Dell 6K U3224KB Monitor

[theorist9]

It’s selling for $1999.99 on Amazon now. Apparently demand is in the dumpster.

They really should have made it more Mac-friendly, since it's got Retina pixel density, making Mac users an obvious target for this type of montitor. Right now:

(a) It's tricky to set up on the Mac. [EDIT: @Thyme wrote a very nice summary post (see #683, below) explaining that this is not the case if you've got a new Mac with HDMI 2.1, in which case getting 60 Hz with 2:1 scaling, 30-bit color, and HDR is plug-and-play. It is trickier with older Macs that don't have HDMI 2.1, since you have to use TB, but that's a set-up-once-and-forget it.]

(b) Many Mac users would prefer a glossy screen, like what Dell offers on the 8k 32".

(c) The look isn't clean. They should have offered an XDR-type version without the speakers/webcam/fabric grillcloth, or at least a version in which the webcam was less intrusive, and they dumped the grillcloth. If the speaker and webcam had great reviews, then maybe the obtrusiveness would be justified, but I've read they're just OK.

 

[rumz]

They really should have made it more Mac-friendly, since it's got Retina pixel density, making Mac users an obvious target for this type of montitor. Right now:

(a) It's tricky to set up on the Mac.
(b) Many Mac users would prefer a glossy screen, like what Dell offers on the 8k 32".
(c) The look isn't clean. They should have offered an XDR-type version without the speakers/webcam/fabric grillcloth, or at least a version in which the webcam was less intrusive, and they dumped the grillcloth. If the speaker and webcam had great reviews, then maybe the obtrusiveness would be justified, but I've read they're just OK.

It also seems like there have been some real QC issues with a lot of the Macrumors users that have ordered one (which is kind of baffling to me for a monitor in this category).

If they made one that was purely a monitor like you said (no speaker grill + camera etc)— and they may yet, and if the quality was up to snuff, I might pick one up.

 

[theorist9]

It also seems like there have been some real QC issues with a lot of the Macrumors users that have ordered one (which is kind of baffling to me for a monitor in this category).

If they made one that was purely a monitor like you said (no speaker grill + camera etc)— and they may yet, and if the quality was up to snuff, I might pick one up.

For other similar monitors, Dell first offered a version with the speakers and camera, and subsequently one without those some months later (and at a reduced retail price). If they do this with the 6k, and also fix the QC and Mac-compatabilty issues, and if you don't mind the matte screen, this might become of interest to you.

 

[GrandCiel]

They really should have made it more Mac-friendly, since it's got Retina pixel density, making Mac users an obvious target for this type of montitor. Right now:

(a) It's tricky to set up on the Mac.
(b) Many Mac users would prefer a glossy screen, like what Dell offers on the 8k 32".
(c) The look isn't clean. They should have offered an XDR-type version without the speakers/webcam/fabric grillcloth, or at least a version in which the webcam was less intrusive, and they dumped the grillcloth. If the speaker and webcam had great reviews, then maybe the obtrusiveness would be justified, but I've read they're just OK.

(a) It was not tricky for me to set up with a MacBook Pro M2 Max using HDMI 2.1. I soon realized I couldn't run at full native resolution if I wanted to actually read anything though.
(b) I prefer a matt screen. I'm a photographer and matt is a selling point for me.
(b) I was concerned with the look and don't need the speakers and web cam but it doesn't look as bad once I received it. I would have preferred a monitor without the speakers and camera though.

It also seems like there have been some real QC issues with a lot of the Macrumors users that have ordered one (which is kind of baffling to me for a monitor in this category).

If they made one that was purely a monitor like you said (no speaker grill + camera etc)— and they may yet, and if the quality was up to snuff, I might pick one up.

I have had no problems with my monitor. Forum users with issues tend to be much more active posting complaints than owners that set up their monitor, don't have any problems, leave the forums after doing the research and making a purchase and just enjoy it. How many issues are due to connectivity due to not having an M2 Mac with HDMI 2.1 ports vs. actual quality control? There will be quality issues with all manufacturers but the sample size is too small for a definitive assessment. I use the monitor on my DIY Windows workstation without any issues as well.

