6k display comparison

by

It’s very clear that Apple were going for peak brightness above all else. Nobody else has even tried to make a bright 6k display – in fact, every non-Apple 6k display is outright dim by modern display standards – they’re barely brighter than the original 5k display in the 2015 iMac!1

For the price of one Apple Pro Display XDR you can get five Asus ProArt 6k displays. And it’s worth noting that the 2nd-hand price for the XDR has risen dramatically since it was discontinued, with some ‘retailing’ on eBay for more than their original purchase price! So forget about the 2nd-hand market.

I suspect there’s only three 6k panel models in existence – the one used by Apple, the AUO one used by Asus2, Acer, & ALOGIC, and the LG one used by LG, Dell, & Kuycon.

It’s strange to me that Dell haven’t dropped the price of their 6k display given that LG are offering the same panel in a much svelter package for 33% less (and you can get the very similar Asus display for 56% less!).

Pro Display XDRLG UltraFine™evo 6K Nano IPS Black Monitor with Thunderbolt™ 5 (32U990A-S)Dell UltraSharp 32 6K (U3224KB)Asus ProArt Display 6K (PA32QCV)Acer ProCreator3 31.5″ 6K (PE320QXT)4Kuycon G32PMeirro ProALOGIC Clarity 32″ 6K Multi-Touch (32C6KPDTF)
Screen diagonal581 cm80 cm80 cm80 cm80 cm80 cm80 cm81 cm
Resolution6,016 ⨉ 3,3846,144 ⨉ 3,4566,144 ⨉ 3,4566,016 ⨉ 3,3846,016 ⨉ 3,3846,144 ⨉ 3,4566,144 ⨉ 3,4566,016 ⨉ 3,384
Pixel count20,358,14421,233,66421,233,66420,358,14420,358,14421,233,66421,233,66420,358,144
Backlight zones5761111111
Pixels per backlight zone35,34421,233,66421,233,66420,358,14420,358,14421,233,66421,233,66420,358,144
Pixel density218224224218218224224216
Contrast ratio1,000,000 : 1 62,000 : 1 72,000 : 1 81,500 : 1 9? 102,000 : 1 112,000 : 12,000 : 1
Peak sustained brightness1,000 (≤ 25℃)124501345035014400155004501640017
Maximum “black” luminence?≤ 0.118≤ 0.119≤ 0.120????
Bit depth1010108218221010823
Rec 2020 coverage?82%?73%????
Display P3 coverage98.7%2498%2599%98%99%99%98%99%26
Adobe RGB coverage96.7%99.5%?88%99%?99%99%27
Rec 709 coverage??100%?????
sRGB coverage94.3%100%100%100%?99%99%100%
Peak Refresh rate60 Hz60 Hz60 Hz60 Hz60 Hz2860 Hz60 Hz60 Hz
FinishGlossy or Matte (“Nano-texture”)29MatteMatteMatteGlossyGlossyGlossyGlossy
USB Power Delivery96W96W140W96W90W100W96W90W30
Connectivity1⨉ Thunderbolt 3
3⨉ USB-C (5 Gb/s31)		2⨉ Thunderbolt 5
3⨉ USB-C (10 Gb/s, 1 up 2 down)
1⨉ DisplayPort 2.1
1⨉ HDMI 2.1		2⨉ Thunderbolt 4
5⨉ USB-C (10 Gb/s, 1 up 4 down)
1⨉ Mini DisplayPort 2.?
1⨉ HDMI 2.?
1⨉ 2.5 Gb Ethernet (RJ45)		2⨉ Thunderbolt 4
3⨉ USB-C (5 Gb/s, 1 up 2 down)
1x USB-C signal switch (for KVM)
1⨉ HDMI 2.1
1⨉ 3.5mm stereo audio (out)		1⨉ USB-C (up)
?x USB-?32 (down)
2⨉ HDMI 2.1
1⨉ DisplayPort 1.4		1⨉ USB-C (up)
2⨉ USB-C (down, 480 Mb/s)
1⨉ DisplayPort 2.1
2⨉ HDMI 2.1
1⨉ 3.5mm stereo audio (out)		1⨉ USB-C (up, 80 Gb/s)
4⨉ USB-C (down, 2.0, 480 Mb/s)		1⨉ USB-C 3 (up)
2⨉ USB-A 3 (down)
1⨉ DisplayPort 1.4
2⨉ HDMI 2.0
1⨉ 3.5mm stereo audio (out)
Built-in KVMNoNo33YesYesNoNoNoNo
Dimensions (excluding stand)41.2 ⨉ 71.8 ⨉ 2.7 cm41 ⨉ 72 ⨉ 2.56 cm49cm ⨉ 71cm ⨉ 6.6 cm41.97 ⨉ 71.42 ⨉ 4.69 cm? 3441.5 ⨉ 71.2 ⨉ 2.5 cm?42.9 ⨉ 72.5 ⨉ 5.7 cm
Naive volume35 (excluding stand)7,987 cm³ 7,559 cm³23,069 cm³14,058 cm³?7,387 cm³?17,728 cm³
Weight w/ stand11.8 kg9.48 kg13.29 kg9.3 kg10.05 kg???
Weight w/o stand7.48 kg5.99 kg8.62 kg6.3 kg?7.5 kg8.92 kg?
Price36 w/o stand$4,999 USN/AN/AN/AN/A$1,699 US$1,149 USN/A
Price37 w/ stand$5,999 US$1,599 US$2,399 US$1,049 US~$1,500 US 38$1,599 US39$1,199 US$2,250 US
IntroducedDecember 2019October 2025May 2023August 2025May 2025July 2025?August 2026October 2025
DiscontinuedMarch 2026–––––––

