Acer unveils new 5K and 6K monitors for creators

[rafzamz]

The ProCreator PE320QXT boasts a stunning 6K (6016x3384) resolution, while the ProCreator PE270XT offers an impressive 5K (5120x2880) resolution. Both ProCreator monitors support 99% of the AdobeRGB and DCI-P3 color gamuts, and ensure exceptional color accuracy with Delta E<1. They are VESA DisplayHDR 600 certified, touch-enabled for precise and intuitive controls, and equipped with 8M webcams for real-time collaboration and videoconferencing. They also feature ErgoStand for optimal viewing positions.

The monitors will launch starting in Q3 2025. Here are the prices:

• Acer 32" ProCreator PE320QXT – EUR 1199
• Acer 27" ProCreator PE270XT – EUR 899
• Acer 32" ProCreator PE320QK X (QD-OLED) – EUR 1399

Acer unveils new 5K and 6K monitors for creators

Also new OLED monitors for graphics, video

www.flatpanelshd.com

Acer Launches ProCreator Series Monitors; Calman-Verified with Acer Creator Hub Software

Portable monitors and space-saving LED projectors were also announced

news.acer.com

 

[Guenter]

The 27 inch is about 1/2 and the 32 inch about 1/4 price of the apple displays, let us see how they compare.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The ProCreator PE0 is incredible

6k resolution at 240hz on a QD-OLED.

That's just breathtaking.

 

[Dark-Signature]

The ProCreator PE0 is incredible

6k resolution at 240hz on a QD-OLED.

That's just breathtaking.

NEVER 6K and 240Hz! Please doublecheck!

 

[turbineseaplane]

NEVER 6K and 240Hz! Please doublecheck!

Incorrect .. Check for yourself

32" 6K QD-OLED at 240hz


This supposedly business monitor features a 6K resolution panel (6016 × 3384), matching the specification of Apple’s Pro Display XDR.

The display uses QD-OLED technology, combining quantum dot and OLED features. It supports true 10-bit color depth, VESA DisplayHDR True Black 600 certification, and ultra-high contrast.

The panel also offers a 240Hz refresh rate and 0.01ms response time, specifications rarely found in professional monitors that prioritize image fidelity over speed.

Acer ProCreator PE0 | Creator Monitor | Acer United States

Designed for creators, experience 6K clarity, vivid color accuracy, and smooth motion with the ProCreator PE0. Crafted to bring your creative projects to life.

www.acer.com

Meet Acer’s new ProCreator PE0: a high-end 6K OLED monitor that might just offer more for less cash

Acer’s ProCreator PE0 offers a 6K OLED display with fast 240Hz refresh, competing with Apple’s Pro Display XDR at a likely lower price.

tech.yahoo.com

 

[Dark-Signature]

Incorrect .. Check for yourself

32" 6K QD-OLED at 240hz


This supposedly business monitor features a 6K resolution panel (6016 × 3384), matching the specification of Apple’s Pro Display XDR.

The display uses QD-OLED technology, combining quantum dot and OLED features. It supports true 10-bit color depth, VESA DisplayHDR True Black 600 certification, and ultra-high contrast.

Thank you. You were right! Mea culpa
Then let's hope it doesn't remain vaporware.

 

[MacGizmo]

The brightness on all of those displays absolutely sucks compared to Apple's Studio Display, let alone the XDR.

 

[EugW]

I have doubts about the 240 Hz. Acer uses that advertising on other high dpi monitors but the higher Hz is with a reduced resolution.

So yes, while it does support both 6K and 240 Hz, I suspect it doesn’t support both at the same time.

Edit:

Nope, not even that. See @enc0re’s post below.

 

[enc0re]

There are two 31.5" displays. As always, it's best to read the press release rather than the media regurgitation:

Acer ProCreator PE320QXT
6,016 x 3,384 @ 60 Hz
8-bit + FRC
No local dimming
DisplayPort 1.4

Acer ProCreator PE320QK X
3,840 x 2,160 @ 240 Hz
10-bit
OLED
DisplayPort 2.1

 

[GioGiusi]

$1,600 for 32" 6K display with 240Hz??

That might just be the best all around display available.

Edit: Nope, only 60Hz. They are deliberately misleading with their marketing page, as it references features from the whole new lineup. Both the 6K and 5K panels are 60Hz. The 4K panel is 240Hz.

Nice to see some new options coming to market with down to earth pricing (You'll probably be able to snag that 5K on sale for less $1K at some point). But I'm honestly not buying another display until someone starts prioritizing refresh rate. I want 5K at around 28-30", and at least 120Hz.

 

[EugW]

I personally don't care about refresh rate, as long as it's 60 Hz or higher. I want 5-6K at 30-32".

 

[GrassShark]

I personally don't care about refresh rate, as long as it's 60 Hz or higher. I want 5-6K at 30-32".

Same here, I'm plugging a Macbook Air into it, all I want is good enough brightness and colour reproduction at that size and resolution.

 

[tenthousandthings]

… But I'm honestly not buying another display until someone starts prioritizing refresh rate. I want 5K at around 28-30", and at least 120Hz.

Looks like the Acer Predator XB323QX could suit you: 31.5" 16:9 5K at 165Hz, also allows for half resolution (1440p) at double refresh rate (330Hz).

 

[Dark-Signature]

Looks like the Acer Predator XB323QX could suit you: 31.5" 16:9 5K at 165Hz, also allows for half resolution (1440p) at double refresh rate (330Hz).