 

[foo2]

$1999 Amazon deal gone, alas. Back to $2500 lowest on Amazon. At $1999 I kinda wish I'd bit, as I returned the ASD as massively overpriced for not-much-better-than-normal-4k-27".

 

[theorist9]

(b) I prefer a matt screen. I'm a photographer and matt is a selling point for me.

Makes sense. As a general rule, I find glossy is better for text work (unless you can't control reflections), because it's sharper and avoid the "sparkling snowfield effect" you can get with matte screens.

But those aren't issues when doing photography (at least the sharpness isn't), and controlling reflections probably becomes more critical, since I assume that affects the perception of color.

Plus the darker blacks (I've read about half the black levels seen on standard LCD w/o local dimming, like the ASD) are probably very nice for photography as well

 

[rumz]

I have had no problems with my monitor. Forum users with issues tend to be much more active posting complaints than owners that set up their monitor, don't have any problems, leave the forums after doing the research and making a purchase and just enjoy it. How many issues are due to connectivity due to not having an M2 Mac with HDMI 2.1 ports vs. actual quality control? There will be quality issues with all manufacturers but the sample size is too small for a definitive assessment. I use the monitor on my DIY Windows workstation without any issues as well.

I am glad to hear you haven’t had any quality issues. While generally I would agree, it’s the ones who have problems that go out and tell everyone about it; the people on this thread seemed to be anticipating this and participating prior to release, and enough of them who then bought one had issues such as to warrant some concern on my part. You might be right— Perhaps it’s the exception.

 

[Thyme]

They really should have made it more Mac-friendly, since it's got Retina pixel density, making Mac users an obvious target for this type of montitor.

I don't think this Dell is at all unfriendly for Mac users. For me, it's works really well and works far more seamlessly with Macs than other non-Apple monitors I've tried. With other monitors, I've had far more issues, e.g., slow resume from sleep, randomly turning on the backlight during sleep, issues controlling brightness and volume, etc. I'm sure an Apple Studio Display would be a bit better than the Dell for seamless integration, but the Dell is pretty darn good while the Studio Display only has one input, which I think is ridiculous for the cost and very limiting for anyone with more than a single Mac (or PC).

It also seems like there have been some real QC issues with a lot of the Macrumors users that have ordered one (which is kind of baffling to me for a monitor in this category).

I agree with GrandCiel's and rumz's replies above that this thread is likely a very biased sample skewed towards negative posts regarding QC issues and setup issues, my own included. While I am one of the few here that had to get a replacement from Dell, I really think my case was due to Fedex, as the box arrived so banged up that it was actually already open with the tape being completely broken! But Dell support was superb, and my replacement monitor seems to work perfectly, which incidentally, was instead shipped via UPS.

What I should have written is that, according to what I gathered from the thread, it's tricky to set it up optimally for the Mac, which would be 2:1 integer scaling, since that would give both the standard UI size and optimum sharpness. Is that not the case?

Getting 2:1 scaling is essentially plug and play with any of the input ports. With a legit HDMI v2.1 connection, native resolution (with or without 2:1 scaling) with 30-bit color and HDR works right out of the box. In my case, I just needed to buy an HDMI cable for my M2 Pro Mac Mini.

You are right that there is a caveat when driving the monitor over Thunderbolt 4, but I wouldn't say it's tricky for users to work around, particularly now that the solution is well documented in this thread by various posters. The caveat is, for reasons that we can only speculate about, using the native 6144x3456 resolution over Thunderbolt 4 currently results in only 24-bit color and no HDR. If one wants 6K @ 30-bit color and HDR over Thunderbolt 4, then one can use the free version of BetterDisplay to fake the native resolution and run the monitor at the ever so slightly lower resolution of 6016x3384 (same res as the Pro XDR display), at which point, 30-bit color and HDR get enabled. One can do this while retaining perfect 2:1 Retina scaling by setting 1:1 scaling in the monitor's OSD. This takes only a couple of minutes, and it's a "do once, never think about again" thing. My guess is that a future release of macOS will make this workaround unnecessary. But Mac users should install BetterDisplay (or similar) anyway because then one can control both the brightness and volume of the Dell from Apple keyboard function keys, which is super nice.

