors is pretty bad still on most Linux). On Mac it never worked at all, until they released the M2 chip(!). (It has always worked fine on Windows, just plug it in.) Having used this for a few years, I don't ever want to go back to 6K, or 5K, or 4K. I just want 8K to get cheaper so that I can rock 3 8K displays, instead of the 4K-8K-4K I suffer today.... also, 120Hz please.
- afterburner 3y ago
  Are you sure you're not just experiencing some other difference in manufacturing, like a difference in the matte finish?
  - veidr 3y ago
    That's a good question, but yes, I am very sure. I have compared them with magnifying glasses, and really tried to get into why such a (seemingly, at first) small increase in resolution made such a huge difference. I've compared standard 27" 4K, the LG and Apple 27" 5K ), the Apple 6K and the Dell 8K. It really is just a lot more pixels. The fuzz is definitely small, but there. Another good test is open VS Code full screen, divide it up into panes, and make the text as small as you can read it. I mean really small. The text on the 6K just looks awful while the 8K still looks good. Sometimes I do actually do this and put on my glasses (the text is too small for me to read without assistance, but it is still pretty crisp). It feels like a nerd superpower. There are actually a bunch of us 8K superfans out here on the internet, but it's been a lonely party, because the Dell UP3218K seems to be still the only 8K computer monitor you can buy. (As in a roughly 32" desktop monitor, not a TV.)
jiggawatts 3y ago
We've had the technology for a while now to make an 8K HDR 120 Hz OLED monitor. The panel tech exists, the scalers exist, the ports and cables also both exist. We'll have this available for purchase any decade now... any decade. Soon, perhaps as early as the 2030s, 2040s tops! All joking aside, I'm tempted to create a GoFundMe page for this and see if there's other people out there interested in convincing a panel manufacturer to print some 8K monitor-sized OLEDs...
- p1necone 3y ago
  I've got the opposite request. I'd love a native 720p oled of a decent size for playing Switch (and PS3/360, I've got a bit of collection) games on. It's probably a niche market, but most games on the switch run natively at somewhere between 720 and 1080p and look awful scaled up to 4k.
  - foldor 3y ago
    Why not 1440p with integer 2x scaling?
    - p1necone 3y ago
      It's very uncommon to find a monitor or TV that actually does non filtered integer scaling, most apply a blurry bilinear scale that looks awful. And afaik there are no external HDMI pixel doublers on the market, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Native 720p does look slightly better than integer scaling to 2x because of subpixel stuff, and generally liking that LCD look. But integer scaling would be enough really.
      - teruakohatu 3y ago
        > And afaik there are no external HDMI pixel doublers on the market, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Sounds like a fun project, you should build one.
        3y ago
whatever1 3y ago
FYI in Macrumors [1] forum users found that when connected via thuderbolt 4 in Apple Silicon Macs, you dont get the full resolution, because MacOS does not enable DSC. In short you get max 6016 x 3384 instead of the native for the monitor 6144×3456. You have to either use the HDMI port from the Mac (if you have an M2 one) or use a usbc to HDMI converter which for some reason triggers the DSC. [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dell-6k-u3224kb-monitor.2387515/page-25 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dell-6k-u3224kb-monitor...
- jwells89 3y ago
  Slight correction, the monitor will run at full resolution (6144x3456), but with 24-bit color instead of 30-bit. To get 30-bit over Thunderbolt one has to run it at 6016x3384. So effectively, you get full PPI or full color but not both.
  - whatever1 3y ago
    Thanks for the correction :D The main issue is that users reported that text does not look very nice when the monitor runs in 24-bit color and full resolution, which is a bit concerning when considering the asking price.
    - jwells89 3y ago
      Fully agree, at that price the picture needs to be very close to perfect.
iforgotpassword 3y ago
> To drive that resolution at 60 Hz, about 34 Gbps of data rate is needed. ... But then the table just below states the MacBook does it at 8gbps without DSC. What's going on here?
- secure 3y ago
  Copying my reply from Mastodon: > I honestly don’t know. Maybe this is a bug in the monitor’s firmware and it does use some version of DSC after all? Or you’re right regarding lack of DSC support and it uses more than 8 Gbps but displays it incorrectly? Not sure. But something is definitely different about the monitor’s link when a MacBook is connected… Then I read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36581855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36581855, which points out 24 bit colors vs. 30 bit colors. The MacBook links up with 24-bit colors indeed. Maybe that’s the difference?
hilbert42 3y ago
"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? <...> Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much." A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comment about matte and glossy screens is very useful (also I'm more likely to trust his opinion than many others because his discerning experience is backed by the fact that he's actually using an 8k monitor—and that takes money and commitment). Over the years I've made many comparisons between matte and glossy screens and I have to agree with him for the same reasons. Despite being more susceptible to reflections, glossy screens always seem brighter and somehow sharper than matte ones of the same resolution and brightness. I've never investigated the reason in depth but I suspect the matte finish disperses the light from the screen and the net visual effect is a 'rounding' of transients resulting in lower contrast somewhat like offset printing which never looks as sharp as letterpress (where the ink dries thicker and looks blacker at the edges of the imprinting, this increases visual contrast even though the resolution may not be much different).
- microtonal 3y ago
  I agree. I thought I generally prefer matte for office displays. But even since purchasing a Studio Display, matte display just look dull. Also the Studio Display seems to avoid reflections by auto adjusting the brightness when the room is well-lighted.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    Yeah, that makes sense. In an office one's more likely to be doing say word-processing in a highly-lit environment where detail and contrast aren't that important. I normally do photo editing in subdued low-light conditions where gloss is not an issue. Edit: Incidentally, I'm typing this on my Lenovo ThinkPad which has matte screen but I'm using an external monitor with a glossy screen which I prefer (to be fair, it's also slightly larger). No, it wasn't a mistake at purchase time, it was given to me. :-)
  - 3y ago
arijun 3y ago
Link to the monitor in the US site if your German is rusty (the monitor is $2.4k) https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monitor-u3224kb/apd/210-bhbz/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monito...
