This is the new version of the Dell UltraSharp 32" 4K Thunderbolt hub monitor, which is "IPS Black."
As background, I'm in my mid-50s, and probably have average to slightly below-average vision for someone my age. I see a lot of discussion in these forums, as well as on places like Reddit, that delve into excruciating detail as to why one monitor is better than another.
I sometimes feel that these discussions get embroiled in details that the average Joe like me won't be able to notice in real life, so the point of this post is to provide an average Joe's take.
Why I got the U3225QE when I did: Pricing part 1
I got it to replace a Dell 32" UltraSharp 6K U3224KB monitor, which gave up the ghost in that the upper-right backlight died a month or so ago.
I got the U3225QE when I did (it had been a few weeks since the U3224KB's backlight died) because my Amex Business Blue Plus card was offering a 13% statement credit. If you're into the credit card game, I also get 2X Amex points through this Amex card, plus 4X Amex points on the subtotal before tax through Rakuten. Total price out the door was $988.83 including tax and the statement credit... Living in Seattle means there's a sales tax rate of 10.35%.
Why I got the U3225QE instead of another U3224KB: Pricing part 2 and 1440p resolution part 1
I bought the U3225QE instead of getting another U3224KB because I didn't like the latter's "wart" (giant non-removable webcam that I didn't use), and couldn't stomach $2,800 when newer 6K monitors are on the horizon.
The price before tax for the U3225QE was $1,029.99 at Dell, whereas the price before tax for the U3224KB was $2,799.99. Interestingly, the U3224KB is no longer available at Amazon; I had paid $2,315.54 (weird price) in September 2023 for it, and the U3225QE isn't even available at Amazon.
It appears that the $1,029.99 Dell price for the U3225QE is cheaper than anywhere else reputable I can buy the monitor online (e.g., B&H is selling it at $1,099.99).
Moreover, per the title, I run the 4K U3225QE at a "looks like" resolution of 2560x1440, which is 1.5x fractional scaling, whereas running the 6K U3224KB at a "looks like" resolution of 2560x1440 is 2.4x fractional scaling. That is, I didn't see the need necessarily to spend $2,800 (list) for a 6K monitor as compared to $1,030 (list) for a 4K monitor when I'm running the monitor via fractional scaling at 1440p anyway, as opposed to perfect picture doubling.
The U3225QE versus the U3224KB: 1440p resolution part 2 one image quality part 1
The $64,000 question, of course, is whether I can see a difference between the U3225QE's 1.5x fractional scaling vs. the U3224KB 2.4x fractional scaling when running them at 2560x1440. The short answer is basically no.
I say basically no, because I worked on the U3224KB all day yesterday, and then disconnected it and hooked up the U3225QE. This is as close to an A-B comparison as I got, and maybe I could see a difference. But it could've been me thinking there was a difference.
This morning -- the day after hooking up the U3225QE -- I can't say I see much of a difference, resolution-wise. Maybe the image is slightly "softer"? Again, could be my imagination.
Perhaps because of that softness, I would say that overall picture quality seems marginally worse than the U3224KB for reasons I can't quite pin down. However, I'm going to power up the U3224KB to check the settings I was running it at (color temp, brightness, and the like), as compared to the U3225QE now, and mimic those on the U225QE to the extent possible.
The difference, if anything, is that whites seem slightly "less white" and that blacks seem slightly "less black" and slightly less pronounced -- the difference between black and white is not as good on the U3225QE as compared to the U3224KB.
I run the monitor in landscape mode, with as short of a height as possible. The straight-on resolution is greater, when I look at the bottom of the screen is where I notice this difference more.
Rtings.com gives the U3225QE a 7.10/10 for contrast ratio, calling it "decent," and gives it a 7.0/10 for vertical viewing angle, which it also calls decent. Unfortunately, Rtings.com has never reviewed the U3224KB, so I can't give an objective comparison between the two.
(BTW, if you value websites like Rtings.com, you really should become a paid subscriber, like you should with Macrumors.com if you value it; otherwise, they may go away at some point.)
I'm running the monitor on a MacBook Air 15" M3 through an iVANKY FusionDock Max 1 dual Thunderbolt 4 dock, which is unique in that it connects to two Thunderbolt ports to give maximum bandwidth. It's essentially two Thunderbolt 4 docks merged into one, so you can run the monitor on one, 2.5 GbE on the other, and USB-C peripherals such as external SSDs on both.
U3225QE image quality part 2 and 1440p resolution part 3
As to the 1440p resolution, I can't see any pixels even with my nose pressed against the monitor, and don't notice any slowdown on my M3 MBA resulting from using fractional scaling instead of true pixel doubling. The same was true with the U3224KB FWIW.