Otherwise, I think a lot of the remaining negativity about setup issues is mostly due to the fact that only the most recent Macs actually have the Thunderbolt 4 and HDMI v2.1 ports that are necessary to drive 6K without big compromises. (The monitor also has a mini-DP 2.0 input, but do any Macs have DP 2.0?) If one has an older Mac without these ports, the solution there is to get a new Mac, which sucks for those who purchased Macs somewhat recently, but I can't blame Dell for that.

Makes sense. As a general rule, I find glossy is better for text work (unless you can't control reflections), because it's sharper and avoid the "sparkling snowfield effect" you can get with matte screens.

Although this might be subjective, I don't really notice/mind any "sparkling snowfield effect" on the Dell, and I don't find text any less sharp than on my old iMac Pro. As a point of comparison, on other non-Apple, non-Retina monitors I've tried, the "sparkling snowfield effect" has been pretty obvious to me. I think the difference is that the Dell's matte finish is not nearly as matte as other matte screens I've used. But maybe the pixel size is also a factor. But if you prefer glossy, the Dell may still be too matte for you.

Overall, I really like the Dell and think it was totally worth the price, although I paid far less than list price. I also like having a good webcam and decent speakers builtin as opposed to more cables on the desk. The webcam can be tilted and the automatic privacy shutter is also really nice; it's a way better option the Logitech cam I had been using. For those thinking about this monitor, keep an eye out for big sales and discount from places with a good return policy (definitely check Dell.com frequently) and consider trying it out for yourself.

 

[tstafford]

It’s selling for $1999.99 on Amazon now. Apparently demand is in the dumpster.

Almost worth pulling the trigger on for sport at this price.

If it was plug/play and people weren't having to fiddle w/ it on resolution and firmware I think I'd buy one.

 

[cinedog]

Almost worth pulling the trigger on for sport at this price.

If it was plug/play and people weren't having to fiddle w/ it on resolution and firmware I think I'd buy one.

Based on Dell pricing history, do we know what an expected bottom out price would be?

 

[theorist9]

Based on Dell pricing history, do we know what an expected bottom out price would be?

Hard to say, probably depends on demand and how much profit cushion they built into the original release price.

The most similar Dell I could find is the 32" 4k IPS Black Ultrasharp Video Conferencing Monitor, which came out about a year ago for $1,600. According to the Amazon price history from camelcamelcamel.com shown below (which only goes back to Oct, when it was 20% off), it has gone down to $1,000 (ignoring the brief blip to $966, which is hard to catch). That works out to 62.5% of the introductory price, but the 6k has already hit that: $3200 x 0.625 = 2,000.

As I mentioned in response to another poster, if you don't need the camera & speakers, your best bet might be to hope they come out with a variant that doesn't have them. Dell's done that for other Ultrasharps, and they sell for a few hundred less.

 

[cinedog]

Hard to say, probably depends on demand and how much profit cushion they built into the original release price.

The most similar Dell I could find is the 32" 4k IPS Black Ultrasharp Video Conferencing Monitor, which came out about a year ago for $1,600. According to the Amazon price history from camelcamelcamel.com shown below (which only goes back to Oct, when it was 20% off), it has gone down to $1,000 (ignoring the brief blip to $966, which is hard to catch). That works out to 62.5% of the introductory price, but the 6k has already hit that: $3200 x 0.625 = 2,000.

As I mention in response to another poster, if you don't need the camera & speakers, your best bet might be to hope they come out with a variant that doesn't have them. Dell's done that for other Ultrasharps, and they sell for a few hundred less.

View attachment 2251166

Thanks, this is great info. Do you happen to know an example pair of monitors that both had a camera and didn't? For example I see the U3223QZ has a camera; I assume there's a non-camera version? Or is this one too new to have a counterpart?