iod 3y ago
Having owned Dell's 5K for years, last year I finally upgraded to their 8K model. I could never go back to anything less. If you need it and can justify the cost, you will know; but I don't see either being justifiably true for very many people at this point. While higher refresh would be nice, 60Hz is more than adequate for me, as it's the screen real estate that matters, and you really don't have many options to choose from.
dzogchen 3y ago
I bought this 6K monitor, but I did not like 1) The scaling on macOS. Everything was way too big. There were not enough options for fractional scaling. 2) The matte finish. I came from another matte Dell monitor, but the whole screen looked slightly fuzzy, like a permanent oil stain all over the monitor. 3) The contrast sucks. They call it 'IPS Black' but I was not impressed. The colors look different depending on the angle. This is probably an issue with the size of the monitor as well, as when you look at the left size, the angle to the right size is pretty big. Lastly I did not like the size either, but I will have that with every 31.5 inch monitor.
cubefox 3y ago
Recently there was an article here on HN declaring that LCDs are on their way out now in favor of OLED. That doesn't seem true at all for the monitor market. The author doesn't even mention that both monitors are LCDs.
- foepys 3y ago
  In that post [1] some commenters said that the backlight technology for LCDs is the hot stuff at the moment, apparently. You don't want an OLED PC monitor because it will very quickly suffer from burn-in at the typical locations of taskbar and window controls. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36398596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36398596
  - cubefox 3y ago
    He may referring to mini LED, a backlight which enables more fine-grained local dimming. As for burn-in, this doesn't seem to be an issue in smartphones for many years now, and monitors are also not normally used with damaging high brightness HDR content like OLED TVs. My guess would rather be that OLED monitors are too expensive, maybe because they have much higher PPI values than TVs. (A 55" 4k TV has only 80 PPI.)
Kon5ole 3y ago
I don't understand why these monitors are so expensive. I've been using a 55" 8k TV as my main monitor for years and paid less than USD 1000 for it new. Recently I saw a similar deal for a 8k tv again, so making panels at 8k and shipping them around the world at around USD 1000 is certainly still possible, but the Dell 8k is 4000+ and the 6k is 2300+. Using a tv as a monitor has downsides (Only HDMI, doesn't detect inputs automatically etc) but having 55" of retina screen real estate is such a great experience that I'm sticking with it. The same panel sold as a PC monitor with proper inputs (and maybe a matte screen) would be ideal.
- jupblb 3y ago
  It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture.
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    >It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture. That's a fair point but I don't think it applies at these scales. Even a 8K 32" has a very low pixel density compared to a cellphone screen for example. Acer has a 16" portable 4K screen for around 600 USD which they presumably sell at a nice profit, 4 of them would make a 8K 32". Anyway, pricing aside the main problem is that the products don't exist in the first place. A monitor that's simply 4x 27" 4k screens (available from 300 usd) combined would be perfect for a programmer, data analyst etc even if it isn't strictly "retina". The manufacturers don't make monitors like this for one reason or another. I think it's a marketing/economic strategy more than anything else. My pessimistic take is that LG and Samsung etc have tons of investments in old tech and want to keep selling old tech to consumers for as long as they can because that's where they get the highest margins. A slightly less pessimistic take is that monitor makers don't believe that there is a market for really large screens because when you do a survey most people think 32" is "big" and anything larger is absurd. But it's wonderful! :)
chx 3y ago
> it needs two (!) DisplayPort cables on a GPU with MST support, meaning that in practice, it only works with nVidia graphics cards. This is nonsense, of course AMD graphics cards support MST. https://www.reddit.com/user/hubsdocks/comments/rcf6vz/dell_wd19_thinkpad_x13_gen1_amd_ryzen_4000/ https://www.reddit.com/user/hubsdocks/comments/rcf6vz/dell_w... Perhaps some weird Linux driver limitation...? As for DisplayPort, the only semi-modern customer grade video card with four DisplayPorts is the AMD Radeon™ RX 5700 XT Taichi X 8G OC+ RX5700XT TCX 8GP.
- secure 3y ago
  Yes, with AMD cards, the 8K monitor only works on Windows. With Intel ARC cards, the 8K monitor works neither on Windows nor on Linux :(
rubin55 3y ago
Michael Stapelberg's blog was a source for me when I bought my Dell UP3218Ks specifically for usage with Linux. A great resource! The article mentions that "it (the Dell UP3218K) needs two (!) DisplayPort cables on a GPU with MST support, meaning that in practice, it only works with nVidia graphics cards." I would like to tell people here that this is not true in my experience (which might be related to advances in amdgpu and/or linux in general): I'm running one Dell on a Vega (64) Frontier Edition and one on a 6900XT, both on Linux 6.3 with the amdgpu driver. It sets up correctly, using DP TILE extension, so both cables used, 7680x4320@60hz. Also I would like to add (subjectively) that nothing beats the display quality of these screens. It's literally life/eye-changing.. insanely nice, sharp. I could never go back to sub ~200ish DPI displays.
- secure 3y ago
  Hey, thanks for letting us know! I most recently tried the AMD GPU that came with my ThinkStation P620, and it could not drive the monitor at native resolution :( Maybe I should try a 6900XT. Which particular model do you have? How much power does it use when driving the 8K monitor? Do you have PCIe ASPM enabled in the UEFI setup for your PEG slot, and does that run reliably? I was running into problems with ASPM with my nVidia: https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/t/pcie-errors-after-enabling-aspm-power-saving-gpu-has-fallen-off-the-bus/257440 https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/t/pcie-errors-after-enab...
dahwolf 3y ago
Monitors are frustratingly slow to evolve. What would really make a dent in experience is OLED + HDR. In the TV world, the combination with HDR is relatively new as OLED displays struggled with brightness. This particular combination working well is a sight to behold. It makes you consider what absolute crap image you were looking at before.
b212 3y ago
The problem is 16:10 22” at 1680x1050 nas been always the sweet spot for me. No zooming, everything visible perfectly, ideal font size for coding and etc. I’m at 16:9 (nearly impossible to get 16:10 today :/) 4k 32” and honestly this is freaking small. What’s the point of all the space if it all looks really good without zooming at maybe 2500-ish pixels wide. I’d gladly get a good 42” display at 4k, would be perfect.