⚠️ I’d be careful with the Acer – there’s a lot of warning flags around it:

  • While you can buy the Acer in the U.S., you can do so only from 3rd party retailers, and Acer’s U.S. website doesn’t seem to know the display exists. That bodes ill for warranty & repairs.
  • Acer’s marketing materials for the display are full of errors, and often self-contradictory. They make misleading claims, like the largely fictitious 100,000,000 : 1 contrast ratio.
  • The official tech specs are missing key information, like the true contrast ratio, and even basic information like the display’s dimensions.

While Acer has been around for a long time, with a long presence in the western world, their behaviour here feels more like that of a Chinese brand. I’d go with the Asus instead – if price is your main concern – or the LG (only slightly more expensive).

⚠️ Note on Kuycon: I added the G32P after Kevin Yank suggested it. It’s a Chinese brand, which I would normally ignore for numerous reasons, but they actually have a functioning, well-designed English website, with a real working order system. So you can actually buy one in the western world. But be careful, nonetheless – there are plenty of anecdotes online about their non-existent customer support. Also, vs the LG – which uses the same panel – you lose Thunderbolt 5 & KVM functionality. But you do get a glossy finish, which is a big benefit. And a design that shamelessly rips off the appearance of the Pro Display XDR (but without any of the actual benefits, like true HDR support and higher contrast ratio).

Also, there is a G32X which is similar but inferior – it has a lower contrast ratio and only 8-bit depth.

⚠️ Note on the Meirro Pro: it’s basically the Kuycon G32P slimmed down – very likely the same panel, probably the same glossy finish, just with even more-bare-bones connectivity and a slightly lower sustained brightness. It doesn’t have the fans, either (though there are some versions of the Kuycon out there, from less reputable sources, that have the same flat-back metal finish without fans). Meirro is just a brand under ClickClack. I’m not sure about ClickClack – they’re definitely boutique at best, but they do seem to have been around for a while and a cursory web search doesn’t reveal any outrage or claims of foul play. But ClickClack does bill themselves as a ‘group purchase collective’, with perhaps fickle interests, so while their products might be legitimate, I would assume no real warranty support.

  1. Apple don’t appear to have ever published a brightness spec for the original Retina iMac, but Tom’s Guide measured their review model at 382 lumens.

