32" 6K ProArt Display From ASUS Launching in Late August

[Jensend]

I would warrant that the majority of persons who would want/need such a high resolution and FPS display ARE involved in demanding industries, or Gamers.

Almost all smartphones have Retina-class pixel density. Most Android phones that cost more than a couple hundred dollars have higher than 60Hz refresh rates, and it won't be long before it's a standard on iPhones as well.
I just don't see why that shouldn't be done for desktop monitors as well (besides display cost). Almost everybody would benefit from large high-density displays.

Who knows, maybe we'll get a surprise and the'll bring out a 4.5k display with high refresh rate first for "all those" productivity people who use excel. 🤷‍♂️

Productivity usually involves a lot of text. Text rendering quality is one of the biggest benefactors of high pixel density.

 

[Jensend]

It's a tangent for this thread, but I'll ask anyway...given the high workload 8K at 120-Hz puts on a system, and what I think is the tendency for most displays to top out at 32" size, what are the practical benefits of 8K (as opposed to 6K) at 120-Hz?

The 120-Hz I get; smoother moving elements onscreen, so it looks more like moving physical objects than choppy video.

But at a 32" display size, 6K is said to be 'retina' - at a point where, at typical user eye distance, the human eye supposedly wouldn't discern a substantial difference at 8K. I asked about this in Post #235, and that concern was addressed in an answer in Post #237 (apparently, some people discern the difference).

Which leaves me to wonder what vendors will do with 8K displays. Do you anticipate they'll mainly be 32" displays for the most demanding professional users who spend long hours dealing with fine detail and discern better than most of us?

Or will the shift more likely be to use 8K in larger displays aiming for around 220 PPI 'retina' resolution? A quick online search showed one source claiming 8K would be retina at 34.5" display size. Do you think vendors like ASUS will likely keep to 32", or go to 35"?

I've never had a 32" display, so I don't have first hand experience with the 'look and feel' on my desk.

For flat displays, I don't think there's much point in going much higher than 6K. As a monitor gets bigger at a given pixel density, you are viewing the edges of the display at a steeper viewing angle, given a fixed viewing position.
But for curved or bendable displays, you can get much higher. I use three 24" 4K monitors in a row (and another below). So that's ~12K pixels horizontally, and would be ~4K pixels tall if the 4th monitor extended horizontally. I'd love to have a single big curved display of that resolution.

There are some 57" curved monitors that have the same resolution and aspect ratio as two 4K screens side by side. If they were the same pixel density as Apple's monitors, they would be just about equivalent two 6K displays side by side.

 

[tenthousandthings]

8K is quadruple 4K, not double. It’s doubled both horizontally and vertically.

@drrich2 Historical note about this... I was cleaning up the 5K WikiPost list due to the recent Kuycon clarifications and (in correcting an unrelated error) I discovered HP, in 2015, in the User Guide for the HP Z27q calls 5120x2880 "QQHD" -- meaning Quad Quad HD (remember 1440p is QHD, 720p is HD)!

 

[PaulD-UK]

LG designated the 5K iMac panels LM270QQn nnnn, which is still used on the Studio Display.

 

[deevey]

Do you think vendors like ASUS will likely keep to 32", or go to 35"?

Probably whatever is cheapest to manufacture without re-inventing the wheel.

I just don't see why that shouldn't be done for desktop monitors as well (besides display cost). Almost everybody would benefit from large high-density displays.

And those options will exist when the technology exists, there's enough user demand to consider mass manufacture and the SRP is within consumers grasps.

I've been waiting for a flying Delorean since 1985

Most people buying computer today still cheap out on the peripherals. Even this "Cheap" 6k might struggle to find it's market despite being a good deal.

 

[Jensend]

And those options will exist when the technology exists, there's enough user demand to consider mass manufacture and the SRP is within consumers grasps.

I've been waiting for a flying Delorean since 1985

Most people buying computer today still cheap out on the peripherals. Even this "Cheap" 6k might struggle to find it's market despite being a good deal.

I just find it strange that virtually all TVs sold today are 4K, unless you go *super* cheap—in the sub $150 Walmart range—yet in the PC space, 4K is seen as premium. About 55% of PC gamers have 1080p monitors, and less than 7% are running 4K or higher. (Steam hardware survey is the best source I can find for up to date information about PCs in use).
High pixel counts can't be a huge percentage of the cost if TV manufacturers don't even bother making low pixel count models.