248 points by secure 3y ago

Great review. Are you returning the monitor? Also, have you kept the Kinesis 360 keyboard and did you get used to the plam pads? Personally, I'm using the palm pads of the Advantage 2.

secure 3y ago
Yeah, I’m returning it. I kept the 360, but am currently using the Advantage 2 again. I never got used to the 360 palm pads.
- I_am_tiberius 3y ago
  Funnily, I was trying to buy the monitor as well last Friday in Austria, but was informed that the inventory nr on the website was wrong - so my order was cancelled. After your review, I guess I'll be waiting for the Samsung ViewFinity S9 (5k). Re Kinesis: I have mixed feelings as well but in the meantime I got used to the 360 model. With the old palm pads, it feels more like the Advantage 2. I'm a bit sad that I didn't order the pro model. I really liked my Advantage 2 as well, but I can't go back to it as some electronic part seems to be damaged. It just seems to send random characters without touching the keyboard.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  Why are you returning it? I am keeping mine because I don't know of anything better. Also, check out the MoErgo Glove80 keyboard.

adamgamble 3y ago

Although I haven’t used these monitors, my experience with high dpi on windows and Linux has been a nightmare compared to OSX. It’s surprising me the non Mac world hasn’t made this a bigger priority.

drcongo 3y ago
High DPI screens with Windows really show how bad the font rendering is.
- hocuspocus 3y ago
  At high DPI the difference in font rendering between ClearType, Freetype and macOS diminish greatly, it's mostly a matter of taste, and at least Microsoft hasn't crippled low DPI rendering in recent Windows versions like Apple did with macOS.
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
I actually think Windows does it better than OS X (and Gnome, Wayland, and anything that does not support true fractional scaling). OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always look blurry.
- filoleg 3y ago
  > OS X just scales the entire surface and as result it always look blurry. I genuinely have zero idea what you are talking about. Typing this from my macbook connected to a 5k LG ultrawide monitor, and it is as crystal sharp as it can get. As opposed to my windows 10 desktop (connected to the same monitor) having some occasional application windows render fairly blurry and inconsistently (one of the main offenders of this is, ironically, task manager). And don't even get me started on font rendering in general.
  - xnyanta 3y ago
    macOS will render at the next highest integer scale factor and then downscale to fit the resolution of your monitor instead of just rendering at the fractional scale in the first place
    - Aaargh20318 3y ago
      It’s effectively supersampling. The resulting image looks excellent.

Matheus28 3y ago

Slightly off topic but I can’t wait until there’s a 120 Hz 8K monitor. It’s the only thing holding me back from upgrading from 4K. I wonder if the current limitation is on the panels, cable bandwidth or absurd price tag…

CobaltFire 3y ago
I run the DELL G3223Q (144Hz 4K) and mine calibrated at ~98% DCI-P3 for reference. I'm quite happy with it. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/g3223q
- f001 3y ago
  I have the same monitor but would get an 8k equivalent in a heartbeat. I run it at 100% scaling, and would love that sweet sweet 200% scaling
malfist 3y ago
8k@120Hz is going to need one heck of a video card
- dogma1138 3y ago
  Not for productivity.
- densh 3y ago
  I’d argue that AI driven super resolution like DLSS should be more than sufficient to upscale 4k to 8k with minimal performance loss and acceptable image quality even for gaming.
- justahuman74 3y ago
  Not for tmux + firefox
  - walrus01 3y ago
    Unless people are far more sensitive than I am, I don't see how >60Hz is needed for a desktop workstation environment. High frame rate is really only noticeable for very fast reaction time gaming. 4K 120Hz may be noticeable if editing ultra high frame rate video on a video editing workstation, but if you are a video production crew with a camera capable of recording at that framerate, you probably already know that.

davidhyde 3y ago

Just give me a 2K monitor that turns on instantly, doesn’t hunt for sources, consumes less than 20W of power and I’ll be a happy guy. Bonus for having physical buttons to select explicit input sources without delays.

dogma1138 3y ago
You ain’t getting a modern monitor with less than 20W of power unless you want something very small and very dim with very low refresh rate.
- glowingly 3y ago
  Nowadays, I think it is doable with modern displays. My 165Hz 1440p 32" (31.5") LG with 8 bit color and two external speakers consumes ~20W, measured at the wall. My 14" laptop screen is about 19.8% of the area of that display. I have loosely measured it from ranges of ~<1W at min brightness to ~8W at max brightness. It is 1440p, 60Hz, 14", HDR (DV). I usually run it at ~20% brightness, which seems to be around 3W. My office has the usual LED lighting at night or a large window + sliding glass door during the day. Not a dark cave by any means!
coder543 3y ago
I would say that less than 30W might be a more realistic goal[0]. Maybe lower end monitors consume less power than these... I'm not sure. Also, it just seems strange that anyone is asking for a 1080p monitor in 2023 outside of Esports. Are you sure you want 1080p (2K) and not 1440p (2.5K)? It bothers me when people use 2K to refer to 1440p. 1080p is 2K[1]. [0]: this chart has a few recent monitors and gives a general idea of how much power monitors consume: https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527 https://youtu.be/Wik4DhEaj_8?t=527 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution is very clear on this subject, and I agree completely. 1080p is much closer to 2000 horizontal pixels than 1440p.
- davidhyde 3y ago
  Yeh, I meant 1440p. 16:10. Was not aware these were referred to as 2.5k, thanks! I actually have a 32” one so no scaling is required and I think it only takes about 30W so it doesn’t feel like I’m sitting in front of a heater in summer. Honestly, anything below 50W is fine. My biggest gripe really is that it takes 7 seconds to turn on.

densh 3y ago

The comments regarding matte vs glossy and text sharpness resonates with me. It’s really hard to use any non-Apple screens since their color is completely washed out and lifeless and text lacks crispness on all screens at a range of price points I’ve ever tried. What’s even more puzzling is how a large number of people online seem to adamantly defend widely sold lower-dpi 32” 4k matte screens as a superior product. It’s been over a decade since first retina products shipped and somehow 200 dpi+ desktop screens is still an extremely niche product.