    The comparison to the original Retina iMac is apt because it was the first of the retina [desktop] displays, of which these 6k displays are all members. It also had the exact same pixel density – 218 PPI – as the Apple and Asus displays – i.e. each individual pixel is the exact same size – so it’s a very fair point of comparison despite the overall differences in resolution. ↩︎
  2. Speculation is that the Asus uses an AUO panel (the same one that’s popular with Chinese display manufacturers, because it’s very cheap). I wouldn’t normally give this much weight, except it is interesting that both the Asus and the Chinese displays are frequently reported as making an annoying whining noise at certain brightness levels, and have identical panel specifications, and were released at similar times (notably, many years after the Pro Display XDR). ↩︎
  3. Sometimes listed as “ProDesigner”, not “ProCreator” – I suspect the former is a U.S. variant of the name, as seen at retailers like B&H. Perhaps someone told them that “ProCreator” might elicit snickers in some parts of the world (not that anyone told Procreate, apparently). ↩︎
  4. Be careful not to confuse this with the very similarly named PE320QKX, which is a 4k OLED version. Acer’s own marketing and website people confuse this (the product page erroneously claims that the PE320QXT has an OLED panel – it does not). ↩︎
  5. According to the often-imprecise numbers provided by the manufacturer; I think there’s an error margin of at least 1cm here, so these numbers are perhaps not very useful (look at PPI instead – those numbers are sometimes actually provided by the manufacturer, with appropriate precision). ↩︎
  6. According to Apple, but never explained (e.g. static vs dynamic) or corroborated by a 3rd party. I can find precious few actual measurements of contrast ratio for the Apple Pro Display XDR… PCMag puts it at 39,037 : 1, seemingly as a dynamic measure (backlight off vs peak). I have found zero measurements of static contrast (contrast of two adjacent pixels within the same backlight zone). ↩︎
  7. This is what LG states in the display’s specifications. Yet, LG also states that this display is DisplayHDR 600 certified, which means it’s required to have a static contrast ratio of at least 8,000 : 1. But, this requirement was added in v1.2 of the DisplayHDR standard, so perhaps LG are referring to the old, obsolete version of the standard. ↩︎
  8. As with the LG, Dell states a 2,000 : 1 contrast ratio even though DisplayHDR 600 conformance requires at least 8,000 : 1. ↩︎
  9. Asus states a 1,500 : 1 contrast ratio even though DisplayHDR 600 conformance requires at least 8,000 : 1. Though they also describe the 1,500 : 1 as “typical” while also listing 3,000 : 1 as the maximum (but it appears the latter is only with “Dynamic Dimming” on, which is where it adjusts the overall backlight brightness based on average image brightness, but it does it too slowly such that you clearly see the transitions as the image changes, so I recommend leaving it off – plus, I can barely see any difference with it on anyway). ↩︎
  10. Acer list 100,000,000 : 1 with the caveat of “ACM” (Adaptive Contrast Management), a technique to supposedly achieve ‘visually equivalent’ results to an intrinsically higher contrast ratio. I’m not personally an expert on this, but the internet seems full of scepticism and critique of this technique as a whole, and contrast ratio claims based on it. Unfortunately Acer don’t list the actual (“non-ACM”) contrast ratio. ↩︎
  11. In a single breath Kuycon’s product page says both 1,500 : 1 and 2,000 : 1. But the tech specs repeat the 2,000 : 1 number – and I suspect it’s using the LG panel which is listed as 2,000 : 1 in other displays – so I’m assuming the 1,500 : 1 is a typo. ↩︎
  12. Apple sometimes say 1,600 nits sustained, but other times only peak. I’m going by their relatively technical 2020 white paper about the then-new display, which states: “The display can support 1000 nits for any image and can sustain this brightness indefinitely in environments up to 25° C (77° F). It can also support 1600 nits for highlights in up to 39 percent of the screen area, when the rest of that image is black or at brightness up to 500 nits.” ↩︎
  13. LG says “typical” brightness is 450, with minimum being 360, without explaining the difference – e.g. whether that’s for a white patch vs full-screen white, or perhaps depending on ambient temperature. I’m choosing to be generous and assume it’s merely a temperature thing, and not likely to be a concern in a typical indoor environment, because 360 is ridiculously dim.

