5K, 6K or 8K: new Asus ProArt monitors

[EugW]

I have none! But 1199$ is *really* cheap, and there's essentially no 6k market, and absolutely no 'low end' 6k market, so they could easily charge more. The closest competitor is Dell, and theirs is 1000$ more expensive after almost a year on the market. I am guessing we're much closer to 1999$ than 1199$.

I guess around 1.8-2k or 2.5k - similar to Dell 6K, with better aesthetics. As mentioned above there's no 6k market, so they will try to set higher prices in the beginning.

I just looked up some Amazon USA pricing on Retina monitors:

27" Samsung ViewFinity S9 5K - Current $750, Max $1100, Min $600
27" LG UltraFine 5K LG 27MD5KL - Current (out of stock), Max $1300, Min $889
27" Asus ProArt 27" 5K PA27JCV - Current $800, Max $800, Min $800 (as it just came out a few months ago)
31.5" Dell UltraSharp 6K U3224KB - Current $2134, Max $3200, Min $1850

In that context, with the Samsung 5K at $599.99 street and the Asus 5K at $799 retail, I'm starting to believe that $1199.99 price tag for the 31.5" Asus ProArt PA32QCV 6K monitor, given that it's a lower end panel without IPS Black. I had originally predicted $2299.99 for the LG UltraFine 6K 32U990A, but in retrospect, I think it will definitely be less than $2000 retail. Not sure the exact amount, but perhaps somewhere from $1599.99 to $1999.99 at launch.

You guys say there is no 6K market. Well, up until now you were correct that there was almost no 6K market. However, I believe that will drastically change as of 2025, even just from Mac users.

Right now, my main interest is with the LG 31.5" (?) UltraFine 6K, Asus 31.5" 6K, or else perhaps the 31.5" Acer 5K. I'd either run them at the HiDPI 2560x1440 setting or else a custom resolution like 2720x1530, with an M4 Mac mini. I would not run them at 3008x1692. BTW, are there difficulties or quirks with running custom resolutions like 2720x1530 or 2880x1620 these days in macOS? I tried running a custom resolution many years ago on 27" 5K iMac, but it caused some problems with the displays preferences so I stopped running it.

 

[Fishrrman]

Eug wrote:
"Right now, my main interest is with the LG 31.5" (?) UltraFine 6K, Asus 31.5" 6K, or else perhaps the 31.5" Acer 5K."

I'm wondering if the 31.5/32" 5k panels will become a greater "market" than the 6k panels (in the same 32" size)?

I'm hoping that a few other manufacturers will enter the market with 32" 5k.

What I'd REALLY like to see is 32" 5k OLED...

 

[turbineseaplane]

What I'd REALLY like to see is 32" 5k OLED...

Same ^

This is the I want

5k @ 32" is plenty and perfect for my old eyes

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

You'll get 34" 5k OLED in one year.

 

[Dark-Signature]

You'll get 34" 5k OLED in one year.

That is no real 5K, it is fake 5K because it is a wider 4K Display, nothing more.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

That is no real 5K, it is fake 5K because it is a wider 4K Display, nothing more.

I find thinking like that so incredibly illogical.

 

[Dark-Signature]

I find thinking like that so incredibly illogical.

Yes, i know what you mean, but it is correct! Because there are Displays with a resolution of 5120x800 (yes, eighthundred). In your logic it is also a 5k screen. In my logic it isn't.

 

[Arthur75]

Outside the world of gaming, Asus even featured a 6K (6,016 x 3,384) display targeted at creators. The ProArt Display 6K PA32QCV will come in a 31.5-inch form factor and use a bright mini-LED display for a surprisingly reasonable $1,249 (competing displays can cost well over $2,000). Of course, this isn’t a great choice for gaming due to its 60Hz refresh rate, but it’s another good example of the industry’s march ever upward.

The Biggest Gaming Monitor Trends of CES 2025 - IGN

Curious what 2025 has in store for PC gaming monitors? We have the answer, direct from CES.

www.ign.com

 

[drrich2]

But 1199$ is *really* cheap, and there's essentially no 6k market, and absolutely no 'low end' 6k market, so they could easily charge more.

As mentioned above there's no 6k market, so they will try to set higher prices in the beginning.

You guys say there is no 6K market. Well, up until now you were correct that there was almost no 6K market. However, I believe that will drastically change as of 2025, even just from Mac users.