howinteresting 3y ago
The M1 MacBook Pro 14" shipped with a GtG response time of 58.4ms. The U3224KB featured in this review has a GtG response time of 5ms in fast mode, which is considered average but not great. Most high-end monitors manage GtG response times of around 1ms. With OLED it's closer to 0.5ms. 58.4ms is unacceptably bad.
- densh 3y ago
  Sure, they are not fast response gaming screens, but I am specifically calling out reading all forms of text (web/email/documents/coding) as a main use case. OLED would be great if we could finally get 27” 5K. Currently all the gaming screens sit at around 1440p pixel density and are often coupled with non RGB pixel layout that causes color fringing on text: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing-issues/ https://pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing-...
  - hedora 3y ago
    You should be able to set the font anti-aliaser's subpixel order unless you're running a terrible operating system.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    To be clear, a 58ms response time is so bad that it produces a ton of ghosting while just scrolling text. Apparently Apple screens have always been this bad and Mac users just live with it.

stalfosknight 3y ago

Why is it that pretty much all displays in the PC world have such dismal pixel densities (< 226 ppi)? It would be nice to be able to shop for a new desktop display without having to give up Retina in macOS.

howinteresting 3y ago
Most people buying high-end monitors prioritize high refresh rates over pixel densities.
- api 3y ago
  Gamers do. For coding I prefer high contrast and clarity. I’m disappointed there haven’t been any huge genuine OLED screens. MicroLED could be nice too.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    Right, and most people buying high-end monitors are gamers.
    - addisonl 3y ago
      Interesting, I’d assume it’s professionals in the video/photography/production space spending the serious money on high end displays. Where are you getting your data?
      - jccalhoun 3y ago
        Well there's "high end" consumer and then there's "high end" professional which is a few times higher in price
  - kitsunesoba 3y ago
    Yeah the extra frames do nothing in my text editor. The only part of your typical gaming display I want in a work/daily driver monitor is adaptive sync to reduce video judder and to allow the GPU to idle even more deeply when nothing is being redrawn (which is part of why M-series 14/16” MBPs get great battery life: their screens can go down as far as 1hz). I won’t turn down a higher peak framerate if it comes without cost to the rest of the monitor’s functionality of course, but it’s not worth trading anything away for.

steveBK123 3y ago

Friends dont let friends buy Dell monitors.

photonbeam 3y ago
What do friends let friends buy?
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Eizo, Apple, LG, maybe a Viewsonic or Samsung.. Basically go read rtings.com for whatever size/resolution/price class you are looking for, and look at the in depth reviews for the things that matter to you. In my case I have a bright office, so glare/reflection and backlight brightness are extremely important. A good monitor can last you 2-3x as long as the compute you hook up to it, and your eyes are important.. I think its not the place to skimp on cost in the total home office setup.
  - SomeRndName11 3y ago
    Have you tried LG or Samsung service? Not better. Generally my observation is that outside of warranty problems HP and Dell monitors have better calibration and balanced feature set in OSD compared to Asian ones, when they have all kind of unnecessary things in settings and lack what I want (unlocked sRGB for example).
dewey 3y ago
What's the issue with Dell monitors? I'm still using my Dell P2715Q (4k) from > 5 years ago every day and the only reason that would make me switch is that it doesn't support the latest HDMI connections any more.
- sedatk 3y ago
  Yeah, until I got enamored by 144Hz, I'd exclusively buy Dell monitors because of their great price/performance.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bentcorner 3y ago

I wonder what impact Apple's VR headset is going to have in, say, 10 years. Hopefully prices for their headsets as a complete unit will have dropped, and at that point, while I'm no optical scientist, we must be approaching the limits of eye clarity, no? So eventually VR headsets will offer effectively 360 degrees of "monitor" that can't be matched by any panel, and the only actual pixels they will need to produce are a postage stamp sized thing in front of your eyeball. I can imagine that a lot of personal computing is going to transform into some kind of "screen+lens+eyeball" as COGs for these kinds of headset displays are going to be lower than traditional monitor (or possibly even smartphone) displays.

anon373839 3y ago
Unless they can manage to shrink the headset to the weight of a pair of glasses, I don’t see this as competition for monitors. Just to name one out of dozens of issues: if you have your face supporting a heavy VR mask for hours a day, it’s really going to show after a few years.

swader999 3y ago

6k is even way too much to spend.

fadedsignal 3y ago
> Dell’s 32-inch 6K monitor (U3224KBA), a productivity monitor that offer.. I stopped reading after this lol

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

I just purchased 2 of the 6Ks and I am keeping both. AMA. I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090 via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows) and I don't think 8K with 1:2 scaling would give suitably sized OS components for me, so it would be fractional scaling either way. The startup time doesn't matter in practice because they still wake up from sleep instantaneously. The mini-DP IN port would be inconvenient but Club3D makes a bi-directional adapter that makes it regular DisplayPort for about $20. I am fine with the camera defaulting to ON for Windows Hello to work in my 2 computer setup. My only serious complaint is the piss poor speakers and the fabric covering them. I would also prefer a glossy display, but in practice I just don't find it makes any difference. I arrange my office for no reflections anyhow, which results in an equivalent experience. Additionally, the Dell 6K has excellent blacks. It has much better blacks than any IPS panel I have used.

j45 3y ago
I have 3 24" Benq 2K video grade monitors running at 2560x1440 giving me nearly 11 million usable pixels. It has a huge boost in productivity for me. 4K TVs only seem to become usably readable with Chroma 4:4:4 at 38" or above, ideally curved, to get 4 usable 1920x1080 quadrants. When the screen sizes go smaller, absolutely detail and quality increases, but for software development or text centric work is concerned, am I missing something when it comes to 6K or 8K Monitors?
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  32" displays are a sweet spot in size for me as long as the pixel density is >200 ppi, but more for graphics applications than text editors. For 3D applications especially, it's very beneficial to have a lot of area on one screen since the GUI default layouts tend to fit best on 16:9 screens or close to that and larger screens give you larger multi-viewport layouts. 24 inch displays just couldn't come close here. 32" allows me to work in a 4 viewport layout all day long. It's also nice in IDEs, but my main purpose is various graphics applications. And sure I could fiddle endlessly with multi-display layouts but that's such a time suck and every application is completely different so I wouldn't bother no matter what my screen size is.