    Note that they claim to have VESA DisplayHDR 600 certification, which requires at least 350 lumens sustained but also at least 600 for a very small (8% of screen area) bright patch. But also that Dell very likely use the exact same panel and they claim 450 lumens sustained. So I’m not sure what the 360 is about… I’m hoping it’s just an overly cautious product lawyer that’s recognising that thermal throttling can happen at unusually high ambient temperatures. 🤞

    Also, PCWorld measured the SDR brightness at 480, which fits best with the 450 claim. ↩︎
  14. Sigh… brightness claims. These days they’re subject to so many caveats and conditions that they’re verging on meaningless.

    A luminance rating is conspicuously absent from the Asus product page (other than the claim about DisplayHDR 600 certification, which merely sets a 250 nits minimum). Their tech specs say 400 nits, though.

    PCWorld measured peak brightness at 714, and Tom’s Hardware measured it at ~650. Not the same as sustained brightness or full-screen brightness, though (neither of those reviewers described their methodology).

    But, I’m not sure how they got those numbers – because I actually bought this display, and I’ve seen nothing that indicates to me that it’s getting much more than 500 (though I don’t have a luminance measurement device – I’m comparing it to other displays like the LG UltraFine 5K and Apple M2 MacBook Air – both rated at 500 nits).

    But, the actual manual says 350. And I’m inclined to believe the manual, because it’s also the only place which actually admits that it’s not a 10-bit panel. ↩︎
  15. Their terminology is non-standard, but they say that 400 is “native” while 600 is “peak”, which I take to mean 400 is the sustained maximum brightness. ↩︎
  16. The tech specs state “450 nits typical (SDR) • 750 nits (HDR enabled)”, which is a bit ambiguous. But it seems very likely that this is the same panel used in the LG, so likely we can follow LG’s guidance there, which is a more explicit 450 nits sustained brightness (in typical temperature environments). Meirro are the first to put a number to the peak brightness, however, at 750. It’s possible they’ve tweaked the operating parameters in order to achieve that, but FWIW the [presumed] same panel in the LG was reported by Wired as only 640 nits at peak, but 748 nits by PCWorld, so while 750 seems plausible, it’s unclear if there’ll actually be a difference between the two. Note that both of those measurements were “maximum”s, not necessarily something the monitor can sustain indefinitely. ↩︎
  17. ALOGIC says “typical” brightness is 400, with minimum being 350, without explaining the difference – e.g. whether that’s for a white patch vs full-screen white, or perhaps depending on ambient temperature. I’m choosing to be generous and assume it’s merely a temperature thing, and not likely to be a concern in a typical indoor environment, because 350 is ridiculously dim. ↩︎
  18. LG don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
  19. Dell don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
  20. Asus don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. However, from personal experience with this monitor I can say it does not even come close to meeting this – it is not actually capable of displaying black, due to its matte finish and backlit-LCD nature. ↩︎
  21. It offers pseudo-10-bit mode using FRC (temporal dithering), but is not a true 10-bit display. ↩︎
  22. It offers pseudo-10-bit mode using FRC (temporal dithering), but is not a true 10-bit display. ↩︎
  23. It offers pseudo-10-bit mode using FRC (temporal dithering), but is not a true 10-bit display. ↩︎
  24. Apple don’t state the actual coverage – just vaguely reference the various colour gamut standards – so these are the figures as actually tested by PCMag. ↩︎
  25. 96% in PCWorld’s testing. ↩︎
  26. ALOGIC’s flashier marketing material claims 100%, but the tech specs say 99% – and some older marketing material on Amazon says 97%. I’m sceptical of the 100% coverage claim – and of marketing people in general – and not sure what to make of the 97% number from 3rd parties, so I’m going with the actual tech specs. ↩︎
  27. ALOGIC’s flashier marketing material claims 100%, but the tech specs say 99%. I’m sceptical of the 100% coverage claim – and of marketing people in general – so I’m going with the actual tech specs. ↩︎
  28. Acer’s product page claims 240 Hz, but that seems to clearly be an error – it’s referring to other ProCreator models, in much smaller sizes and lower resolutions. ↩︎
  29. I’m bolding this – meaning I decree it the objective winner – because:

