Asus ProArt PA32KCX 32-inch 8K professional monitor review: A reference for color, pixel density, and brightness

Asus leads the way with its reference standard ProArt PA32KCX.

Reviews
By published
Asus ProArt PA32KCX
Editor's Choice
(Image: © 3DTested)

Why you can trust 3DTested Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

To verify the PA32KCX’s factory calibration, I measured the modes that will be most used, Native, P3 (cinema and display), sRGB, Adobe RGB, BT.709, and BT.2020. At the end of this page, there’s a summary of all the test results for each mode.

Grayscale and Gamma Tracking

Image 1 of 7
Asus ProArt PA32KCX
(Image credit: Portrait Displays Calman)

The PA32KCX isn’t perfect out of the box, but it comes close. You can see that the grayscale and gamma charts are consistent across modes. There are slight green errors at brightness levels over 50%, and there’s a bump in gamma (too dark) at 80-90% brightness. These errors can be fixed using the built-in colorimeter in about 20 minutes per mode.

I noted that the PA32KCX used the correct gamma and color temp values for each mode. SRGB uses 2.2 power and D65, Adobe RGB uses 2.2 power and D65, BT.2020 (SDR) uses 2.4 power and D65, P3 uses 2.2 power and D65 for Display and 2.6 power and D63 for Cinema, and BT.709 uses 2.4 power and D65.

Color Gamut Accuracy

Our color gamut and volume testing use Portrait Displays’ Calman software. For details on our color gamut testing and volume calculations, click here.

Image 1 of 7
Asus ProArt PA32KCX
(Image credit: Portrait Displays Calman)

In the gamut tests, the PA32KCX measures with no visible errors in any of its modes. Native uses the full gamut, covering 110% of P3. There are slight hue errors in cyan and magenta with general oversaturation. The other gamuts are spot-on except for Adobe RGB, which has a slight cyan hue error. BT.2020 covers the inner points correctly before running out of color at 85% red, 75% green, and 95% blue.

Grayscale, Gamma and Color Gamut Test Summary

Here are the grayscale, gamma, and gamut results in a summary table. Error values are referenced to the Delta E 2000 spec. Gamma range refers to the difference between the highest and lowest value. Gamma Average is the percentage deviation from the standard for each color mode.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Row 0 - Cell 0

Grayscale Error

Gamma Range

Gamma Average

Gamma Actual

Gamut Error

Gamut Volume

Native

3.67dE

0.24

2.27%

2.25

2.01dE

109.37%

sRGB

2.93dE

0.18

0.91%

2.22

1.68dE

99.58%

Adobe RGB

3.13dE

0.26

2.73%

2.26

1.61dE

94.08%

BT.2020

3.33dE

0.22

2.08%

2.45

2.14dE

77.59%

Display P3

3.18dE

0.10

1.36%

2.23

1.48dE

97.32%

Cinema P3

3.19dE

0.16

2.27%

2.65

1.67dE

97.37%

BT.709

3.36dE

0.18

2.08%

2.45

1.77dE

100.34%

Test Takeaway: The PA32KCX has excellent color gamut accuracy out of the box. There are slight green errors in the grayscale runs and gamma has a consistent error where it is too dark at the 80-90% steps. These errors can be fixed using the OSD, the built-in meter, Calman Autocal or Light Illusion ColourSpace. I tested an early production sample, so it is possible that you will have slightly better results. I noted the improvement in gamut volume from the non-Quantum Dot ProArt displays I’ve tested. I have no complaints here.

MORE: Best Gaming Monitors

MORE: How We Test PC Monitors

MORE: How to Buy a PC Monitor

TOPICS
Christian Eberle
Christian Eberle
Contributing Editor
10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • kaalus
    60Hz is awful, even for desktop work. Once you see 120Hz, you can't unsee the 60Hz slideshow.
    Reply
  • Penzi
    No, 60Hz is not awful. Depends on what you’re doing. Is my gaming monitor 60Hz? No, it is not… are my photo editing monitors 60Hz? Every single one. Do I prefer my 120Hz display for general computing? Yes, I do. Horses for courses.

    I will be in the market for a new display or two, this year or next. 32” is a great size; 8K is a great resolution. I have no use for them together. If this were on a 40” display, that’d be ideal for me! I suppose I’ll be getting myself a 32” 6K and it may well be an ASUS ProArt. It seems tough to beat. The LG UltraFine 6K is in the running but I’m uncertain whether it does anything I value at a 40% price premium over the ASUS.
    Reply
  • oofdragon
    Guys c'mon.. At seating distance you can't tell even 4K from 2K on a 32 inch, if you r going 8K you should at least make it super large
    Reply
  • Greg7579
    Whoever said 60 Hz is awful is way off.... No way I want 8K at anything above 60Hz. Gamers won't buy this monitor because they can't drive 8K gaming with today's GPUs.

    People who buy this 9,000 dollars are crazy like me. They are:

    1. Very high-end professional or extreme enthusiast photographers that spend 10 grand on a camera, so they spend 10 grand on a monitor so they can enjoy the incredible IQ of their own 200MB huge Medium Format files.
    2. Professional CAD guys and designers.
    3. Anyone doing 8K video. (Good luck with that).

    The reality? I will see things on that monitor with my Medium Format Fuji GFX files that no one else will see because they won't have this 8K monitor.

    But I don't care. I will see it.

    That monitor at $9K costs what two of my lenses cost.

    I'm doing it. Crazy I know. But I can't wait to see what my GFX MF files look like on this beast.

