Acer unveils new 5K and 6K monitors for creators

[EugW]

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.

There is a huge difference between 164 and 184 ppi. There is also a difference between 184 and 218 ppi but at seating distances over 20", the difference is less significant. That's the main point I was making.

164 ppi is considered Retina at 21".
184 ppi is considered Retina at 19".
218 ppi is considered Retina at 16".

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”.

Yes we will have to see the Acer 5K in real life and I do believe it will be inferior to other monitors in several ways, but the point is the pixel density wouldn't be the main concern for most users.

As for the refresh rate, I don't care that much. I'd be perfectly happy with 60 Hz.

BTW, 184 ppi monitors have already existed in the past, and they are 24" 4K monitors. Those have the exact same pixel density of 183.58 ppi that a 32" 5K monitor would have. Those 24" 4K monitors look very good in terms of pixel density at normal seating distances, which is why some people here at MacRumors have said a 5K 32" would look very good too. The problem with 24" 4K monitors though is the screens are just too small for a lot of people, so a larger monitor with the same pixel density would be welcome.

 

[turbineseaplane]

BTW, 184 ppi monitors have already existed in the past, and they are 24" 4K monitors. Those have the exact same pixel density of 183.58 ppi that a 32" 5K monitor would have. Those 24" 4K monitors look very good in terms of pixel density at normal seating distances, which is why some people here at MacRumors have said a 5K 32" would look very good too. The problem with 24" 4K monitors though is the screens are just too small for a lot of people, so a larger monitor with the same pixel density would be welcome.

I can vouch for this.

I had the LG 24" 4K UF and it was fantastic.

A 5k" 32" I suspect would be even more so as I'd likely use it slightly further away due to the physical size.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Who's making the 5K @ 32" monitor?
I'm getting confused on all this. I don't see one on the Acer links?

nvm: Found my own post about it from the past.

It's the:

Acer Predatorx XB323QX
IPS, 10-bit, 144hz and 5120 x 2880 at 31.5"

 

[EugW]

Who's making the 5K @ 32" monitor?

I'm getting confused on all this. I don't see one on the Acer links?

Acer is making a 5K 32", but it's a gaming monitor with low peak brightness, mediocre contrast, and IMO it's ugly, so I likely will not buy this monitor. BTW, it's 31.5" not 32", which means it is slightly higher ppi at 186.5 ppi, Retina at 18.5".

The Acer ProCreator 5K monitor is a 27" monitor. AFAIK, there is no 5K 32" ProCreator model. Thus I'm looking more toward the LG, Asus, and Acer 6K 32" models. The pixel density vs 5K 32" is not my main concern here, but it's more the other features such as colour, contrast, brightness, overall build quality, and aesthetics. 60 Hz is fine for me, and anything above that would be a bonus.

EDIT:

nvm: Found my own post about it from the past.

It's the:

Acer Predatorx XB323QX
IPS, 10-bit, 144hz and 5120 x 2880 at 31.5"

Yep, that's the one. It's now claimed to be 165 Hz not 144 Hz, although I'm not sure in what mode. The claim is that it is out Q4, but some are predicting 2026 Q1 now.

 

[drrich2]

While admittedly a trickle, it seems manufacturers of 32" displays desiring to go beyond 4K are making the leap to 6K; 5K sounds pretty niche (I'm ignoring ultra-wide screen displays).

I get that consumers are ever trying to find their personal sweet spot equilibrium between the competing forces of getting the most and paying the least. One would think 5K 32" would be cheaper than 6K 32", all other things being equal, though if it's more niche and thus production runs of the hardware are lower, I have to wonder...

So, those of you with an interest in a 5K 32" display for a Mac; how much of a price difference would it take for you to settle for a 5K 32" display over an otherwise identical 6K 32" display?

Here's another factor that may drive the likelihood of manufacturers producing these; how much of a difference does it make for Windows users? The market share of Windows PCs over Macs is such that I imagine the Windows experience will be an important driver. I've seen posts by others claiming Windows looks better than Mac when using a display well outside 110 dpi or 220 dpi (e.g.: 4K 27"). In theory if Windows users didn't see much difference, 5K might make them happy and be cheaper to produce.

Given the recent focus on higher refresh rates in the display industry, do you foresee 5K being practical to produce at substantially higher refresh rates than 6K? If prices were equal, 5K at 90Hz (or 120?) or 6K at 60Hz in the 32" sector could get interesting...

Richard.

 

[Fishrrman]

Show of hands...

Who here remembers when reviewers were gushing over the first 9" Macs because the screen had a pixel density of no less than 72dpi -- "perfect for desktop publishing" ???

 

[EugW]

While admittedly a trickle, it seems manufacturers of 32" displays desiring to go beyond 4K are making the leap to 6K; 5K sounds pretty niche (I'm ignoring ultra-wide screen displays).

I get that consumers are ever trying to find their personal sweet spot equilibrium between the competing forces of getting the most and paying the least. One would think 5K 32" would be cheaper than 6K 32", all other things being equal, though if it's more niche and thus production runs of the hardware are lower, I have to wonder...