 

[theorist9]

Thanks, this is great info. Do you happen to know an example pair of monitors that both had a camera and didn't? For example I see the U3223QZ has a camera; I assume there's a non-camera version? Or is this one too new to have a counterpart?

The U3223QZ does have a counterpart with no camera and speakers, but in this case I think the latter came out first. Feel free to dig into the specs yourself, but these seem nearly identical except for the camera, speakers, and connectivity: https://www.displaydb.com/compare/dell-u3223qz/dell-u3223qe

 

[Dark-Signature]

For me, the price of the 6K Dell is now secondary. It is important that a new monitor has at least 220 PPI, if possible 32", preferably 120/144Hz AND has a glossy coating, because matte is not possible. Matte simply ruins the high-quality picture experience. Then I can also stay with 4K!

 

[theorist9]

For me, the price of the 6K Dell is now secondary. It is important that a new monitor has at least 220 PPI, if possible 32", preferably 120/144Hz AND has a glossy coating, because matte is not possible. Matte simply ruins the high-quality picture experience. Then I can also stay with 4K!

I can't speak to the 120/144Hz requirement, but I agree with everything else. I've been using a glossy 220 ppi display (the one on my 27" iMac) for a while, and it's spoiled me for anything else (including the 27" 163 ppi matte Dell monitor that's set up just to its right).

 

[Thyme]

If it was plug/play and people weren't having to fiddle w/ it on resolution and firmware I think I'd buy one.

As someone who has had this monitor for a couple of months, I think this negative assessment is both inaccurate and unrealistic. The Dell comes with three different video inputs (HDMI v2.1, DisplayPort 2.0/2.1, and Thunderbolt 4), and each of these has the most bandwidth for video one can currently get on the market. On macOS, they respectively allow these video inputs, plug and play, right out of the box:

• HDMI v2.1: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR
• DisplayPort 2.0 or 2.1: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR
• Thunderbolt 4: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 24-bit color and no HDR

[EDIT: Per USB3foriMac's and jan.o's posts below, Windows actually can do 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR over TB4, and the manual does in fact clarify that Dell's TB4 port supports this; see Footnote 1 on the top of page 17. So I'll strike out the next two paragraphs and make corrections to this entire post in orange where needed.]

Dell is upfront about all of this, as Dell only lists HDMI v2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 / 2.1 as being capable of 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR; see the tech specs on Dell's website or page 16 of the manual. As page 16 of the manual also explains, connecting the monitor via Thunderbolt 4 means that the video signal is relegated to "DisplayPort 1.4/1.2", which is substantially less video bandwidth than the other two connectors. This kinda explains why pushing 6144x3456 @ 60Hz over Thunderbolt 4 only results in 24-bit color and no HDR, although it seems like it should still be technically possible with the help of DSC.

Maybe Dell will release a firmware update to also allow 30-bit color and HDR over Thunderbolt 4 at native 6144x3456 resolution, but I kind of doubt it. My guess is if that were possible (and crucially, reliable!) with the current Thunderbolt hardware, Dell would have already done it; perhaps the current Thunderbolt 4 chips aren't actually able to reliably push that much video data over DisplayPort 1.4 for whatever reason, even though the specs indicate that it should be possible.

All the posts here about using BetterDisplay "to fiddle with the resolution" are only relevant to people who have Thunderbolt as their only option and also want to enable 30-bit color or HDR, which over Thunderbolt, currently requires slightly reducing the resolution to 6016x3384 (the res of the Pro XDR display). And the only reason BetterDisplay is currently needed to do this is because of an apparent bug in macOS. Without the BetterDisplay trick, if you select 6016x3384 in macOS, macOS still outputs a 6144x3456 signal, which is completely bonkers! I imagine that Apple will fix this weirdness in macOS at some point, but who knows.