    How will it do for normal productivity on the wqeb and with MS Word and Excel? Windows will have to scale down big time on normal usage. I want to see my files in Photoshop and Lightroom on this thing....
    Reply
  • JayGau
    kaalus said:
    60Hz is awful, even for desktop work. Once you see 120Hz, you can't unsee the 60Hz slideshow.
    I don't know where you got that from, but for desktop work 60 Hz is more than enough. What is moving so much on your desktop that it looks like a slideshow?

    Oofdragon said:
    Guys c'mon.. At seating distance you can't tell even 4K from 2K on a 32 inch, if you r going 8K you should at least make it super large
    If you can't tell the difference between 4k and 2k at sitting distance from a 32" monitor, you should really go see an eye doctor, and I mean it. I can't either see the difference... When I don't wear my eyeglasses, but with them on it's day and night.
    Reply
  • Greg7579
    You absolutely can for 100% sure, unless you have severe eye problems. And then the jump to a 6K monitor from 4K, which I use now, is even more impressive. I'm talking about when viewing my high-res images. 2K to 4K to 6K is an amazing progression. Try it.
    Reply
  • voyteck
    oofdragon said:
    Guys c'mon.. At seating distance you can't tell even 4K from 2K on a 32 inch, if you r going 8K you should at least make it super large

    First, it's not true - especially if one doesn't wear glasses for long distance, which make everything look smaller. Second, for me, as a copy editor and proofreader (disclaimer: in a different language), it's really not about seeing individual pixels but about text distortion - in other words, font optimization.

    The thing is, text becomes distorted at a given resolution in the same way regardless of screen size. A Full HD 15‑inch laptop screen is still a Full HD screen: different i letters, for example, will have different widths and will swell in different directions depending on where they fall on the (sub)pixels. Or the dot over z (in ż) will get flattened enough - even if it's still clearly visible - to do tricks to your brain so you don't see it and end up typing it in again. These things happen quite a lot even at Ultra HD.

    Indeed, usually it's not easy to notice unless you look closely, laser-print it or realize how many typos you've missed (depends on font type, use of italics, font color, and font size).

    I've been dreaming about an affordable, high‑quality 32‑inch 8K display for years.
    Reply
  • Penzi
    Greg7579 said:
    Whoever said 60 Hz is awful is way off.... No way I want 8K at anything above 60Hz. Gamers won't buy this monitor because they can't drive 8K gaming with today's GPUs.

    People who buy this 9,000 dollars are crazy like me. They are:

    1. Very high-end professional or extreme enthusiast photographers that spend 10 grand on a camera, so they spend 10 grand on a monitor so they can enjoy the incredible IQ of their own 200MB huge Medium Format files.
    2. Professional CAD guys and designers.
    3. Anyone doing 8K video. (Good luck with that).

    The reality? I will see things on that monitor with my Medium Format Fuji GFX files that no one else will see because they won't have this 8K monitor.

    But I don't care. I will see it.

    That monitor at $9K costs what two of my lenses cost.

    I'm doing it. Crazy I know. But I can't wait to see what my GFX MF files look like on this beast.

    How will it do for normal productivity on the wqeb and with MS Word and Excel? Windows will have to scale down big time on normal usage. I want to see my files in Photoshop and Lightroom on this thing....
    I would be fascinated by your results. I’m a lowly 35mm guy but have similar concerns and wonder what a pixel peeper will find! I’m easily disappointed by most displays, even Apple’s XDR.

    Anyone who cannot see that 32” 4K sucks at regular seated distance doesn’t care. That’s fine! Not for you… I’ll probably go with the ProArt 6K. Edit: so @Greg7579 I’m very interested in your results because I can parse the one onto the other to determine my own preferences…
    Reply
  • Tanakoi
    kaalus said:
    60Hz is awful, even for desktop work. Once you see 120Hz, you can't unsee the 60Hz slideshow.
    Quite untrue. I have three ProArt monitors that support 75hz, and another that supports 144. In desktop work, I can see an extremely slight difference between 60 and 75 if I'm actually looking for it, but no difference at all between 75 and 144.

    Multiple studies have shown that flicker fusion for most people happens in the 50-70 hz range. Motion perception rates are higher, but no one's buying these professional monitors for FPS gaming.
    Reply
  • UnforcedERROR
    oofdragon said:
    Guys c'mon.. At seating distance you can't tell even 4K from 2K on a 32 inch, if you r going 8K you should at least make it super large
    This is about dot pitch, it is beneficial to some degree, especially for professional work. This isn't a media consumption monitor, size is not the important factor here, though I'd argue it's a shame it's not capable of being an ultra wide.

    JayGau said:
    I don't know where you got that from, but for desktop work 60 Hz is more than enough. What is moving so much on your desktop that it looks like a slideshow?
    60hz is enough, but I personally prefer higher refresh rates for the decreased input latency and eye strain. Not required, but certainly appreciated. Still, at 8k and 120hz you'd absolutely require Displayport 2.1 to avoid DSC.

    Tanakoi said:
    Quite untrue. I have three ProArt monitors that support 75hz, and another that supports 144. In desktop work, I can see an extremely slight difference between 60 and 75 if I'm actually looking for it, but no difference at all between 75 and 144.

    Multiple studies have shown that flicker fusion for most people happens in the 50-70 hz range. Motion perception rates are higher, but no one's buying these professional monitors for FPS gaming.
    I don't know how people can't tell the difference between 75hz and 144hz. I used 75hz on LCDs for years and the step up was instantaneous for me. You're correct though, this isn't a gaming monitor, but the fluidity of scrolling and panning, as well as input latency, does mean something to some of us. I'd still be fine with this at 60hz for work, but I'll always prefer a 100hz+ refresh regardless of application, especially since I do a lot of text-heavy work requiring aforementioned scrolling and panning.
    Reply