So, those of you with an interest in a 5K 32" display for a Mac; how much of a price difference would it take for you to settle for a 5K 32" display over an otherwise identical 6K 32" display?

Here's another factor that may drive the likelihood of manufacturers producing these; how much of a difference does it make for Windows users? The market share of Windows PCs over Macs is such that I imagine the Windows experience will be an important driver. I've seen posts by others claiming Windows looks better than Mac when using a display well outside 110 dpi or 220 dpi (e.g.: 4K 27"). In theory if Windows users didn't see much difference, 5K might make them happy and be cheaper to produce.

Given the recent focus on higher refresh rates in the display industry, do you foresee 5K being practical to produce at substantially higher refresh rates than 6K? If prices were equal, 5K at 90Hz (or 120?) or 6K at 60Hz in the 32" sector could get interesting...

My understanding is that 5K 120 Hz 10-bit would not require DSC but 6K 120 Hz 10-bit would, when using DisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20. 6K 120 Hz 10-bit is supported with DSC though, and the Pro Display XDR already uses DSC anyway.

Since both 5K and 6K both have decent pixel densities, and Windows users need less pixel density than Mac users, 5K would make more sense for them for cost reasons IMO.

In my case, I will just be using an M4 Mac mini (DisplayPort 1.4), not an M4 Pro Mac mini (DisplayPort 2.1), so I will be limited to 60 Hz on a 6K 10-bit monitor, which is fine by me. However, if I do end up getting a 6K 31.5"/32" monitor, I just hope that the allowed non-2X-scaled resolutions are reasonable. For the sake of text sizing, I would prefer NOT to run at 2X-scaled 3008x1692 (Apple monitor) or 3072 / 1728 (non-Apple monitor). I would prefer to run at something like 2720x1530 for larger default text sizing. Unfortunately, my understanding is that this would not likely be offered as an option in macOS, since on the current ProDisplay XDR, the next step down from 3008x1692 is 2560x1440, with nothing in-between. A hypothetical 5.4K monitor would be my holy grail, since it would be 2X-scaled to 2720x1530. However, if I were forced to run 2560x1440 as the next step down, then in that case, a 5K 5120x2880 monitor would be more appropriate as it would be exactly 2X-scaled to 2560x1440. If I could save a few hundred bucks doing that, then even better.

However, I suspect what I will actually end up doing is getting a 6K 32" monitor (because I don't want an ugly 5K 32" gaming monitor) and running it 2X-scaled as recommended, but with enlarged fonts in applications like Safari.

 

[GioGiusi]

No. It really isn't. 🥴

It really is. We're not saying ANY DPI is good enough. But close to Retina is definitely more than good enough. We know, we've tried it. There are next to nil options besides the built-in displays that are even Retina to begin with.

 

[MacGizmo]

I'm sorry, but I have a 163ppi 5k/2k display and it doesn't even come close to good enough compared to the ASD. The brightness alone is disappointing on every other display I've seen, used or read about. I can read text on the ASD from several feet away, while the same text appears blurry and rather "gray" on the LG display I have. Maybe my expectations are just much higher than some folks.

 

[enc0re]

I'm sorry, but I have a 163ppi 5k/2k display and it doesn't even come close to good enough compared to the ASD. The brightness alone is disappointing on every other display I've seen, used or read about. I can read text on the ASD from several feet away, while the same text appears blurry and rather "gray" on the LG display I have. Maybe my expectations are just much higher than some folks.

Without a doubt your 163 ppi display looks bad on macOS. But not just for the reason you think.

163 ppi is a bad space for macOS. If you want to run native, you’re in loDPI mode and everything is too small. So you run scaled which gives you nasty blurriness. And many people do that without even using BetterDisplay to force hiDPI mode.

Yes, 163 is noticeably far away from 184 and even further away from 200+. But that’s less than half of the problem.

If you’ve looked at the “made for Mac” 24”/4K/184ppi monitor from LG, it’s really quite sharp and I would challenge you to tell the difference from a 200+ ppi display.

 

[Dark-Signature]

If you’ve looked at the “made for Mac” 24”/4K/184ppi monitor from LG, it’s really quite sharp and I would challenge you to tell the difference from a 200+ ppi display.

For me, I use such HiDPI Displays also for Windows and there I prefer 220PPI!

 

[tenthousandthings]

Acer Predator XB323QX
IPS, 10-bit, 144hz and 5120 x 2880 at 31.5"

Yep, that's the one. It's now claimed to be 165 Hz not 144 Hz, although I'm not sure in what mode. The claim is that it is out Q4, but some are predicting 2026 Q1 now.

They changed from the 144/288Hz prototype brought to the CES trade show in January, to the 165/330Hz one shown at Computex in May. [TFT Central]

Its main selling point is what they are calling dual-mode, the ability to jump back and forth between 5K 2880p 165Hz and 1440p 330Hz.