5K and 6K are probably just expensive because so few people buy them and the economies of scale haven't kicked in. And the 5K and 6K are also premium in other ways that won't matter for all users.

Monitors are pretty much the only display category where retina-class density hasn't dominated the market.

 

[drrich2]

And those options will exist when the technology exists, there's enough user demand to consider mass manufacture and the SRP is within consumers grasps.

Any idea how intense the competitive pressure is on display vendors? I have no idea, but last year looking at 4K and 5K 27" alternatives, and sticking to brands I knew of and considered good, I was pouring over product pages and reviews for...

Dell, ASUS, Acer, LG, Viewsonic, Philips, BenQ and Samsung. And at least some of these (probably all) had a number of 4K 27" models. Trying to get a handle on what my choices were and compare them meaningfully to reach the 'best' choice was a hard slog. (The victor's cup went to the Dell U2723QE because Woot had an open box offering that arrived on our porch for $320.50, tax and all).

I would think that kind of consumer choice would drive efforts to differentiate their products. Claimed color accuracy, hub functionality, Thunderbolt, this year higher refresh rates seem to be coming on board in the 4K space (e.g.: with Dell), OLED, Samsung's Smart T.V. functionality, some BenQ models have that 'hockey puck' controller, 5K resolution, etc...

Looking at 5K options narrowed the field greatly. It would be interesting to know how the new Asus, BenQ and Viewsonic 5K 27" displays are selling.

Monitors are pretty much the only display category where retina-class density hasn't dominated the market.

I suspect a lot of the display market consumer demographic is a combo. of businesses (for general office type use), and home users many of whom don't know better and are trying to keep cost down. With 4K 27" displays at the low end getting so cheap, that'll change for home users.

From what I've read before (e.g.: sub pixel antialiasing on Windows but not Mac), the benefit of 5K over 4K is more obvious on Macs (though not to me personally, having studied it briefly side-by-side), and Windows users never got 'railroaded' into retina displays by limited iMac sections (e.g.: once 27" iMacs went to 5K). Even some Mac users don't notice much difference, so outside of demanding graphics professionals or people working close with fine detail (e.g.: small fonts), what would drive most Windows users to 5K 27"?

On the other hand, since 4K at 32" is stretching things a bit more, maybe they'll be more interested in 5 or 6K at 32"?

Wonder how 32" display sales compare to 27" these days? I'm old enough to remember the progression from 14" to 17" to 21" to 27" displays, but we seem to've mostly stalled out at 27". Do you foresee 32" reaching the market share 27" now holds?

 

[Jensend]

Wonder how 32" display sales compare to 27" these days? I'm old enough to remember the progression from 14" to 17" to 21" to 27" displays, but we seem to've mostly stalled out at 27". Do you foresee 32" reaching the market share 27" now holds?

At a 75cm viewing distance (the maximum viewing distance Apple recommends), a 27" display covers 43.5° FOV horizontally, while 32" is 50.6°. 24" is 39°.
THX recommends 40° as the optimal FOV for watching a movie. So for video watching or playing games, going much past 27" doesn't make a lot of sense (unless you sit further away than typical). For computer desktop usage, you may have several different applications open, so it would make more sense to have a wider FOV, but to avoid distortion, it's better to have multiple smaller monitors or a curved monitor instead of one big flat monitor (though a curved display introduces a different kind of distortion).

 

[deevey]

Any idea how intense the competitive pressure is on display vendors? I have no idea, but last year looking at 4K and 5K 27" alternatives, and sticking to brands I knew of and considered good, I was pouring over product pages and reviews for...

You are talking about a massive display that would be about a $3000+

Much smaller segment than the sub $500 monitor market and much harder to turn a profit on.

 

[deevey]

I just find it strange that virtually all TVs sold today are 4K, unless you go *super* cheap—in the sub $150 Walmart range—yet in the PC space, 4K is seen as premium.

About 55% of PC gamers have 1080p monitors, and less than 7% are running 4K or higher. (Steam hardware survey is the best source I can find for up to date information about PCs in use).

A gamer is in general going to be focused the display that gives them the competitive edge rather than the most accurate color or widest image. If mom or dad is picking up the tab, it'll be a 1080p screen with as many hz as possible.

Sure there's some eye candy games, but most of the market requires squeezing every piece of juice out of your CPU / GPU as possible - which means not running 4k if you don't need it.