Image quality-wise, I can't say I notice the improvement with the U3225QE being IPS black as opposed to IPS, although I guess the U3224KB was IPS black, too.
I also can't say I notice any difference with a refresh rate of 120 Hz, as compared to 60 Hz, in things like scrolling through websites and long emails. I'm a lawyer, and thus run things like the native macOS Mail, Notes, and Calendar apps; Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, and Edge; Things; Safari; Zoom; FileMaker Pro; etc. No games. The occasional YouTube video.
(Note I also can't tell my iPhone 16 Pro's ProMotion as compared to an iPhone 16 that doesn't have a higher refresh rate, my iPad Pro M-something's ProMotion as compared to an iPad Air that doesn't have a higher refresh rate, etc.)
Ultimately, the image quality is fine. The matte coating means it doesn't have the "pop" in color that an Apple display does. I purchased a S2722QC for my 80-year-old mom to hook up to her 13" M-something MBA, and when I visit for weeks at a time, I take that over -- and I can't tell the U3225QE being any better than the S2722QC running at 2560x1440.
I wonder if perhaps Dell's S3225QC QD-OLED monitor would have provided better image quality for me, although I'm not sure how good OLED monitors are with text, and the connectivity of the U3225QE is superior. I'm guessing, too, that the U3223QE would be just as good as the U3225QE, although here too the U3223QE does not have as good connectivity as the U3225QE.
U3225QE connectivity
It's not the latest and greatest Thunderbolt 5, but the U3225QE's Thunderbolt 4 otherwise gives you everything you need. Since I'm running the monitor through a dock, I don't use much of the connectivity the monitor provides. Nor do I take advantage of the 140W in power delivery (PD) that the U3225QE provides when directly connecting a laptop, which is even better than the 96W that the Ivanky dock provides. And with my MBA, the jump in power wouldn't matter anyway.
However, I do love the pop-down USB ports from the bottom of the monitor: two USB-C ports and one USB-A port. I connect my Keychron K8 Max low-profile ten-keyless keyboard to one of the USB-C ports, and a YubiKey 5C Nano security key (which I don't really use much) to the other USB-C port.
For the YubiKey, I actually connect this through this USB-C magnetic adapter so I can easily remove the YubiKey and connect my Logitech MX Anywhere 3S mouse for charging when necessary. The 5C nano is so small that it's hard to remove, and when I used to connect everything to the U3224KB, its similar pop-down USB ports seemed less visible.
Otherwise, I don't have anything connected to the U3225QE. I may connect my aging but still awesome Logitech C925 HD webcam at some point. However, I am first going to see how inconvenient it is to just use my iPhone's camera via macOS's Continuity feature, where the iPhone is held into place with the Belkin iPhone Mount with MagSafe for Mac Desktops and Displays. I'm trying to decrease the number of overall devices I have.
Sound (or lack thereof)
The U3225QE does not have built-in speakers. This is an annoyance to me. I don't expect Apple Studio Display-quality speakers, but your standard 3W speakers should be offered on every monitor that may potentially be used for office workers that don't require high fidelity sound.
However, the U3225QE is compatible with Dell's SB521A soundbar, which clips onto the bottom of the monitor magnetically and has a short USB-A cable to plug into one of the USB-A ports on the back of the monitor. The SB521A is merely adequate. However, at $45 and because it's a separate soundbar, I was expecting better quality.
But it works for my needs. I rely quite a bit on sound as "cues," if you will, in the FileMaker database I developed myself for my legal practice. I could, of course, just use my AirPods Pro 2 or AirPods Max, but sometimes I don't like having anything in or on my ears.
Concluding thoughts
Overall, I'm satisfied with the U3225QE. It doesn't provide a "wow" factor like, say, the Apple Pro XDR Display does. But Dell's build quality is better than other brands IMHO in terms of "stability" on the desk when I'm banging away at my keyboard. And aesthetically it matches the Mac quite well, with a silver base, black bezel, and no visible branding on the front of the monitor. I'd buy it again.
I will say, though, if Apple were to come out with a Studio Display in a 32" variety, I'd buy it in a heartbeat if the price is under $3,000 with a height-adjustable stand. Even the Pro XDR Display I would seriously consider if with a height-adjustable stand it were under $4,000 -- not $6K like it is not -- and if someone sold speakers that attached to the display somehow.
Hopefully if you've read this far you've gotten some good information. My take-home point is that for the average Joe and the average Jane, the monitor is Just Fine. As noted above, sometimes forums like this one can get lost in the minutia of technical details -- which is great, but which the average person might not actually notice practically speaking.