 

[tenthousandthings]

My understanding is that 5K 120 Hz 10-bit would not require DSC but 6K 120 Hz 10-bit would, when using DisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20. 6K 120 Hz 10-bit is supported with DSC though, and the Pro Display XDR already uses DSC anyway.

Since both 5K and 6K both have decent pixel densities, and Windows users need less pixel density than Mac users, 5K would make more sense for them for cost reasons IMO.

In my case, I will just be using an M4 Mac mini (DisplayPort 1.4), not an M4 Pro Mac mini (DisplayPort 2.1), so I will be limited to 60 Hz on a 6K 10-bit monitor, which is fine by me. However, if I do end up getting a 6K 31.5"/32" monitor, I just hope that the allowed non-2X-scaled resolutions are reasonable. For the sake of text sizing, I would prefer NOT to run at 2X-scaled 3008x1692 (Apple monitor) or 3072 / 1728 (non-Apple monitor). I would prefer to run at something like 2720x1530 for larger default text sizing. Unfortunately, my understanding is that this would not likely be offered as an option in macOS, since on the current ProDisplay XDR, the next step down from 3008x1692 is 2560x1440, with nothing in-between. A hypothetical 5.4K monitor would be my holy grail, since it would be 2X-scaled to 2720x1530. However, if I were forced to run 2560x1440 as the next step down, then in that case, a 5K 5120x2880 monitor would be more appropriate as it would be exactly 2X-scaled to 2560x1440. If I could save a few hundred bucks doing that, then even better.

However, I suspect what I will actually end up doing is getting a 6K 32" monitor (because I don't want an ugly 5K 32" gaming monitor) and running it 2X-scaled as recommended, but with enlarged fonts in applications like Safari.

Interesting that all of the upcoming 6K (LG 32U990A, ASUS ProArt, Acer ProCreator) are following Apple at 6016x3384. I guess they could all be using the same LG panel? Or LG has one, and someone else (China?) is supplying ASUS and Acer?

Dell is alone at 6144x3456. Anyhow, as of today, I’m waiting to snap up the LG as soon as it becomes available. If Apple has something in the works, they should announce it soon.

 

[tenthousandthings]

[…] 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”.

I don’t know (I speak as an observer, not as a scientist or engineer), but I surmise it must be a technological limitation built into industry-standard IPS LCD manufacturing (IPS was first introduced in 1992, so perhaps the technology has been stretched to its limits), because they can produce high dpi (218+) or high fps (120+) but not both at the same time.

It appears tandem OLED is the answer, and next year Samsung will likely produce a 27" 5K 120Hz panel. They already have a working prototype. It uses their current, fourth-generation QD-OLED manufacturing technology that is already in production (for ASUS and MSI), so it seems like 32" 6K 120Hz should be easily within reach if there is demand, which, yeah, Think Different!

 

[enc0re]

All I really want is for Apple to put the MacBook Pro panel into a 32" display with TB5, webcam, and speakers. I'll pay whatever for that. $5,000? Sure, fine.

 

[tenthousandthings]

They changed from the 144/288Hz prototype brought to the CES trade show in January, to the 165/330Hz one shown at Computex in May. [TFT Central]

Its main selling point is what they are calling dual-mode, the ability to jump back and forth between 5K 2880p 165Hz and 1440p 330Hz.

I was not aware, but apparently “dual mode” refresh rate is a thing, the 2024 LG 32GS95UE panel also does it, jumping between 4K 2160p 240Hz and 1080p 480Hz.

That is a WOLED (LG’s tandem OLED technology) panel, as opposed to the IPS panel(s) in the Acer Predator prototype(s).

 

[tenthousandthings]

I don’t know where else to post this, it’s off-topic here, but I wanted to point this out. So far, we’ve seen two “dual mode” gaming display panels, both of which are halved down to previous standard video resolutions when they double up the refresh rate:

4K 2160p 240Hz becomes 1080p 480Hz
5K 2880p 165Hz becomes 1440p 330Hz

What’s the next step in this progression? The current “6K” doesn’t fit into this. It doesn’t halve neatly down to a standard video resolution. You know what does? 8K. For example:

8K 4320p 120Hz becomes 4K 2160p 240Hz

For fun, here’s a handy list showing these standard relationships:

• 720p = HD = 1280x720
• 1080p = 1920x1080 (1.5x 720p)
• 1440p = 2560x1440 (2x 720p)
• 2160p = 4K = 3840x2160 (3x 720p; 2x 1080p)
• 2880p = 5K = 5120x2880 (4x 720p)
• 3240p = 5760x3240 (4.5x 720p; 3x 1080p)
• 3600p = 6400x3600 (5x 720p)
• 4320p = 8K (2x 4K) = 7680x4320 (6x 720p; 4x 1080p)
• 5040p = 8960x5040 (7x 720p)
• 5400p = 9600x5400 (7.5x 720p; 5x 1080p)
• 5760p = 10K (2x 5K) = 10240x5760 (8x 720p)
• 8640p = 16K (2x 8K) = 15360x8640 (12x 720p; 8x 1080p)