tedunangst 3y ago

People are happy using DSC for a pixel perfect monitor? I'd never trust it for graphics work.

secure 3y ago
I wouldn’t say happy, but it’s currently the only choice. Maybe as drivers advance we can have non-DSC links — the hardware should support it per the spec…

mynonameaccount 3y ago

Dell cuts cost anywhere they can. Their power cable, keyboard, and mouse have the tiniest gauge wire I have ever seen and this is a $2500 system. Do not buy Dell.

bluedino 3y ago
The mouse cables are hilariously short these days. I know, I know, get a $30 bluetooth mouse that is better in every way, but I remember the days of like 8 ft mouse cables.

diziet 3y ago

I think there are three groups of people with opinions regarding 120Hz vs 60Hz refresh rate. Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz. Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options. Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolution 120Hz displays with higher resolution 60Hz displays. I think a lot of people mistakenly think they are in Group 2 when they are in Group 3.

boyter 3y ago
I thought I was in 2... till I actually got a 120Hz screen. Since I flip between my desktop at 120Hz and Macbook Air M1 at 60Hz frequently I discovered I really notice. Its always so much nicer when I leave the Air. Everything is so much smoother.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Same difference between 30 and 60hz I imagine. Feels like you go from mega choppy to smooth as butter.
  - boyter 3y ago
    I get used to 60 pretty quickly, but I really notice it when I move back.
  - rjh29 3y ago
    A variable rate between 30-60 is absolutely worse than consistent 30fps.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      If you display those frames on a 60Hz screen, it's an awful effect. If the screen natively supports variable frame times, there's a lot more upside and a lot less downside.
- 3y ago

bluedino 3y ago

You'll never pry my Retina MacBook from my hands, and I love my original USB-C LG 4K, but I've really started to like my 42" 4K TV that I have been hah g the last two years. It was $300, the color isn't perfect, it has a little glare, it can be choosy when it comes to ports and cables, but having such a large desktop is great. It's a large enough screen to run at native resolution. I'm interested in things like Apples 6K monitor but the cost and the fact that it's only really work with my Mac, as well as not giving me that much usable space, make it an easy decision to not buy.

manmal 3y ago
Is the TV wall mounted? I‘d be interested how this could be done in an ergonomic way (eyes in line with top of the screen).
- raihansaputra 3y ago
  Wendell from LevelOneTech has a custom setup that does this, but in my own experience it's better to have a "main part" of the screen in the ergonomic zone and use the rest of the space for auxiliary windows. Window management tools is a must for me when using the 42" tv.

qaq 3y ago

The top part looks really bad to my eye at least. Would totally buy it if didn't look this ugly

jwells89 3y ago

I also bought one of these, but ended up returning it. The technical aspects of this review are interesting, especially the wide range of machines tested. I finished writing a review of my own[0] a few days ago, which is less technical but goes into some other aspects of the monitor. [0]: https://www.wells.dev/dell-ultrasharp-u3224kb-squandered-potential/ https://www.wells.dev/dell-ultrasharp-u3224kb-squandered-pot...

phillco 3y ago
> One might surmise that Dell is aware of the issue given the monitor's Mac-inclined target audience however, which makes the lack of mention of it anywhere in marketing materials or documentation feel somewhat dishonest. Wouldn't be the first time. My previous Dell monitor, the U3818DW, had a bug with its USB-C implementation that only affected Macs (somebody proved via protocol inspection that they were actually implementing part of the protocol wrong; it just didn't manifest on Windows). Their support forums for the issue are full of a single Dell representative whose sole response was to remind all of the Apple users that _technically_, Dell never qualified this monitor for macOS, and it's their fault for not carefully reading the technical documentation before purchasing. (Naturally, many of the reviews on Amazon are of people plugging it into a MacBook Pro.) Really soured me on the idea of buying a Dell monitor for anything Apple related after that.
frozenport 3y ago
Expected apothesis but got a computer monitor. Its not clear what the alternative monitor would be.
- jwells89 3y ago
  I returned it not because it wasn’t perfect, but because its list of issues was too long. With exception to the antiglare coating grain (it was one of the most bothersome), I could’ve lived with some of its problems if they weren’t so numerous. No monitor comes totally problem free after all. The other issue is its cost. Expectations raise alongside price, and at an MSRP of $3200 they’re pretty high, and this monitor in my opinion doesn’t meet the bar… with its build quality, problems, and lack of polish it’d maybe make sense at half that price, but even then that antiglare coating would make it a hard sell. They’d need to at least change the coating to make it resemble that of a more traditional matte monitor (which has no grain or sparkle effect). And you’re right, there isn’t really an alternative except the Pro Display XDR, which is priced far beyond what many of us would find reasonable, uses increasingly dated local dimming tech, and has no extra functions beyond the hub on its back. That’s part of why I was disappointed: everything was lined up for Dell to have been able to knock this one out of the park — it would’ve been easy — but they didn’t.

j45 3y ago

I find a 2Kish (2560x1440or1600) resolution on a 24-27" Monitor to be the most usable for text. I understand things like fonts render smoother on a 4-6-8K monitor but it also draws more power usually to power all those pixels. The use of a Chroma 4:4:4 capable 4K tv is also often really helpful because one 4K screen at large enough size gives four 1920x1080 working surfaces. 4K seems to become useful at 38" Or so in a TV. Is there something I'm missing out on in terms of option that are superior to 2K for external monitors in terms of usability? Many of the ultrawide monitors sometimes have worse or close to the same resolution as a single 2K monitor.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kuschku 3y ago
Why are you conflating 2K (2048x1080/1920x1080) and 1440p (2560x1440)? They're not even close to the same resolution.
- j45 3y ago
  1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. Confused, not conflated. Same comment and question about 1440p then, please :)
  - kuschku 3y ago
    > 1440p monitors can be referred to as 2k monitors and I did clarify the resolution. By whom? The only reference to 1440p being called "2K" I can find are cheap rebranded monitor sellers that defraud their customers with all other specs anyway.
    - j45 3y ago
      This seems to really be upsetting to you. I like monitors too. “2K” monitors are widths that fall around the 2000 pixel range. It’s a resolution category, not a specification. 2K monitor categorization emerged when 4K started to be used as a rough mid point. 2560x1440 is often shortened to 1440p, but 2K is often easier to remember. Still, officially it’s called Quad HD (QHD) or even WQHD. With slight variations beyond it. Since we’re trying to be precise the category for this res can also be called 2.5K. But like you said, we won’t always be able to search for that. Finding the spot between FHD and 4K has this fuzzy category. Every retailer Amy display it different depending on how and when their sites were built and evolved. The newer ultra wide monitors can do a lot of sleight of hand to stretch a lot more pixels horizontally to make the screen seem bigger. “5K” monitors might give as many pixels as four 2560x1440, but it won’t be 4 monitors worth of work space. All I know is my wife won’t give me back my QHD screens since she started using them because she can fit more on 2 monitors.