In summary, and per Dell's own documentation, one should Mac users currently need to run this monitor with HDMI v2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 to get 100% of what the panel is capable of. For Mac users, this basically means one needs a Mac with an M2 Pro or better in order to have an HDMI v2.1 port. That's not a lot of Mac users! DisplayPort currently isn't an option for Mac users since

1. It's not clear that current Macs even support DisplayPort 2.0 (Apple's tech specs only say "DisplayPort" without a version number, which is not promising!), and
2. Even if the latest Macs do support DisplayPort 2.0, there aren't any DisplayPort 2.0 adapters cables available on the market with USB Type C on one end and (mini)-DP on the other, which would be needed to physically connect the Dell this way! I looked very thoroughly in July and the best I could find were DisplayPort 1.4 adapters. [EDIT: If someone has this monitor and 1.4 adapter, maybe they could test and report back here what happens.]

All other Mac users, i.e., nearly all of them, will need to use Thunderbolt. This gives the nice conveniences of single-cable connectivity and also being able to charge/power a laptop from it, but the video output is slightly less capable. Personally, I think this Thunderbolt-specific limitation is super minor and way overblown in this thread. [EDIT: OK, it's a lot more annoying now that I know Windows doesn't have this limitation and the Dell manual does state that TB4 should support 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz and 30-bit color via DSC.] But still, it's not like there are other monitors available to buy that offer better performance and connectivity, and in fact, there aren't even such monitors announced.

For me, the price of the 6K Dell is now secondary. It is important that a new monitor has at least 220 PPI, if possible 32", preferably 120/144Hz AND has a glossy coating, because matte is not possible.

Indeed, this would be a fantastic monitor, but no such ~220 PPI desktop monitor with 120/144 Hz refresh exists or is even announced. I think it will be quite a while before a high-refresh 32" 6K monitor is both available and reasonably affordable, i.e., near the price of this Dell.

[Edited a few sentences for better readability. Also, now that I've said the above, probably Apple will soon surprise us by releasing new Macs with Thunderbolt 5 and updated Studio and Pro XDR displays with 120 Hz Pro Motion. Let's hope! ;-)]

 

[joevt]

This kinda explains why pushing 6144x3456 @ 60Hz over Thunderbolt 4 only results in 24-bit color and no HDR, although it seems like it should still be technically possible with the help of DSC.

It doesn't make sense. If it's technically possible, why doesn't it work?

Someone with an Intel Mac and Radeon 5000 or 6000 series GPU, please post AllRez reports for each connector type.

 

[slicedbread]

As someone who has had this monitor for a couple of months, I think this negative assessment is both inaccurate and unrealistic. The Dell comes with three different video inputs (HDMI v2.1, DisplayPort 2.0/2.1, and Thunderbolt 4), and each of these has the most bandwidth for video one can currently get on the market. They respectively allow these video inputs, plug and play, right out of the box:

• HDMI v2.1: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR
• DisplayPort 2.0 or 2.1: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR
• Thunderbolt 4: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 24-bit color and no HDR

Dell is upfront about all of this, as Dell only lists HDMI v2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 / 2.1 as being capable of 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR; see the tech specs on Dell's website or page 16 of the manual. As page 16 of the manual also explains, connecting the monitor via Thunderbolt 4 means that the video signal is relegated to "DisplayPort 1.4/1.2", which is substantially less video bandwidth than the other two connectors. This kinda explains why pushing 6144x3456 @ 60Hz over Thunderbolt 4 only results in 24-bit color and no HDR, although it seems like it should still be technically possible with the help of DSC.

Maybe Dell will release a firmware update to also allow 30-bit color and HDR over Thunderbolt 4 at native 6144x3456 resolution, but I kind of doubt it. My guess is if that were possible (and crucially, reliable!) with the current Thunderbolt hardware, Dell would have already done it; perhaps the current Thunderbolt 4 chips aren't actually able to reliably push that much video data over DisplayPort 1.4 for whatever reason, even though the specs indicate that it should be possible.