As background, I'm in my mid-50s, and probably have average to slightly below-average vision for someone my age. I see a lot of discussion in these forums, as well as on places like Reddit, that delve into excruciating detail as to why one monitor is better than another.
I sometimes feel that these discussions get embroiled in details that the average Joe like me won't be able to notice in real life, so the point of this post is to provide an average Joe's take.
Why I got the U3225QE when I did: Pricing part 1
I got it to replace a Dell 32" UltraSharp 6K U3224KB monitor, which gave up the ghost in that the upper-right backlight died a month or so ago.
I got the U3225QE when I did (it had been a few weeks since the U3224KB's backlight died) because my Amex Business Blue Plus card was offering a 13% statement credit. If you're into the credit card game, I also get 2X Amex points through this Amex card, plus 4X Amex points on the subtotal before tax through Rakuten. Total price out the door was $988.83 including tax and the statement credit... Living in Seattle means there's a sales tax rate of 10.35%.
Why I got the U3225QE instead of another U3224KB: Pricing part 2 and 1440p resolution part 1
I bought the U3225QE instead of getting another U3224KB because I didn't like the latter's "wart" (giant non-removable webcam that I didn't use), and couldn't stomach $2,800 when newer 6K monitors are on the horizon.
The price before tax for the U3225QE was $1,029.99 at Dell, whereas the price before tax for the U3224KB was $2,799.99. Interestingly, the U3224KB is no longer available at Amazon; I had paid $2,315.54 (weird price) in September 2023 for it, and the U3225QE isn't even available at Amazon.
It appears that the $1,029.99 Dell price for the U3225QE is cheaper than anywhere else reputable I can buy the monitor online (e.g., B&H is selling it at $1,099.99).
Moreover, per the title, I run the 4K U3225QE at a "looks like" resolution of 2560x1440, which is 1.5x fractional scaling, whereas running the 6K U3224KB at a "looks like" resolution of 2560x1440 is 2.4x fractional scaling. That is, I didn't see the need necessarily to spend $2,800 (list) for a 6K monitor as compared to $1,030 (list) for a 4K monitor when I'm running the monitor via fractional scaling at 1440p anyway, as opposed to perfect picture doubling.
The U3225QE versus the U3224KB: 1440p resolution part 2 one image quality part 1
The $64,000 question, of course, is whether I can see a difference between the U3225QE's 1.5x fractional scaling vs. the U3224KB 2.4x fractional scaling when running them at 2560x1440. The short answer is basically no.
I say basically no, because I worked on the U3224KB all day yesterday, and then disconnected it and hooked up the U3225QE. This is as close to an A-B comparison as I got, and maybe I could see a difference. But it could've been me thinking there was a difference.
This morning -- the day after hooking up the U3225QE -- I can't say I see much of a difference, resolution-wise. Maybe the image is slightly "softer"? Again, could be my imagination.
Perhaps because of that softness, I would say that overall picture quality seems marginally worse than the U3224KB for reasons I can't quite pin down. However, I'm going to power up the U3224KB to check the settings I was running it at (color temp, brightness, and the like), as compared to the U3225QE now, and mimic those on the U225QE to the extent possible.
The difference, if anything, is that whites seem slightly "less white" and that blacks seem slightly "less black" and slightly less pronounced -- the difference between black and white is not as good on the U3225QE as compared to the U3224KB.
I run the monitor in landscape mode, with as short of a height as possible. The straight-on resolution is greater, when I look at the bottom of the screen is where I notice this difference more.
Rtings.com gives the U3225QE a 7.10/10 for contrast ratio, calling it "decent," and gives it a 7.0/10 for vertical viewing angle, which it also calls decent. Unfortunately, Rtings.com has never reviewed the U3224KB, so I can't give an objective comparison between the two.
(BTW, if you value websites like Rtings.com, you really should become a paid subscriber, like you should with Macrumors.com if you value it; otherwise, they may go away at some point.)
I'm running the monitor on a MacBook Air 15" M3 through an iVANKY FusionDock Max 1 dual Thunderbolt 4 dock, which is unique in that it connects to two Thunderbolt ports to give maximum bandwidth. It's essentially two Thunderbolt 4 docks merged into one, so you can run the monitor on one, 2.5 GbE on the other, and USB-C peripherals such as external SSDs on both.
U3225QE image quality part 2 and 1440p resolution part 3
As to the 1440p resolution, I can't see any pixels even with my nose pressed against the monitor, and don't notice any slowdown on my M3 MBA resulting from using fractional scaling instead of true pixel doubling. The same was true with the U3224KB FWIW.