    (a) glossy displays are better than matte ones 😝 but even if you argue with that, you can’t argue with

    (b) Apple’s “Nano-texture” finish is impressive – it gives you a matte-like finish in terms of reflections, but without the upsetting visual distortions (blurriness, sparkles) and noticeable loss of contrast. I was sceptical at first, but having seen and used Nano-texture displays for a while now, I’m sold. If you have a very amenable work environment, a plain glossy finish is still slightly better, but for most people the Nano-texture finish is unequivocally the best option, on any display I’ve ever seen or heard about. ↩︎
  30. ALOGIC sometimes says 90W (e.g. in the dominant marketing material) but the tech specs say 95W. I’m erring on the side of caution here, by going with the lower number. Though in practice I don’t think this 5W difference is significant in any case. ↩︎
  31. Only when used with Macs which support DSC (Display Stream Compression), otherwise the USB-C ports are limited to USB 2.0 (400 Mb/s). ↩︎
  32. Acer’s marketing pages, product specs, and release announcements list conflicting and non-sensical things (e.g. “USB-B”), so while it seems clear it has some downstream USB ports, it’s not at all clear how many, what port type, or what speeds. ↩︎
  33. The tech specs claim it has a built-in KVM, but there’s no mention of that anywhere else in the marketing materials nor the user manual. It does have a USB hub, which you can manually switch between the Thunderbolt or USB upstream ports by diving into the on-screen display, but there’s no apparent support for (a) doing this automatically when the input source changes nor (b) switching input sources & USB routing via keypress. ↩︎
  34. Acer’s product page specifies the dimensions as “72.55 × 52.77~28.28 × 32.11 cm (28.56 × 20.77~11.13 × 12.64 in)”. I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, but it’s clearly not correct no matter how you interpret it (the display is assuredly not a foot deep). ↩︎
  35. Meaning the simple product of the three maximal dimensions. Some of these displays have curved backs, so their actual volume will be substantially less. ↩︎
  36. Note that MRRP (Manufacturer Recommended Retail Price) may vary over time, not to mention sales or other store-specific price changes. At various times I’ve found most of these displays on sale for at least a few hundred dollars less than their list price. ↩︎
  37. Note that MRRP (Manufacturer Recommended Retail Price) may vary over time, not to mention sales or other store-specific price changes. At various times I’ve found most of these displays on sale for at least a few hundred dollars less than their list price. ↩︎
  38. Acer only lists this display model on their Singapore website, though it is available from some U.S. retailers (e.g. B&H). At time of writing (30th of April 2026) the price in Singapore ($1,799 SGD) translates to ~$1,400 US, but I have not been able to find any U.S. retailer offering it for less than $1,500. ↩︎
  39. At time of writing, only when purchased via ClickClack, not Kuycon’s website direct. And yes, it’s therefore cheaper with the stand than without (since ClickClack sell only the with-stand version). ↩︎

Moar posts

8 thoughts on “6k display comparison”

  1. @everything there are a few others listed here, but seems like the same panels.

    I bought the Asus 6K in August and love it. Great value if you care about getting the most pixels/$ with decent color and don't care about other stuff nearly as much. Biggest downside is a faint electrical coil whine that I can only hear if the room is very quiet, but that might be a bigger downside to some.

  4. You shouldn’t be listing the contrast ratio of the Pro Display XDR in this table as 1,000,000:1 without one of your warning labels. The contrast ratios for all the other panels are static contrast ratios. The static contrast ratio for the Pro Display XDR has been measured at only ~1100:1 to 1200:1.