High pixel counts can't be a huge percentage of the cost if TV manufacturers don't even bother making low pixel count models.

Cheap TV's have higher latency and are not expected to be adhering to any real standards, at least on the low end of the scale.

TV's (especially cheap ones) are generally using much lower quality panels, and have higher dead pixel allowances which in turn equals less waste from the manufacturer.

The market is also massively higher for TV's which are in general standard sizes which is going to reduce production cost as panels and boards from a single supplier can be shared among many many OEM manufactures reducing cost even further.

Add to that, historically reducing the size of tech costs more.

 

[Jensend]

A gamer is in general going to be focused the display that gives them the competitive edge rather than the most accurate color or widest image. If mom or dad is picking up the tab, it'll be a 1080p screen with as many hz as possible.

Sure there's some eye candy games, but most of the market requires squeezing every piece of juice out of your CPU / GPU as possible - which means not running 4k if you don't need it.

Most gamers probably also use their PC for other things. The only reason I picked gamers is because the Steam survey is good up-to-date info. I'd guess that office workers are tilted a bit more towards 1440P.

Cheap TV's have higher latency and are not expected to be adhering to any real standards, at least on the low end of the scale.

TV's (especially cheap ones) are generally using much lower quality panels, and have higher dead pixel allowances which in turn equals less waste from the manufacturer.

Yes, I realize the reasons some TVs are cheap. That was part of my point. Why do they cheap out on things like backlight quality but not on pixel count? Probably because it's much cheaper to make a high pixel count monitor with a poor backlight than to make a lower pixel count TV with a good backlight. I'm not sure that higher resolutions are greatly more expensive to make, as long as they can be made in high quantities.

The market is also massively higher for TV's which are in general standard sizes which is going to reduce production cost as panels and boards from a single supplier can be shared among many many OEM manufactures reducing cost even further.

I was hoping 8K TVs would catch on—even though that resolution would make no difference to the vast majority of TV viewers—just so it would put pressure on the monitor market to improve.

Add to that, historically reducing the size of tech costs more.

But smaller devices are already much higher pixel density than most monitors. Not only that, the base iPad has more pixels total than probably 90% of PC monitors. Most phones have more total pixels than most PC gaming monitors (well, that's complicated a bit by the fact that phones usually only have 2 subpixels per pixels).

But in the case of OLED, mobile displays use different tech than TV displays, so high pixels density may be more difficult in that in-between category .

 

[deevey]

I was hoping 8K TVs would catch on—even though that resolution would make no difference to the vast majority of TV viewers—just so it would put pressure on the monitor market to improve.

Content needs to be available before the resolution catches on for TV's in order to make it worthwhile.

At TV viewing distance 8k is not really necessary.

Yes, I realize the reasons some TVs are cheap. That was part of my point. Why do they cheap out on things like backlight quality but not on pixel count? Probably because it's much cheaper to make a high pixel count monitor with a poor backlight than to make a lower pixel count TV with a good backlight. I'm not sure that higher resolutions are greatly more expensive to make, as long as they can be made in high quantities.

Creating a high pixel count display is most likely the easiest part. Designing a method of processing the signal is the hard part.

 

[mintshows]

I kinda want to keep it a secret as I'm planning on getting one of these as soon as available, but the product page is now available on BH Photo: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1908824-REG/asus_proart_display_pa32qcv_31_5.html

August 18 12am EST Preorder

 

[ateslik]

Thanks! Not all of them it turns out, but a healthy number of them - here is their list filtered by "Hardware Calibration":

Other Features - Hardware Calibrationï½Monitorsï½ASUS USA

In ASUS ãOther Features - Hardware Calibrationã - Displays / Desktops , you could find most appropriate Displays / Desktops based on product features, specification or price. And you also could get product's detail information and comparsion, even add it into the wish list in buy page.

www.asus.com

 

[Powerbooky]

Just add ethernet and this will be best.

And ultra-wide, like 21:9 non-curved.

 

[Airmk]

Did some people here pre-ordered one? If so, what's your expected delivery date?
Mine says 'October 1st to February 2' which seems like a pretty large window

 

[mintshows]

Did some people here pre-ordered one? If so, what's your expected delivery date?
Mine says 'October 1st to February 2' which seems like a pretty large window

Nope... Where'd you pre-order it from? In the US at least, the only available merchant as far as I know is B&H Photo and their preorders don't start until August 18th.

