21.5 vs 27 inch iMac?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Heresiarch, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. Heresiarch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #1
    Hi all, I want to buy a iMac for myself as a kind of Christmas present. ;)

    I've already possessed a 2012 13" MBA, and I absolutely love it. However even though 1440*900 on a 13" is actually bigger than I expected, I still find it lacking in real estate when I'm reading PDF, doing essays, and dealing with other applications in the same time. Not to mention the HD 4000 is a bit lacking at 3D gaming (even though I've beaten XCOM: Enemy Unknown with it).

    I want an iMac now because the huge screen size should give me plenty of real estate to work with, and I like the concept of all-in-one because then I don't need to mess with cables and stuff, and moving it around will be easier when I finish my master program next year.

    My current problem is the size and the specs. First I'm not sure how big the difference is of the 21.5 vs 27 in everyday usage. I've used a DELL U2311h for a few of years so I know what's an 1920*1080 resolution like (though I really hope the iMac glossy display can bring out better display quality, I'm not fond of U2311h's matte display). However I've never used a 27" before and even never seen a 2560*1440 resolution in action. One side consideration of mine was if I'm playing games on 1920*1080 on the 27 inch, if the graphic quality will look blurry because of not using native resolution (why not run native 2560*1440 you ask? Well because afaik the GPU won't handle 2560*1440 really well unless I'm using 680MX - which sadly may become out of my budget).

    Finally, because the specs between the 21" and 27" and even the low and high spec of them is very different (and even silly, regarding the 5400 rpm HDD), I'm having a hard time to choose them. I would go high-spec 27"(sans the 680MX) which seems to be the best spec with least trouble wise, but I'm worried that the user experience out of it is not that much better compared to using a 21" top spec.

    So what's your suggestions guys? I've already done a lot of research before, but I'd like to hear more about it.
     
  2. DrRadon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #2
    Maybe you should do two things first.

    1. check your budget. A 27 inch iMac dos not come for free. Do you even want to spend that much on a Computer? You can game quiet ok on a Mac these days, but if you want to go all out gameing a PC with the option of Hardware Upgrades is still the better solution. - What else do you do with your computer? What dos require the Power you´ll pay for? Do you want to Edit Videos, Pictures? Because for Facebook and Mail you don´t need a 2000$+ Computer. - Rather get a small iMac and invest little money in a gaming PC you hide behind your TV - since hooking up to your TV is possible with Steam Big Picture now (tested it last week, it´s great) you might even get the bigger screensize you are aiming for.

    2. Go into a store, any store. 27 inch stays 27 inch, thin or the fat old design. Look at a 27 inch iMac and decide if it maybe is to big for your room, desk, personal preference. Most people underestimate how hefty big the 27 Inch iMac is. It´s not a TV at the other end of the room, it´s a display half a meter away from your eyes.
     
  3. rogo43 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    27" all the way. I have a dell 30" right next to mine. I LOVE IT.

    Although ill sell you my 30" dell monitor
     
  4. ChickenMoMo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    #4
    Went from the same Dell 23" IPS to the 27" one. I love it! Probably best overall upgrade for my PC I've done except for going HDD to SSD.

    But it really depends on what you use it for. I do a lot of coding so it's great that I can see more text. I also tend to reference a document while typing another one at the same time.
     
  5. Heresiarch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #5
    Today I went to an Apple reseller to check out the old iMacs. To my surprise the 27 is MUCH bigger to the 21.5. Or rather, the 21.5 seems so tiny compare to the 27.

    While the 27 is massive, I don't really feel it's overwhelming...although I do feel it is so large that I may need to move my eyeballs a LOT in everyday usage. Even moving the magic mouse to move from one corner to another takes 3 seperate moves.

    I dunno now, the 27 is so big, while after checking the 27 the 21.5 seems too small.:(
     
  6. rogo43 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Location:
    New York
  7. Bargle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    #7
    Unless your work requires dual screens, or you sit 4 feet away from your computer, 27" is for people with more money than brains. It's like the kid a few weeks past who paid for 16 gigs of ram so he can play diablo 3...
     
  8. brucethemoose, Nov 1, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012

    brucethemoose macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    #8
    I disagree.


    In a nutshell, 2560x1440 is epic.

    As long as you don't game a ton, and GPU will be fine.
     
  9. Bargle, Nov 1, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2012

    Bargle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    #9
    I'm sure the screen is great, but because of the way our eyes work in order to receive the benefit of the larger screen you must sit further away. An extreme example would be if someone asked if they should get a 60" flat screen TV and mentioned that they plan on sitting 3 feet away from it, when optimal viewing distance is 6.7 feet.

    For 16:9 ratio 27" screens you must be 3 feet away from the screen. For 21.5" 2.4 feet is optimal and @1080p provides a "retina" display.

    If your desk will not allow you the extra 8" the larger screen will make many people claustrophobic or even cause vertigo when looking at something in full screen. (Using the 27" as a dual monitor would be fine)


    Steve was right. People don't know what they want. If apple released a 32" iMac plenty would leap on it, but fail to understand why they dislike it after a few days of using it. Which is the case of all those non-ibook tablets people buy but don't use to surf the web (as cook mentions in his speeches)
     
  10. toua macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2012
    #10
    I disagree, 27 in would be ideal for those for hate dual monitor but need the real estate for two window side by side. e.g., Internet and Photoshop
     
  11. Bargle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    #11
    That's exactly what I mean. A 27" can replace dual monitors.
     

Share This Page