Image quality-wise, I can't say I notice the improvement with the U3225QE being IPS black as opposed to IPS, although I guess the U3224KB was IPS black, too.
I also can't say I notice any difference with a refresh rate of 120 Hz, as compared to 60 Hz, in things like scrolling through websites and long emails. I'm a lawyer, and thus run things like the native macOS Mail, Notes, and Calendar apps; Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams, and Edge; Things; Safari; Zoom; FileMaker Pro; etc. No games. The occasional YouTube video.
(Note I also can't tell my iPhone 16 Pro's ProMotion as compared to an iPhone 16 that doesn't have a higher refresh rate, my iPad Pro M-something's ProMotion as compared to an iPad Air that doesn't have a higher refresh rate, etc.)
Ultimately, the image quality is fine. The matte coating means it doesn't have the "pop" in color that an Apple display does. I purchased a S2722QC for my 80-year-old mom to hook up to her 13" M-something MBA, and when I visit for weeks at a time, I take that over -- and I can't tell the U3225QE being any better than the S2722QC running at 2560x1440.
I wonder if perhaps Dell's S3225QC QD-OLED monitor would have provided better image quality for me, although I'm not sure how good OLED monitors are with text, and the connectivity of the U3225QE is superior. I'm guessing, too, that the U3223QE would be just as good as the U3225QE, although here too the U3223QE does not have as good connectivity as the U3225QE.
U3225QE connectivity
It's not the latest and greatest Thunderbolt 5, but the U3225QE's Thunderbolt 4 otherwise gives you everything you need. Since I'm running the monitor through a dock, I don't use much of the connectivity the monitor provides. Nor do I take advantage of the 140W in power delivery (PD) that the U3225QE provides when directly connecting a laptop, which is even better than the 96W that the Ivanky dock provides. And with my MBA, the jump in power wouldn't matter anyway.
However, I do love the pop-down USB ports from the bottom of the monitor: two USB-C ports and one USB-A port. I connect my Keychron K8 Max low-profile ten-keyless keyboard to one of the USB-C ports, and a YubiKey 5C Nano security key (which I don't really use much) to the other USB-C port.
For the YubiKey, I actually connect this through this USB-C magnetic adapter so I can easily remove the YubiKey and connect my Logitech MX Anywhere 3S mouse for charging when necessary. The 5C nano is so small that it's hard to remove, and when I used to connect everything to the U3224KB, its similar pop-down USB ports seemed less visible.
Otherwise, I don't have anything connected to the U3225QE. I may connect my aging but still awesome Logitech C925 HD webcam at some point. However, I am first going to see how inconvenient it is to just use my iPhone's camera via macOS's Continuity feature, where the iPhone is held into place with the Belkin iPhone Mount with MagSafe for Mac Desktops and Displays. I'm trying to decrease the number of overall devices I have.
Sound (or lack thereof)
The U3225QE does not have built-in speakers. This is an annoyance to me. I don't expect Apple Studio Display-quality speakers, but your standard 3W speakers should be offered on every monitor that may potentially be used for office workers that don't require high fidelity sound.
However, the U3225QE is compatible with Dell's SB521A soundbar, which clips onto the bottom of the monitor magnetically and has a short USB-A cable to plug into one of the USB-A ports on the back of the monitor. The SB521A is merely adequate. However, at $45 and because it's a separate soundbar, I was expecting better quality.
But it works for my needs. I rely quite a bit on sound as "cues," if you will, in the FileMaker database I developed myself for my legal practice. I could, of course, just use my AirPods Pro 2 or AirPods Max, but sometimes I don't like having anything in or on my ears.
Concluding thoughts
Overall, I'm satisfied with the U3225QE. It doesn't provide a "wow" factor like, say, the Apple Pro XDR Display does. But Dell's build quality is better than other brands IMHO in terms of "stability" on the desk when I'm banging away at my keyboard. And aesthetically it matches the Mac quite well, with a silver base, black bezel, and no visible branding on the front of the monitor. I'd buy it again.
I will say, though, if Apple were to come out with a Studio Display in a 32" variety, I'd buy it in a heartbeat if the price is under $3,000 with a height-adjustable stand. Even the Pro XDR Display I would seriously consider if with a height-adjustable stand it were under $4,000 -- not $6K like it is not -- and if someone sold speakers that attached to the display somehow.
Hopefully if you've read this far you've gotten some good information. My take-home point is that for the average Joe and the average Jane, the monitor is Just Fine. As noted above, sometimes forums like this one can get lost in the minutia of technical details -- which is great, but which the average person might not actually notice practically speaking.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