All the posts here about using BetterDisplay "to fiddle with the resolution" are only relevant to people who have Thunderbolt as their only option and also want to enable 30-bit color or HDR, which over Thunderbolt, currently requires slightly reducing the resolution to 6016x3384 (the res of the Pro XDR display). And the only reason BetterDisplay is currently needed to do this is because of an apparent bug in macOS. Without the BetterDisplay trick, if you select 6016x3384 in macOS, macOS still outputs a 6144x3456 signal, which is completely bonkers! I imagine that Apple will fix this weirdness in macOS at some point, but who knows.

In summary, and per Dell's own documentation, one should run this monitor with HDMI v2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 to get 100% of what the panel is capable of. For Mac users, this basically means one needs a Mac with an M2 Pro or better in order to have an HDMI v2.1 port. That's not a lot of Mac users! DisplayPort currently isn't an option for Mac users since

1. It's not clear that current Macs even support DisplayPort 2.0 (Apple's tech specs only say "DisplayPort" without a version number, which is not promising!), and
2. Even if the latest Macs do support DisplayPort 2.0, there aren't any DisplayPort 2.0 adapters cables available on the market with USB Type C on one end and (mini)-DP on the other, which would be needed to physically connect the Dell this way! I looked very thoroughly in July and the best I could find were DisplayPort 1.4 adapters.

All other Mac users, i.e., nearly all of them, will need to use Thunderbolt. This gives the nice conveniences of single-cable connectivity and also being able to charge/power a laptop from it, but the video output is slightly less capable. Personally, I think this Thunderbolt-specific limitation is super minor and way overblown in this thread. It's not like there are any other monitors available to buy that offer better performance and connectivity, and in fact, there aren't even such monitors announced.


Indeed, this would be a fantastic monitor, but no such ~220 PPI desktop monitor with 120/144 Hz refresh exists or is even announced. I think it will be quite a while before a high-refresh 32" 6K monitor is both available and affordable, i.e., near the price of this Dell.

[Edited two sentences for clarity. Also, now that I've said the above, probably Apple will soon surprise us by releasing new Macs with Thunderbolt 5 and updated Studio and Pro XDR displays with 120 Hz Pro Motion. ;-)]

I think this is the best summary of the situation as it stands.

I bought a used m1 studio in June and ordered this monitor in July. At the time I didn’t realise it couldn’t do full panel 6k 30bit 60fps via thunderbolt. By then it was too late to get an m2 mac once the monitor arrived.

I tried the betterdisplay hack, but found the black border annoying.

I even went and bought the cablematters 8K hdmi adapter and went thru the hassle of flashing it in windows. It sort of works but you loose things like brightness control when hdr is active.

Ultimately it wasn’t worth it, and now I just use the monitor at native 6k 60fps 24bit colour without HDR, all via a single tb4 connection.

I think it’s best to assume this is the furthest we’ll get with tb4 and Mac OS and m1 Macs. I don’t believe Apple’s OS updates with fix it, nor will dell come out with a firmware update fully this issue. Accept only m2 and above macs with hdmi 2.1 will work full resolution hdr.

 

[tstafford]

As someone who has had this monitor for a couple of months, I think this negative assessment is both inaccurate and unrealistic. The Dell comes with three different video inputs (HDMI v2.1, DisplayPort 2.0/2.1, and Thunderbolt 4), and each of these has the most bandwidth for video one can currently get on the market. They respectively allow these video inputs, plug and play, right out of the box:

• HDMI v2.1: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR
• DisplayPort 2.0 or 2.1: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR
• Thunderbolt 4: native resolution 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 24-bit color and no HDR

Dell is upfront about all of this, as Dell only lists HDMI v2.1 and DisplayPort 2.0 / 2.1 as being capable of 6144x3456 @ 60Hz with 30-bit color and HDR; see the tech specs on Dell's website or page 16 of the manual. As page 16 of the manual also explains, connecting the monitor via Thunderbolt 4 means that the video signal is relegated to "DisplayPort 1.4/1.2", which is substantially less video bandwidth than the other two connectors. This kinda explains why pushing 6144x3456 @ 60Hz over Thunderbolt 4 only results in 24-bit color and no HDR, although it seems like it should still be technically possible with the help of DSC.