closeparen 3y ago

I switched from a pair of 27" 4K to a 34" Ultrawide and I like it but I miss the pixel density. Hope we get a "Retina" Ultrawide before too long.

bas3l1ne 3y ago
This is why I've stuck with my pair of older 24" 4k dell monitors. Before them I was using regular 2k monitors, and would get headaches staring at a monitor for a full workday 8-10 hours and my eyes were so strained I usually ended up just going to bed right afterwards. I've never used an ultrawide, but I'd be really interested in trying one out IF I can get a similar PPI (~192 or higher)
BoorishBears 3y ago
We have multiple, there's a "5k" LG /MSI and a 4k x 2 Dell
InvaderFizz 3y ago
I have the Alienware 38" Ultrawide. The ratios are just slightly off for my eyes comfort. At a full 1:1 pixel ratio, the text is too small. Scaled up slightly the size is right, but the blur is really annoying. I think it would be prefect for me if it were like 45" with the same resolution, or if it were still 38" but instead of being 3840, native it was 3200 or something like that. If I scale it to 50%, it looks phenomenal, but who wants to work on a screen with the equivalent real estate of 1920x720? I now spend most of my time on the built in display of my 16" M1 MBP. The text sizing is fine for me.

r2vcap 3y ago

The larger the monitor, generally the better. However, considering GPU performance and power consumption, compromises must be made somewhere. I have a $500 Dell 4K 32-inch monitor, which is the maximum I can accommodate in terms of desk space. (The desk space is greatly influenced by real estate prices, currently estimated at $12,000 per square meter based on my home.)

keyle 3y ago

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Dell screen bugs with macOS/M1/M2. I have the 27" and 32" curved monitor, and they both suffer from massive flickering issues with some hues. And yes I have it pegged at 60hz, unlike the "solution" says, removing the variable rate does not solve the problem. Buyers beware of Dell screens with macOS on Apple Silicon. And yes I've tried many different cables... :)

claytonjy 3y ago
Is this specific to the curved ones? I've got the Dell G3223Q, a flat 32" 4k 144Hz, no flickering on my M2 MacBook pro or my Framework with PopOS. I run it at 1080p (2x scaling) on both and connect through a CalDigit TS4 w/ DisplayPort. I like it enough I'm considering a second. Only downside is no usb-c.
- keyle 3y ago
  It's not specific to curved ones, I have a flat S2721SQ that does it as much as the curved S3221QS. I believe this is why it's not a problem for you: [...] both and connect through a CalDigit TS4
Cannabat 3y ago
I have a LG 38” ultrawide which I would love, except it also has this problem with specific hues. It took me a while to figure out that it was related to certain colors. I found that if change the color profile I can mitigate the issue, but then it doesn’t look quite as nice. On the LG, not only is there flickering but a transient burn-in which still appears when the TB cable is disconnected! It fades after a few hours. Many owners have the same issue with their M1 devices so I assume it’s not something that is fixable.

orliesaurus 3y ago

I feel like a fish out of water - I understand the importance of having an external monitor, maybe even 2 monitors if you're on desktop, but...8K ? 32 inch? curved? 120hz ... wow I feel like I have absolute no problems sitting here with a 27 inch 60 hz monitor alongside my Macbook pro...

francislavoie 3y ago
Higher refresh rate does make a noticeable difference, if you have 60hz and 120hz or higher side by side you notice it instantly from the mouse cursor movement and scrolling websites etc, it's just buttery in comparison. Definitely not a must, just nice to have. I don't see the benefit of going higher than 1440p or 1600p though, any higher res just means I need to increase scaling otherwise things are too small to read comfortably for me.
- Saris 3y ago
  High res with scaling does make text and stuff really crisp though which is nice
hilbert42 3y ago
"but...8K ? 32 inch? curved?" It depends much on the type of work one is doing. I don't have 8k but I'd surely love to have one when I'm editing high resolution 48-bit TIFF files (≥1GB) which I do quite often. Normally for other work 1920x1080 is more an adequate.

veidr 3y ago

Absolutely, hell no, if you are talking about the screen itself. The difference in crispness between the Dell UP321K (~280ppi at 7680x64280 at 31.5 inches) and this new U3224KBA (~220ppi at 6144 x 3456 at 32") is dramatic. The new Dell 6K is about the same as the Apple 6K (the XDR Pro Display). I had that 6K Apple and the 8K Dell side-by-side on my desk for a few months (until I could find a buyer for the dramatically inferior Apple). During that time, I asked anybody who happened to stop by to look at the screens and compare them. Almost everybody could see the difference immediately. A few people, admittedly, said they looked pretty much the same. I think there's a certain level of eyesight required to discern the difference. Having said that, I got my first prescription glasses 2 years ago, and I can easily see the difference with glasses on or off. I cannot see pixels on either one. But what I can see is a slight fuzz at the edges of letters on the lower res display. Moreover, I need my glasses to use the 6K for long stretches and I don't even really need to wear them with the 8K. That's what made me so attached to this monitor. I was therefore bummed to see Dell release this 6K. I want a modern version of the 8K! Two cables sucks, it's quite a compatibility nightmare to get configured properly on Linux if you want to use cheaper monitors alongside it (because the software support for multiple displays at different scaling factors is pretty bad still on most Linux). On Mac it never worked at all, until they released the M2 chip(!). (It has always worked fine on Windows, just plug it in.) Having used this for a few years, I don't ever want to go back to 6K, or 5K, or 4K. I just want 8K to get cheaper so that I can rock 3 8K displays, instead of the 4K-8K-4K I suffer today.... also, 120Hz please.