Sadly this one has a PPI of less than 200

 

[tenthousandthings]

Sadly this one has a PPI of less than 200

Anything over 27" won’t be Retina at 5K 5120x2880 (4x720p) resolution.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never understood why the next natural step in the Retina size progression, 30" 5760x3240 (4.5x720p), wasn't pursued. I guess there is research saying 32" (31.5") is a preferable or optimal size. So Apple chose what is now called “6K” to fit that size — even though it isn’t a true Retina 6K: 34" (33.5") 6400x3600 (5x720p).

 

[enc0re]

5K at 32” sounds like a nice combo to me.

Back in the day I used a 1440p at 32” monitor (i.e. loDPI). I thought the size of icons, text etc was just about perfect at its native resolution.

 

[GioGiusi]

Sadly this one has a PPI of less than 200

Nah man 31" and 5K is pretty reasonable. Close to Retina is more than good enough.

 

[GioGiusi]

Looks like the Acer Predator XB323QX could suit you: 31.5" 16:9 5K at 165Hz, also allows for half resolution (1440p) at double refresh rate (330Hz).

That actually looks interesting. I run the same display for both Mac and Windows, and dropping to half resolution for gaming sounds like it could be excellent, while running full resolution and still 165Hz on the Mac. Hmmmm.

 

[Fishrrman]

encore wrote:
"5K at 32” sounds like a nice combo to me."

Me, too.
Now... let's see that configuration with an OLED display of some sort...

 

[MacGizmo]

..Close to Retina is more than good enough.

No. It really isn't. 🥴

 

[turbineseaplane]

No. It really isn't. 🥴

It really is for a lot of us.

5k @ 32" is sort of a dream combo for me with my aging eyes, as it would make things be the physical on screen I have been manually setting things with scaling, for years now.

 

[EugW]

No. It really isn't. 🥴

Yes, it really is, for the vast majority of people. I'd guess anything above about 180 ppi is good for >95% of the population for normal ergonomic seating distances from a desktop screen.

It really is for a lot of us.

5k @ 32" is sort of a dream combo for me with my aging eyes, as it would things to the physical on screen I have been manually setting things with scaling, for years now.

Indeed. 5120x2880 32" is 184 ppi, which is actually "Retina" at a seating distance of 19" or more. OSHA in the US recommends a seating distance of 20" or more.

 

[MacGizmo]

Yes, it really is, for the vast majority of people. I'd guess anything above about 180 ppi is good for >95% of the population for normal ergonomic seating distances from a desktop screen.

No, it really, REALLY isn't.

Because, as the title of this thread implies, we're not talking about "the vast majority of people." We're talking about designers/videographers/photographers/people who create content for a living, which by their very nature are detail oriented, and spend a lot of time staring at the screen.

As someone who uses a (admittedly very nice) 5k/2k screen with a sub-200 ppi right next to two Apple Displays, it's not even close to being in the same ballpark. The lack of sharpness of text alone is what I would consider "bad" comparatively speaking, and the brightness of sub-500 displays compared to Apple's Studio Display makes it look like you're wearing sunglasses.

 

[EugW]

No, it really, REALLY isn't.

Because, as the title of this thread implies, we're not talking about "the vast majority of people." We're talking about designers/videographers/photographers/people who create content for a living, which by their very nature are detail oriented, and spend a lot of time staring at the screen.

As someone who uses a (admittedly very nice) 5k/2k screen with a sub-200 ppi right next to two Apple Displays, it's not even close to being in the same ballpark. The lack of sharpness of text alone is what I would consider "bad" comparatively speaking, and the brightness of sub-500 displays compared to Apple's Studio Display makes it look like you're wearing sunglasses.

5K/2K screens are typically 164 ppi or less. Which screen are you using? If it is 34” screen then it is 164 ppi. If it is a 40” screen, then it is 139 ppi. AFAIK, no 5K2K screens exist that are over 180 ppi but correct me if I’m wrong.

In contrast, the Acer 5K in this thread is 5120x2880, and at 32” it is 184 ppi.

Not all pixel densities below 200 ppi are the same, and 184 ppi is a huge jump over 164 ppi. The Acer may have other problems, but that’s a different argument.

 

[Dark-Signature]

5K/2K screens are typically 164 ppi or less. Which screen are you using? If it is 34” screen then it is 164 ppi. If it is a 40” screen, then it is 139 ppi. AFAIK, no 5K2K screens exist that are over 180 ppi but correct me if I’m wrong.

In contrast, the Acer 5K in this thread is 5120x2880, and at 32” it is 184 ppi.

Not all pixel densities below 200 ppi are the same, and 184 ppi is a huge jump over 164 ppi. The Acer may have other problems, but that’s a different argument.

But 184 PPI is still almost 40 PPI less than the monitors that promise us a guaranteed superior picture quality with ~220 PPI! If you deny this, others will come around the corner and claim that there is not much difference between the 164 PPI and the 184 PPI and so you keep lying to yourself.

If the PPI is always less, then other factors come into play that decide whether it is a very good picture quality (as with the Retina screens) or not. For me, the most important factor is whether there is a glossy coating or just an inferior matte coating, as the latter always lowers the picture quality a little.
The next thing to look at is the (sub)pixel structure or pixel arrangement (known from QD OLED vs. WOLED, but this can also be the case with LCDs). The higher the PPI, the less unsightly fringing effects should be noticeable, especially when displaying text, but if the PPI is lower, this may also be perceived as annoying.

You have to take a look at the Acer with 5K on 32” in real life. On the pro side, of course, the 165Hz would be good, but if I had the choice (and I wonder why the hell none of the panel manufacturers have offered it on 27“ 5K displays so far) I would rather buy a 27” 5k monitor with 165Hz, but with a guaranteed 220PPI, than on 32”.