Dell's 32-inch 6K Monitor Now Available, Undercuts Apple Pro Display by $1,800

News
By
published

The Dell UltraSharp 32 6K Monitor (U3224KB) costs $3,199 — $1,800 cheaper than the $4,999 Apple Pro Display XDR.

Dell UltraSharp 32 6K Monitor (U3224KB)
(Image credit: Dell)

Earlier this year at CES, Dell announced an intriguing new desktop monitor: the UltraSharp 32 6K Monitor (U3224KB). While it’s not a gaming monitor with a blazing fast refresh rate (it’s just 60 Hz) or insanely low response time, it is notable for its incredibly dense 6K resolution (6144 x 3456) in a 31.5-inch panel.

Dell announced today that the U3224KB is now available, and is priced at $3,199. To put that price into perspective, Apple’s competing 32-inch Pro Display XDR (with a resolution of 6016 x 3384) starts at $4,999 and climbs to $5,999 if you opt for the nano-texture glass coating.

So, what do you get for $3,199? Well, the U3224KB uses LG’s IPS Black panel technology which aims to replicate the inky blacks that we’re so enamored with on Mini-LED and OLED panels. In addition, the monitor boasts a contrast ratio of 2,000:1, which is far greater than typical IPS panels, but well short of the 3,000:1 that’s commonplace for VA panels.

Dell also claims that the U3224KB features a 10-bit panel (1.07 billion colors) with wide color gamut support (100% sRGB, 100% Rec. 709, 99% DCI-P3, 99% Display P3). You’ll also find DisplayHDR 600 certification, which is one spec that falls well short of the Pro Display XDR (1,600 nits) that it will be compared to most frequently. 

But the U3224KB more than makes up for that with versatility, starting with an integrated webcam. Instead of playing it safe with a 1080p webcam mounted above the display, Dell opted for a 4K camera with an HDR CMOS sensor. The webcam is adjustable for tilt (0 to 20 degrees) and can shoot 4K video at 30 fps. Depending on your preference, you can also set the field of view at 60, 78, or 90 degrees. The webcam even be used with Dell Express Sign-in to log you into a connected PC automatically.

Other productivity-focused features include mini DisplayPort 2.1, HDMI 2.1, and Thunderbolt 4 connectivity (with support for up to 140-watt charging for a laptop). There’s even a built-in KVM switch and front-mounted access to USB-A and USB-C ports if you want to quickly plug in a thumb drive or a digital camera without having to fiddle around with the monitor’s back panel. Finally, a 2.5 Gbps Ethernet port is included to help turn the U3224KB into an all-you-can-eat buffet of connectivity goodness.

Dell is courting Windows and macOS users alike with the U3224KB, and the $3,199 price should be enough to make the latter group take notice.

Brandon Hill
Brandon Hill

Brandon Hill is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware. He has written about PC and Mac tech since the late 1990s with bylines at AnandTech, DailyTech, and Hot Hardware. When he is not consuming copious amounts of tech news, he can be found enjoying the NC mountains or the beach with his wife and two sons.

See more Monitors News
11 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Elusive Ruse
    There's nothing pro about Apple's Pro Display. They market it as an alternative to the HX310 but in reality the Apple screen is just a premium monitor that's all.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    6144x3456 @ 31.5" = 223.79 PPIDell finally got the Pixel Density right, it's risen past the 96 PPI base minimum standard.

    But the resolution choice is still kinda weird.

    It's not a integer multiple of 720P or 1080P
    3456 = 4.8 x 720
    3456 = 3.2 x 720
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Are there enough Top Gun fighter pilots shopping for monitors to make this a viable product? I don't understand the desire to have such a high dpi on a desktop monitor. 4k is already too small for most people on a 32" monitor at 100% scaling.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Kamen Rider Blade said:
    6144x3456 @ 31.5" = 223.79 PPIDell finally got the Pixel Density right, it's risen past the 96 PPI base minimum standard.

    But the resolution choice is still kinda weird.

    It's not a integer multiple of 720P or 1080P
    3456 = 4.8 x 720
    3456 = 3.2 x 720

    Actual 4K is 4096x2160 . Horizontal this is 1.5 times that.

    4096 x 1.5 = 6144

    Then for 16:9 you end up with 3456 to maintain the ratio.

    UHDTV is the 3840x2160 (or 2160p) resolution we commonly see in monitors.

    True 4K is closer to 17:9
    Reply
  • kaalus
    spongiemaster said:
    Are there enough Top Gun fighter pilots shopping for monitors to make this a viable product? I don't understand the desire to have such a high dpi on a desktop monitor. 4k is already too small for most people on a 32" monitor at 100% scaling.
    Use 200% scaling then?

    I have been doing just that since 2015. Can't wait to move to 300% for even sharper text and pictures.
    Reply
  • kaalus
    The resolution is commendable - finally we are breaking the 200dpi barrier, and moving from extremely blurry to just a little blurry. Not that this is some great resolution. Newspapers, even rags printed on class 6 yellow paper, have been doing 300dpi back in the 19th century.

    However, 60Hz is a non-starter. It's not about gaming - it's about comfort. Once you experience 120Hz, there's no going back to 60Hz, even for web browsing. It looks ridiculous, like watching a slideshow.

    Dell - use DSC and give us 120Hz!
    Reply
  • GeorgeLY
    This is great! I love Dell monitors - have several of them (one is 15 years old 16x10 monitor that still works perfectly). IPS picture is great for work and response is good enough for normal gaming. Only gripe it is 16x9, I would really prefer 16x10.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    kaalus said:
    Use 200% scaling then?
    That negates the entire reason for buying a higher resolution monitor, more screen real estate. If I buy a monitor with twice the vertical resolution just to double the scaling, then I would have been better off flushing the money down the toilet.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    Eximo said:
    Actual 4K is 4096x2160 . Horizontal this is 1.5 times that.

    4096 x 1.5 = 6144

    Then for 16:9 you end up with 3456 to maintain the ratio.

    UHDTV is the 3840x2160 (or 2160p) resolution we commonly see in monitors.

    True 4K is closer to 17:9
    Ah, you're going by the movie theater DCI 4K Cinema Resolution.

    4096 × 2160 (full frame, 256∶135 or ≈1.90∶1 aspect ratio)

    Yeah, that's part of the movie industry standards of resolution.


    The SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) are the ones behind these standards resolutions:
    _1K (_1280 × _720)px
    _2K (_1920 × 1080)px
    _3K (_2560 × 1440)px
    _4K (_3840 × 2160)px
    _8K (_7680 × 4320)px
    16K (15360 × 8640)px
    Reply
  • kaalus
    spongiemaster said:
    That negates the entire reason for buying a higher resolution monitor, more screen real estate. If I buy a monitor with twice the vertical resolution just to double the scaling, then I would have been better off flushing the money down the toilet.
    According to your logic, there was no reason for Apple to introduce retina displays in 2011. After all, the screen real estate remained exactly the same as in pre-retina screens. Apple just flushed the money down the toilet.
    Reply