afterburner 3y ago
Are you sure you're not just experiencing some other difference in manufacturing, like a difference in the matte finish?
- veidr 3y ago
  That's a good question, but yes, I am very sure. I have compared them with magnifying glasses, and really tried to get into why such a (seemingly, at first) small increase in resolution made such a huge difference. I've compared standard 27" 4K, the LG and Apple 27" 5K ), the Apple 6K and the Dell 8K. It really is just a lot more pixels. The fuzz is definitely small, but there. Another good test is open VS Code full screen, divide it up into panes, and make the text as small as you can read it. I mean really small. The text on the 6K just looks awful while the 8K still looks good. Sometimes I do actually do this and put on my glasses (the text is too small for me to read without assistance, but it is still pretty crisp). It feels like a nerd superpower. There are actually a bunch of us 8K superfans out here on the internet, but it's been a lonely party, because the Dell UP3218K seems to be still the only 8K computer monitor you can buy. (As in a roughly 32" desktop monitor, not a TV.)

jiggawatts 3y ago

We've had the technology for a while now to make an 8K HDR 120 Hz OLED monitor. The panel tech exists, the scalers exist, the ports and cables also both exist. We'll have this available for purchase any decade now... any decade. Soon, perhaps as early as the 2030s, 2040s tops! All joking aside, I'm tempted to create a GoFundMe page for this and see if there's other people out there interested in convincing a panel manufacturer to print some 8K monitor-sized OLEDs...

p1necone 3y ago
I've got the opposite request. I'd love a native 720p oled of a decent size for playing Switch (and PS3/360, I've got a bit of collection) games on. It's probably a niche market, but most games on the switch run natively at somewhere between 720 and 1080p and look awful scaled up to 4k.
- foldor 3y ago
  Why not 1440p with integer 2x scaling?
  - p1necone 3y ago
    It's very uncommon to find a monitor or TV that actually does non filtered integer scaling, most apply a blurry bilinear scale that looks awful. And afaik there are no external HDMI pixel doublers on the market, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Native 720p does look slightly better than integer scaling to 2x because of subpixel stuff, and generally liking that LCD look. But integer scaling would be enough really.
    - teruakohatu 3y ago
      > And afaik there are no external HDMI pixel doublers on the market, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Sounds like a fun project, you should build one.
      - 3y ago

whatever1 3y ago

FYI in Macrumors [1] forum users found that when connected via thuderbolt 4 in Apple Silicon Macs, you dont get the full resolution, because MacOS does not enable DSC. In short you get max 6016 x 3384 instead of the native for the monitor 6144×3456. You have to either use the HDMI port from the Mac (if you have an M2 one) or use a usbc to HDMI converter which for some reason triggers the DSC. [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dell-6k-u3224kb-monitor.2387515/page-25 https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dell-6k-u3224kb-monitor...

jwells89 3y ago
Slight correction, the monitor will run at full resolution (6144x3456), but with 24-bit color instead of 30-bit. To get 30-bit over Thunderbolt one has to run it at 6016x3384. So effectively, you get full PPI or full color but not both.
- whatever1 3y ago
  Thanks for the correction :D The main issue is that users reported that text does not look very nice when the monitor runs in 24-bit color and full resolution, which is a bit concerning when considering the asking price.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Fully agree, at that price the picture needs to be very close to perfect.

iforgotpassword 3y ago

> To drive that resolution at 60 Hz, about 34 Gbps of data rate is needed. ... But then the table just below states the MacBook does it at 8gbps without DSC. What's going on here?

secure 3y ago
Copying my reply from Mastodon: > I honestly don’t know. Maybe this is a bug in the monitor’s firmware and it does use some version of DSC after all? Or you’re right regarding lack of DSC support and it uses more than 8 Gbps but displays it incorrectly? Not sure. But something is definitely different about the monitor’s link when a MacBook is connected… Then I read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36581855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36581855, which points out 24 bit colors vs. 30 bit colors. The MacBook links up with 24-bit colors indeed. Maybe that’s the difference?

hilbert42 3y ago

"Is a matte screen the better option compared to the 8K monitor’s glossy finish? <...> Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better! It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much." A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comment about matte and glossy screens is very useful (also I'm more likely to trust his opinion than many others because his discerning experience is backed by the fact that he's actually using an 8k monitor—and that takes money and commitment). Over the years I've made many comparisons between matte and glossy screens and I have to agree with him for the same reasons. Despite being more susceptible to reflections, glossy screens always seem brighter and somehow sharper than matte ones of the same resolution and brightness. I've never investigated the reason in depth but I suspect the matte finish disperses the light from the screen and the net visual effect is a 'rounding' of transients resulting in lower contrast somewhat like offset printing which never looks as sharp as letterpress (where the ink dries thicker and looks blacker at the edges of the imprinting, this increases visual contrast even though the resolution may not be much different).

microtonal 3y ago
I agree. I thought I generally prefer matte for office displays. But even since purchasing a Studio Display, matte display just look dull. Also the Studio Display seems to avoid reflections by auto adjusting the brightness when the room is well-lighted.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  Yeah, that makes sense. In an office one's more likely to be doing say word-processing in a highly-lit environment where detail and contrast aren't that important. I normally do photo editing in subdued low-light conditions where gloss is not an issue. Edit: Incidentally, I'm typing this on my Lenovo ThinkPad which has matte screen but I'm using an external monitor with a glossy screen which I prefer (to be fair, it's also slightly larger). No, it wasn't a mistake at purchase time, it was given to me. :-)
- 3y ago

arijun 3y ago

Link to the monitor in the US site if your German is rusty (the monitor is $2.4k) https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monitor-u3224kb/apd/210-bhbz/monitors-monitor-accessories https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monito...

iod 3y ago

Having owned Dell's 5K for years, last year I finally upgraded to their 8K model. I could never go back to anything less. If you need it and can justify the cost, you will know; but I don't see either being justifiably true for very many people at this point. While higher refresh would be nice, 60Hz is more than adequate for me, as it's the screen real estate that matters, and you really don't have many options to choose from.