I'm wondering if the 31.5/32" 5k panels will become a greater "market" than the 6k panels (in the same 32" size)?

I've read before that with 5K, a video editor can view full resolution 4K video on his display and still have room on-screen for this editing tools beside it, so he has his tools and also a good look at what he's working on.

Is there a similar use case for 6K, such that many professionals would benefit from it, or is the case for 6K mainly sharp text and fine detail on a 32" screen?

I ask because need (or strong want) and demand will drive the 6K market forward...or not.

A recent PC World article delved into how little Thunderbolt 5 was in evidence at CES (here's a thread on that). It lamented the lack of Intel chipsets with integrated Thunderbolt 5 and 'stalled' transition to 8K content - a lack of 8K broadcast means a lack of 8K displays means hardware capable of rendering 8K content isn't as valuable. In another thread we discussed the issue of streaming 8K video, but the increase in bandwidth demand for modest benefit to a small market didn't sound like it would drive fast adoption. And the PC World article indicated the focus will be more on high refresh rates rather than resolution. This may change in a few years.

It's interesting I didn't see 6K video mentioned. Why is the assumption if we go beyond 4K video that we should leap straight to 8K? Not 5, not 6, straight to 8!

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Is there a similar use case for 6K, such that many professionals would benefit from it, or is the case for 6K mainly sharp text and fine detail on a 32" screen?

If you edit 5K images?

You are forgetting this is also a question about the size of the display, and hence PPI. People like big screens, and content on said screens will just look better if the resolution is higher, compared to lower.

 

[etc]

It's interesting I didn't see 6K video mentioned. Why is the assumption if we go beyond 4K video that we should leap straight to 8K? Not 5, not 6, straight to 8!

I think this is because of different nature of use. There's a gold standard PPI for displays like 220 for Retina and 110 for non-Retina screens. That's why we have 6K on 32" computer screens - they can render UI perfectly with the right physical size.

At the same time we have a lot of 4K screens which are designed mostly to watch videos and play games. For professional work these are not comfortable unless they have the right PPI (you won't find one these days) - UI size either too small, or large (though this can be helpful for people who care a lot about their eyes), or poorly rendered.

As for video, there's no pixel size standard for it, resolution just drives everything and just doubling at each quality level is easy and convenient on every production stage.

 

[EugW]

I think this is because of different nature of use. There's a gold standard PPI for displays like 220 for Retina and 110 for non-Retina screens. That's why we have 6K on 32" computer screens - they can render UI perfectly with the right physical size.

Well, the older OS X non-Retina desktop gold standard was 101 ppi, for their flagship $$$$ 30" Cinema HD Display. I think they got it right with that one, as I much prefer that over 109 ppi. And just like I'm not a huge fan of 109 ppi, I'm not a huge fan of 218 ppi with 2X scaling either, because I think both 109 ppi at 1X and 218 ppi at 2X render everything just a touch too small.

I own 101 ppi, 109 ppi, and 218 ppi Macs and displays, and have compared all of these side-by-side in my home.

So, for a 32" 16:9 display, I'd actually prefer something like 5.6K 5632x3168 (202 ppi). Or else I may have to consider running a LG or Asus 32" 6K with a custom resolution (since macOS doesn't offer an appropriate option to emulate something like a 2816x1584 resolution without using a third part application like BetterDisplay). I am also interested in that Acer 5K 31.5" monitor as it is 186 ppi. Stuff would be rendered a tad large on that one, but IMO a bit too large is better than a bit too small. And yes, 186 ppi is "Retina" at normal recommended desktop seating distances. That 32" 5K would be Retina at 19", and recommended seating distance is >20". I typically sit at >22".

OTOH, if say an 8K 30" screen existed, that could actually work pretty well. 8K 7680x4320 294 ppi at 3X scaling would be the equivalent of exactly 2560x1440, which would provide the same text sizing as a 98 ppi screen, very similar to my goldilocks 101 ppi. Apple would need to provide 3X assets for macOS though to make this work best. The other benefit of 8K at that screen size is that the pixel density is so high, even if you don't use integer scaling, it would be nearly impossible to notice the difference vs. integer scaling at any reasonable seating distance. It would take a huge amount of bandwidth and GPU power though if you used non-integer scaling at those resolutions.