Maybe Dell will release a firmware update to also allow 30-bit color and HDR over Thunderbolt 4 at native 6144x3456 resolution, but I kind of doubt it. My guess is if that were possible (and crucially, reliable!) with the current Thunderbolt hardware, Dell would have already done it; perhaps the current Thunderbolt 4 chips aren't actually able to reliably push that much video data over DisplayPort 1.4 for whatever reason, even though the specs indicate that it should be possible.

All the posts here about using BetterDisplay "to fiddle with the resolution" are only relevant to people who have Thunderbolt as their only option and also want to enable 30-bit color or HDR, which over Thunderbolt, currently requires slightly reducing the resolution to 6016x3384 (the res of the Pro XDR display). And the only reason BetterDisplay is currently needed to do this is because of an apparent bug in macOS. Without the BetterDisplay trick, if you select 6016x3384 in macOS, macOS still outputs a 6144x3456 signal, which is completely bonkers! I imagine that Apple will fix this weirdness in macOS at some point, but who knows.

In summary, and per Dell's own documentation, one should run this monitor with HDMI v2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 to get 100% of what the panel is capable of. For Mac users, this basically means one needs a Mac with an M2 Pro or better in order to have an HDMI v2.1 port. That's not a lot of Mac users! DisplayPort currently isn't an option for Mac users since

1. It's not clear that current Macs even support DisplayPort 2.0 (Apple's tech specs only say "DisplayPort" without a version number, which is not promising!), and
2. Even if the latest Macs do support DisplayPort 2.0, there aren't any DisplayPort 2.0 adapters cables available on the market with USB Type C on one end and (mini)-DP on the other, which would be needed to physically connect the Dell this way! I looked very thoroughly in July and the best I could find were DisplayPort 1.4 adapters. [EDIT: If someone has this monitor and 1.4 adapter, maybe they could test and report back here what happens.]

All other Mac users, i.e., nearly all of them, will need to use Thunderbolt. This gives the nice conveniences of single-cable connectivity and also being able to charge/power a laptop from it, but the video output is slightly less capable. Personally, I think this Thunderbolt-specific limitation is super minor and way overblown in this thread. It's not like there are other monitors available to buy that offer better performance and connectivity, and in fact, there aren't even such monitors announced.


Indeed, this would be a fantastic monitor, but no such ~220 PPI desktop monitor with 120/144 Hz refresh exists or is even announced. I think it will be quite a while before a high-refresh 32" 6K monitor is both available and reasonably affordable, i.e., near the price of this Dell.

[Edited a few sentences for better readability. Also, now that I've said the above, probably Apple will soon surprise us by releasing new Macs with Thunderbolt 5 and updated Studio and Pro XDR displays with 120 Hz Pro Motion. Let's hope! ;-)]

Thanks for the detailed information. Leaves me better informed and still not willing to pull the trigger. Knowing myself I would be irritated by the TB4 trade-offs. And I'm not upgrading my M1M Studio. Blame the machine is we like.

 

[Thyme]

It doesn't make sense. If it's technically possible, why doesn't it work?

Because AFAIK, none of us were involved in the design or QA process of this monitor or the Pro XDR, and thus we don't actually know what reliably works on current production Thunderbolt chips when trying to push various 6K @ 60 Hz signals. There are only two 6K monitors in existence and neither supports, either via its stated specs or in practice, 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color and HDR over Thunderbolt (of course the Pro XDR "only" has a 6016x3384 panel). We can only speculate from here. E.g., 6K @ 60 Hz is a very specialized case and so perhaps it is not nearly as well tested than other features in the Thunderbolt 4 spec? Or the official public Thunderbolt 4 specs might look a lot more rosy to us than what big integrators like Dell get to see? Maybe chip errata, driver bugs, or production yields make it either too unreliable or impractical right now? If the Thunderbolt 4 chips didn't work as well in practice as Intel promised, Dell can't do much to change that except for wait for new chips to be designed and produced. (Sound like a familiar story?) Whatever the case may be, Dell is one of the most experienced monitor manufacturers, and so I think the most likely scenario is that Dell designed and tested this monitor to the best official specs that would pass their own QA testing for performance and reliability standards. As such, I also think it's very unlikely that Dell will release a firmware update that would enable Thunderbolt to carry 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color and HDR.