dzogchen 3y ago

I bought this 6K monitor, but I did not like 1) The scaling on macOS. Everything was way too big. There were not enough options for fractional scaling. 2) The matte finish. I came from another matte Dell monitor, but the whole screen looked slightly fuzzy, like a permanent oil stain all over the monitor. 3) The contrast sucks. They call it 'IPS Black' but I was not impressed. The colors look different depending on the angle. This is probably an issue with the size of the monitor as well, as when you look at the left size, the angle to the right size is pretty big. Lastly I did not like the size either, but I will have that with every 31.5 inch monitor.

cubefox 3y ago

Recently there was an article here on HN declaring that LCDs are on their way out now in favor of OLED. That doesn't seem true at all for the monitor market. The author doesn't even mention that both monitors are LCDs.

foepys 3y ago
In that post [1] some commenters said that the backlight technology for LCDs is the hot stuff at the moment, apparently. You don't want an OLED PC monitor because it will very quickly suffer from burn-in at the typical locations of taskbar and window controls. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36398596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36398596
- cubefox 3y ago
  He may referring to mini LED, a backlight which enables more fine-grained local dimming. As for burn-in, this doesn't seem to be an issue in smartphones for many years now, and monitors are also not normally used with damaging high brightness HDR content like OLED TVs. My guess would rather be that OLED monitors are too expensive, maybe because they have much higher PPI values than TVs. (A 55" 4k TV has only 80 PPI.)

Kon5ole 3y ago

I don't understand why these monitors are so expensive. I've been using a 55" 8k TV as my main monitor for years and paid less than USD 1000 for it new. Recently I saw a similar deal for a 8k tv again, so making panels at 8k and shipping them around the world at around USD 1000 is certainly still possible, but the Dell 8k is 4000+ and the 6k is 2300+. Using a tv as a monitor has downsides (Only HDMI, doesn't detect inputs automatically etc) but having 55" of retina screen real estate is such a great experience that I'm sticking with it. The same panel sold as a PC monitor with proper inputs (and maybe a matte screen) would be ideal.

jupblb 3y ago
It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >It's because a smaller screen with the same (high) resolution means higher pixel density and smaller pixel size. It's something noticeably more expensive to manufacture. That's a fair point but I don't think it applies at these scales. Even a 8K 32" has a very low pixel density compared to a cellphone screen for example. Acer has a 16" portable 4K screen for around 600 USD which they presumably sell at a nice profit, 4 of them would make a 8K 32". Anyway, pricing aside the main problem is that the products don't exist in the first place. A monitor that's simply 4x 27" 4k screens (available from 300 usd) combined would be perfect for a programmer, data analyst etc even if it isn't strictly "retina". The manufacturers don't make monitors like this for one reason or another. I think it's a marketing/economic strategy more than anything else. My pessimistic take is that LG and Samsung etc have tons of investments in old tech and want to keep selling old tech to consumers for as long as they can because that's where they get the highest margins. A slightly less pessimistic take is that monitor makers don't believe that there is a market for really large screens because when you do a survey most people think 32" is "big" and anything larger is absurd. But it's wonderful! :)

chx 3y ago

> it needs two (!) DisplayPort cables on a GPU with MST support, meaning that in practice, it only works with nVidia graphics cards. This is nonsense, of course AMD graphics cards support MST. https://www.reddit.com/user/hubsdocks/comments/rcf6vz/dell_wd19_thinkpad_x13_gen1_amd_ryzen_4000/ https://www.reddit.com/user/hubsdocks/comments/rcf6vz/dell_w... Perhaps some weird Linux driver limitation...? As for DisplayPort, the only semi-modern customer grade video card with four DisplayPorts is the AMD Radeon™ RX 5700 XT Taichi X 8G OC+ RX5700XT TCX 8GP.

secure 3y ago
Yes, with AMD cards, the 8K monitor only works on Windows. With Intel ARC cards, the 8K monitor works neither on Windows nor on Linux :(

rubin55 3y ago

Michael Stapelberg's blog was a source for me when I bought my Dell UP3218Ks specifically for usage with Linux. A great resource! The article mentions that "it (the Dell UP3218K) needs two (!) DisplayPort cables on a GPU with MST support, meaning that in practice, it only works with nVidia graphics cards." I would like to tell people here that this is not true in my experience (which might be related to advances in amdgpu and/or linux in general): I'm running one Dell on a Vega (64) Frontier Edition and one on a 6900XT, both on Linux 6.3 with the amdgpu driver. It sets up correctly, using DP TILE extension, so both cables used, 7680x4320@60hz. Also I would like to add (subjectively) that nothing beats the display quality of these screens. It's literally life/eye-changing.. insanely nice, sharp. I could never go back to sub ~200ish DPI displays.

secure 3y ago
Hey, thanks for letting us know! I most recently tried the AMD GPU that came with my ThinkStation P620, and it could not drive the monitor at native resolution :( Maybe I should try a 6900XT. Which particular model do you have? How much power does it use when driving the 8K monitor? Do you have PCIe ASPM enabled in the UEFI setup for your PEG slot, and does that run reliably? I was running into problems with ASPM with my nVidia: https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/t/pcie-errors-after-enabling-aspm-power-saving-gpu-has-fallen-off-the-bus/257440 https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/t/pcie-errors-after-enab...

dahwolf 3y ago

Monitors are frustratingly slow to evolve. What would really make a dent in experience is OLED + HDR. In the TV world, the combination with HDR is relatively new as OLED displays struggled with brightness. This particular combination working well is a sight to behold. It makes you consider what absolute crap image you were looking at before.

b212 3y ago

The problem is 16:10 22” at 1680x1050 nas been always the sweet spot for me. No zooming, everything visible perfectly, ideal font size for coding and etc. I’m at 16:9 (nearly impossible to get 16:10 today :/) 4k 32” and honestly this is freaking small. What’s the point of all the space if it all looks really good without zooming at maybe 2500-ish pixels wide. I’d gladly get a good 42” display at 4k, would be perfect.