by secure on 7/3/23, 7:12 PM with 453 comments
by diziet on 7/3/23, 11:02 PM
Group 1 can tell the difference between the two and strongly prefers 120Hz.
Group 2 can't tell the difference between the two and prefers the more affordable options.
Group 3 has not done a lot of comparisons between the two refresh rates, or has used 120Hz displays that were actually in 60Hz mode, or compared lower resolution 120Hz displays with higher resolution 60Hz displays.
I think a lot of people mistakenly think they are in Group 2 when they are in Group 3.
by jiggawatts on 7/4/23, 1:08 AM
We'll have this available for purchase any decade now... any decade. Soon, perhaps as early as the 2030s, 2040s tops!
All joking aside, I'm tempted to create a GoFundMe page for this and see if there's other people out there interested in convincing a panel manufacturer to print some 8K monitor-sized OLEDs...
by hilbert42 on 7/4/23, 5:01 AM
Surprisingly, I found that I don’t like the matte screen better!
It’s hard to describe, but somehow the picture seems more “dull”, or less bright (independent of the actual brightness of the monitor), or more toned down. The colors don’t pop as much."
A useful post. Whilst I've not yet had the luxury of owning a 6k or 8k monitor his comment about matte and glossy screens is very useful (also I'm more likely to trust his opinion than many others because his discerning experience is backed by the fact that he's actually using an 8k monitor—and that takes money and commitment).
Over the years I've made many comparisons between matte and glossy screens and I have to agree with him for the same reasons. Despite being more susceptible to reflections, glossy screens always seem brighter and somehow sharper than matte ones of the same resolution and brightness. I've never investigated the reason in depth but I suspect the matte finish disperses the light from the screen and the net visual effect is a 'rounding' of transients resulting in lower contrast somewhat like offset printing which never looks as sharp as letterpress (where the ink dries thicker and looks blacker at the edges of the imprinting, this increases visual contrast even though the resolution may not be much different).
by veidr on 7/4/23, 12:51 AM
The difference in crispness between the Dell UP321K (~280ppi at 7680x64280 at 31.5 inches) and this new U3224KBA (~220ppi at 6144 x 3456 at 32") is dramatic.
The new Dell 6K is about the same as the Apple 6K (the XDR Pro Display). I had that 6K Apple and the 8K Dell side-by-side on my desk for a few months (until I could find a buyer for the dramatically inferior Apple). During that time, I asked anybody who happened to stop by to look at the screens and compare them.
Almost everybody could see the difference immediately.
A few people, admittedly, said they looked pretty much the same. I think there's a certain level of eyesight required to discern the difference. Having said that, I got my first prescription glasses 2 years ago, and I can easily see the difference with glasses on or off.
I cannot see pixels on either one. But what I can see is a slight fuzz at the edges of letters on the lower res display. Moreover, I need my glasses to use the 6K for long stretches and I don't even really need to wear them with the 8K. That's what made me so attached to this monitor.
I was therefore bummed to see Dell release this 6K. I want a modern version of the 8K! Two cables sucks, it's quite a compatibility nightmare to get configured properly on Linux if you want to use cheaper monitors alongside it (because the software support for multiple displays at different scaling factors is pretty bad still on most Linux). On Mac it never worked at all, until they released the M2 chip(!).
(It has always worked fine on Windows, just plug it in.)
Having used this for a few years, I don't ever want to go back to 6K, or 5K, or 4K. I just want 8K to get cheaper so that I can rock 3 8K displays, instead of the 4K-8K-4K I suffer today.... also, 120Hz please.
by Matheus28 on 7/3/23, 8:06 PM
by jwells89 on 7/3/23, 11:18 PM
The technical aspects of this review are interesting, especially the wide range of machines tested. I finished writing a review of my own[0] a few days ago, which is less technical but goes into some other aspects of the monitor.
[0]: https://www.wells.dev/dell-ultrasharp-u3224kb-squandered-pot...
by davidhyde on 7/3/23, 8:15 PM
by iforgotpassword on 7/4/23, 4:19 AM
... But then the table just below states the MacBook does it at 8gbps without DSC. What's going on here?
by orliesaurus on 7/4/23, 12:39 AM
by rubin55 on 7/4/23, 10:42 AM
The article mentions that "it (the Dell UP3218K) needs two (!) DisplayPort cables on a GPU with MST support, meaning that in practice, it only works with nVidia graphics cards."
I would like to tell people here that this is not true in my experience (which might be related to advances in amdgpu and/or linux in general): I'm running one Dell on a Vega (64) Frontier Edition and one on a 6900XT, both on Linux 6.3 with the amdgpu driver. It sets up correctly, using DP TILE extension, so both cables used, 7680x4320@60hz.
Also I would like to add (subjectively) that nothing beats the display quality of these screens. It's literally life/eye-changing.. insanely nice, sharp. I could never go back to sub ~200ish DPI displays.
by chx on 7/4/23, 10:39 AM
This is nonsense, of course AMD graphics cards support MST. https://www.reddit.com/user/hubsdocks/comments/rcf6vz/dell_w... Perhaps some weird Linux driver limitation...?
