6k display comparison

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!).

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. 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. ↩︎
6. As with the LG, Dell states a 2,000 : 1 contrast ratio even though DisplayHDR 600 conformance requires at least 8,000 : 1. ↩︎
7. 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. ↩︎
8. 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. ↩︎
9. 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. ↩︎
10. 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. ↩︎
11. Though PCWorld measured it at 714, and Tom’s Hardware measured it at ~650. ↩︎
12. 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. ↩︎
13. 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. ↩︎
14. LG don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
15. Dell don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
16. Asus don’t explicitly state this, but it’s a requirement of the DisplayHDR 600 conformance. ↩︎
17. It offers pseudo-10-bit mode using FRC (temporal dithering), but is not a true 10-bit display. ↩︎
18. It offers pseudo-10-bit mode using FRC (temporal dithering), but is not a true 10-bit display. ↩︎
19. 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. ↩︎
20. 96% in PCWorld’s testing. ↩︎
21. 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. ↩︎
22. 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. ↩︎
23. 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. ↩︎
24. 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. ↩︎
25. 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). ↩︎
26. 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. ↩︎
27. 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. ↩︎
28. 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). ↩︎
29. Meaning the simple product of the three maximal dimensions. Some of these displays have curved backs, so their actual volume will be substantially less. ↩︎
30. 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. ↩︎
31. 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. ↩︎
32. 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. ↩︎