 

[Airmk]

Nope... Where'd you pre-order it from? In the US at least, the only available merchant as far as I know is B&H Photo and their preorders don't start until August 18th.

From Amazon France (sold and shipped by Amazon) for 1380€ ($1600 but that includes 20% VAT)

 

[ErneX]

Sorry, I posted a review for the 27 inch 😂 I need a coffee.

 

[mintshows]

First (that I know of) review is up!

 

[mintshows]

First (that I know of) review is up!

Just got a chance to finish the review. No real talk of backlight blooming/bleed, but expect it to perform similarly to their existing ProArt 27" 5k. Definitely think this is the monitor I'll be grabbing. I'm going to assume the LG 6k will be $2k+ and while it might look nicer, this still seems to be the best value out there. I really WANT to talk myself into the kuycon, but can't stomach the anxiety of dealing with any support issues along with headaches over tariffs.

 

[Airmk]

Just got a chance to finish the review. No real talk of backlight blooming/bleed, but expect it to perform similarly to their existing ProArt 27" 5k. Definitely think this is the monitor I'll be grabbing. I'm going to assume the LG 6k will be $2k+ and while it might look nicer, this still seems to be the best value out there. I really WANT to talk myself into the kuycon, but can't stomach the anxiety of dealing with any support issues along with headaches over tariffs.

The LG does look nicer but unless it's 120Hz there is no way it's a better price-value than the Asus. I feel the same about Kuycon, their Apple XDR design looks sick but I'm too afraid of dealing with their support someday.

Thanks for posting this review!

 

[tenthousandthings]

The Dell 32" 6k has IPS Black panel tech, which means the panel is made by LG.

If the ASUS 32" 6k were also made by LG, it would most likely have that as well, but it doesn't (none of the ASUS monitors do). Given its low projected price, my guess is that its panel is made by someone less expensive than LG—maybe BOE (Beijing Oriental Electronics Group).

BOE (China) is possible, but I think it’s more likely to be AUO (Taiwan) — both Acer and ASUS are based in Taiwan, and it looks like they are both using the same panel(s). I read on TFT Central (not sure where) that AUO has its own version of “IPS Black” …

A display with a 6K BOE panel has recently (July 31) been unveiled in China. The specs don’t match the Acer and ASUS at all.

 

[theorist9]

BOE (China) is possible, but I think it’s more likely to be AUO (Taiwan) — both Acer and ASUS are based in Taiwan, and it looks like they are both using the same panel(s).

Sounds reasonable.

A display with a 6K BOE panel has recently (July 31) been unveiled in China. The specs don’t match the Acer and ASUS at all.

The press announcement for the BOE 6k says it's a 10-bit panel. I'm skeptical it's a true (i.e., native) 10-bit panel (like the XDR); I'd expect it's more likely to be 8-bit that achieves 10-bit with FRC (like the ASD). Would be pleasantly surprised to find otherwise.

 

[tenthousandthings]

The press announcement for the BOE 6k says it's a 10-bit panel. I'm skeptical it's a true (i.e., native) 10-bit panel (like the XDR); I'd expect it's more likely to be 8-bit that achieves 10-bit with FRC (like the ASD). Would be pleasantly surprised to find otherwise.

Not sure what you mean by "press announcement" -- did I miss something from BOE?

Regardless, this is not like ASUS and others fudging "10-bit" in the marketing and then coming clean in the formal specs. The official listing on Geekon's Taobao store says the following: "原生10Bit面板支持，扩展14bit模式，拒绝断层，纵使是严苛的医疗dicom标准也可以轻松应对" = "Native 10-bit panel support, with extended 14-bit mode, without breaks in continuity, such that even strict/harsh medical dicom standards can also be easily met."

The recent LG Display 6K panels all appear to support native 10-bit color. Dell is quite clear about it and if it were not the case there would have been an uproar. So I don't think it's surprising that BOE would aim to compete with that. Remember, the Geekon HERO 32 with the BOE panel is priced at ~¥15,000, while the Geekon Design 32 Retina with the LG Display panel is priced at ~¥8,400. So this isn't competing with Acer/ASUS on the low end. It's aimed at the high end.

That said, an edge backlight with light from all four sides is still an edge backlight. The Pro Display XDR is still all alone with its locally-dimmed backlight. None of these really compete with that.