In short, the key thing is to look at Dell's own specs, not those of Thunderbolt 4 chips, and crucially, Dell's specs are 100% inline with what the monitor delivers in practice. That's fair.

EDIT: Well well, per the first footnote on page 17 of the manual (thanks jan.o for pointing this out), Dell does explicitly that 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color should be supported over TB4 via DSC working. Sorry everybody about the noise on this point. It's now clear to me that the root of this weird limitation is due to Apple.

 

[mushy peas]

I think it’s best to assume this is the furthest we’ll get with tb4 and Mac OS and m1 Macs. I don’t believe Apple’s OS updates with fix it, nor will dell come out with a firmware update fully this issue.

I think you’re right, and we have the track record of Apple refusing to fix the DSC-related issues that plague Intel Macs as an example.

We also know what Apple are like with fixing MacOS issues that only impact third-party hardware.

Theoretically, there’s sufficient bandwidth for TB4 to support the Dell at full resolution and HDR if DSC is working as expected. Bit we know that it isn’t. What we don’t know is why, and likely never will.

I guess we should be pleased that Apple puts HDMI ports on its computers now.

 

[Thyme]

I think you’re right, and we have the track record of Apple refusing to fix the DSC-related issues that plague Intel Macs as an example.

We also know what Apple are like with fixing MacOS issues that only impact third-party hardware.

Theoretically, there’s sufficient bandwidth for TB4 to support the Dell at full resolution and HDR if DSC is working as expected. Bit we know that it isn’t. What we don’t know is why, and likely never will.

I guess we should be pleased that Apple puts HDMI ports on its computers now.

Dell's manual and online specs on what video modes are supported don't distinguish between Windows or macOS, which likely indicates that the slightly more limited video options over TB4 is due to the monitor itself, and not specific to Apple computers. I've also not seen any reports from Windows users saying that they can run 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color and HDR over TB4, but admittedly, I haven't looked very hard for that.

Edit: per USB3foriMac's post immediately post, 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color and HDR over TB4 apparently does work with Windows!

 

[USB3foriMac]

Dell's manual and online specs on what video modes are supported don't distinguish between Windows or macOS, which likely indicates that the slightly more limited video options over TB4 is due to the monitor itself, and not specific to Apple computers. I've also not seen any reports from Windows users saying that they can run 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color and HDR over TB4, but admittedly, I haven't looked very hard for that.

It works under Windows.

 

[Thyme]

It works under Windows.

Many thanks for (re?)posting that 6144x3456 @ 60 Hz with 30-bit color and HDR does work with Windows! Sorry if I missed this or forgot abut it, but given that Dell docs only explicitly say that that works on DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 and HDMI 2.1, I'm really surprised it also works on TB4 on Windows! So it seems the limitation really is due to Apple, though I guess we don't know if it's in macOS or the hardware.

 

[TMF93]

Having read the thread and people's experiences with this monitor and resolution when connected over thunderbolt, it seems pretty obvious (to me at least) that the behaviour of macOS in this particular case is something that is hardcoded somewhere in the system.
Drop the resolution to make the U3224 look like an XDR to the system and it suddenly behaves (from what I gathered) differently by enabling DSC and HDR? That definitely looks like something hardcoded...
Given the fact that Apple was up to now the only manufacturer with a 6k display on the market, It could make sense that they did something non-standard to make it work over TB back in 2019.

I think this is a macOS software issue that could get fixed in the future. (I'm not holding my breath )

BTW, I own a U3224KBA (European model, I do not believe there is anything different beyond the model number) connected to a M2 pro mini over HDMI and it works great in this manner.