    The XDR’s dynamic contrast ratio is an inflated, artificial number obtained by comparing minimum brightness within a zone that is fully dimmed to maximum brightness within a zone that’s not. But that doesn’t give a real-world 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio (like you can get from an OLED display), since dark and light areas in real-world content aren’t neatly divided to match the locations of Apple’s dimming zones.

    Reply

    • Can you point me to reputable measurements of the static contrast ratio for the Pro Display XDR? I cannot find any.

      I added a footnote, noting PCMag’s measurement (39,037:1) of [I believe] dynamic contrast. That’s the only reputable measurement of any kind that I’ve been able to find.

      I think the contrast numbers – for all these displays – are a little academic and not necessarily representative of the real-world experience (e.g. the real world contrast of a glossy display is significantly higher than that of a matte finish on an otherwise identical display, yet they’re often marketed or ostensibly measured as basically the same). I almost didn’t include the contrast ratio row at all… maybe I shouldn’t have.

      Reply

      • Sorry, I recall reading it, but can’t find it. That’s why I gave it as a range. But I think something under 1500:1 is highly likely, based on the IPS panel technology available in 2019.

        First, recall that LG Display supplied the LCD panel, and LG did not introduce IPS Black, its 2000:1-class IPS technology, until CES 2022. Contemporary coverage explicitly described that as roughly doubling the contrast of ordinary IPS, so it would be surprising for a 2019 LG IPS panel to have been intrinsically near 2000:1, unless Apple had some unpublicized custom cell technology substantially ahead of LG’s commercial roadmap.

        Second, the best technological comparators from that period cluster around 1,000–1,300:1 native contrast. For example, the 2019 LG 32UL950 used a 31.5-inch Nano IPS panel specified at 1300:1, and PRAD.de (https://www.prad.de/testberichte/test-lg-32ul950-w-nano-ips-und-hardwarekalibrierung/3/?utm) actually measured 1297:1 after calibration:

        “The manufacturer specifies a contrast ratio of 1300:1 for the AH- IPS panel (“White LED”). According to our measurements, this is achieved remarkably accurately even after calibration, averaging a very good 1297:1.”

        The contemporary ASUS PA32UCX, another premium 32-inch true-10-bit IPS display with local dimming, was specified at 1000:1 static.

        A 1,000,000:1 native contrast ratio simply isn’t technologically possible for an LCD panel. Thus, Apple’s 1,000,000:1 published contrast ratio cannot be the panel’s native contrast If it actually were, then Apple would be trumpeting that from the rooftops. It’s precisely because it’s not a static contrast ratio that Apple keeps quiet about the nature of that number, simply publishing it as a “contrast ratio”.

        I do think it’s legitimate to include static contrast numbers, since that shows the native capability of the panel, and manufacturers can’t play games with that number the way they can with dynamic contrast.

        Reply

        • Note that Apple has filed patents, from during the Apple Pro Display XDR’s development period, for multi-layer LCDs that – hypothetically – can achieve a genuine 1,000,000 static contrast ratio. e.g. see this contemporary coverage from AppleInsider.

          Now, I can’t find any evidence that any Apple display has ever used this technology – Apple’s Pro Display XDR Technology Overview ‘white paper’ actually talks a little about the display layers, but there’s no apparent mention of a dual-layer LCD; their diagram shows only one LCD panel. It’s possible they elected not to disclose dual-panel usage, or that a second LCD layer is part of what they refer to as their “diffuser and colour transformation sheets”, but it’s unclear at best.

          Incidentally, yesterday I checked out the 5k Pro Display in an Apple Store, and even in the very bright environment there, I could still see blooming. That’s not a direct refutation of a dynamic contrast claim, and/or maybe they’d argue that their 1M : 1 is non-local static contrast… but, I didn’t look to me like a particularly stellar contrast ratio, no matter how you sliced it. And PCMag’s aforementioned measurements seem to rule out a dynamic contrast ratio anywhere near 1M : 1 (although still very good compared to most LCDs).

          Reply

Leave a Comment