As for DisplayPort, the only semi-modern customer grade video card with four DisplayPorts is the AMD Radeon™ RX 5700 XT Taichi X 8G OC+ RX5700XT TCX 8GP.
by whatever1 on 7/4/23, 3:31 AM
You have to either use the HDMI port from the Mac (if you have an M2 one) or use a usbc to HDMI converter which for some reason triggers the DSC.
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/dell-6k-u3224kb-monitor...
by keyle on 7/4/23, 12:32 AM
And yes I have it pegged at 60hz, unlike the "solution" says, removing the variable rate does not solve the problem.
Buyers beware of Dell screens with macOS on Apple Silicon.
And yes I've tried many different cables... :)
by stalfosknight on 7/3/23, 8:42 PM
by tedunangst on 7/3/23, 10:23 PM
by closeparen on 7/3/23, 11:51 PM
by dahwolf on 7/4/23, 9:05 PM
What would really make a dent in experience is OLED + HDR. In the TV world, the combination with HDR is relatively new as OLED displays struggled with brightness. This particular combination working well is a sight to behold. It makes you consider what absolute crap image you were looking at before.
by arijun on 7/4/23, 5:34 AM
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-6k-monito...
by Kon5ole on 7/4/23, 10:38 AM
Using a tv as a monitor has downsides (Only HDMI, doesn't detect inputs automatically etc) but having 55" of retina screen real estate is such a great experience that I'm sticking with it. The same panel sold as a PC monitor with proper inputs (and maybe a matte screen) would be ideal.
by dzogchen on 7/4/23, 8:44 AM
1) The scaling on macOS. Everything was way too big. There were not enough options for fractional scaling.
2) The matte finish. I came from another matte Dell monitor, but the whole screen looked slightly fuzzy, like a permanent oil stain all over the monitor.
3) The contrast sucks. They call it 'IPS Black' but I was not impressed. The colors look different depending on the angle. This is probably an issue with the size of the monitor as well, as when you look at the left size, the angle to the right size is pretty big.
Lastly I did not like the size either, but I will have that with every 31.5 inch monitor.
by bluedino on 7/3/23, 11:14 PM
It was $300, the color isn't perfect, it has a little glare, it can be choosy when it comes to ports and cables, but having such a large desktop is great. It's a large enough screen to run at native resolution.
I'm interested in things like Apples 6K monitor but the cost and the fact that it's only really work with my Mac, as well as not giving me that much usable space, make it an easy decision to not buy.
by b212 on 7/5/23, 8:53 PM
I’m at 16:9 (nearly impossible to get 16:10 today :/) 4k 32” and honestly this is freaking small. What’s the point of all the space if it all looks really good without zooming at maybe 2500-ish pixels wide. I’d gladly get a good 42” display at 4k, would be perfect.
by iod on 7/4/23, 6:44 AM
by r2vcap on 7/3/23, 11:54 PM
by cubefox on 7/4/23, 9:59 AM
by I_am_tiberius on 7/3/23, 8:51 PM
by bentcorner on 7/3/23, 9:13 PM
I can imagine that a lot of personal computing is going to transform into some kind of "screen+lens+eyeball" as COGs for these kinds of headset displays are going to be lower than traditional monitor (or possibly even smartphone) displays.
by qaq on 7/3/23, 11:17 PM
by swader999 on 7/3/23, 10:10 PM
by 111111IIIIIII on 7/3/23, 10:21 PM
I do not understand the complaints about pixel density. The display is 223 ppi, which is the same or slightly higher than Apple displays. I am using them in a dual display configuration with an M1 Macbook Pro via TB4 and a Windows PC with an RTX 4090 via DisplayPort. The KVM feature makes switching back and forth a breeze. I am using 175% scaling (in Windows) and I don't think 8K with 1:2 scaling would give suitably sized OS components for me, so it would be fractional scaling either way.
The startup time doesn't matter in practice because they still wake up from sleep instantaneously.
The mini-DP IN port would be inconvenient but Club3D makes a bi-directional adapter that makes it regular DisplayPort for about $20.
I am fine with the camera defaulting to ON for Windows Hello to work in my 2 computer setup.
My only serious complaint is the piss poor speakers and the fabric covering them.
I would also prefer a glossy display, but in practice I just don't find it makes any difference. I arrange my office for no reflections anyhow, which results in an equivalent experience. Additionally, the Dell 6K has excellent blacks. It has much better blacks than any IPS panel I have used.
by adamgamble on 7/3/23, 8:03 PM
by mynonameaccount on 7/3/23, 10:52 PM
by steveBK123 on 7/3/23, 8:59 PM
by j45 on 7/3/23, 11:23 PM
I understand things like fonts render smoother on a 4-6-8K monitor but it also draws more power usually to power all those pixels.
The use of a Chroma 4:4:4 capable 4K tv is also often really helpful because one 4K screen at large enough size gives four 1920x1080 working surfaces. 4K seems to become useful at 38" Or so in a TV.
Is there something I'm missing out on in terms of option that are superior to 2K for external monitors in terms of usability?
Many of the ultrawide monitors sometimes have worse or close to the same resolution as a single 2K monitor.
by densh on 7/3/23, 8:22 PM