21,5 Vs 27

Discussion in 'iMac' started by sebastien19, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. sebastien19 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    Hi,

    i never had or used an imac before im a strong osx user and planning to buy one my imac would be my main computer

    i know 27 is better but 21 is still big but for people that have already used both is it really better to play/work on a 27in machine ??

    Thanks
     
  2. dmorgan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    #2
    27" is too big for me, 21.5" feels more comfortable. It depends how close you sit to the screen.
     
  3. jmcgeejr macrumors 6502

    jmcgeejr

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    Yeah it's a tough one, I use a 24" dell with my mini right now, I am going to get an iMac after the refresh and I am torn btw going up to 27" or down to 21.5. I really don't want to go smaller but 27 is huge.
     
  4. sebastien19 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #4
    Thanks for your advice

    What i think too !! what about gaming and adobe software are they able to go full screen on a 27
     
  5. lixuelai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    #5
    Should go into an Apple store and see for yourself. If you are fine with higher resolution and has a reasonably sized desk the 27" will be a much better user experience.
     
  6. mcpix macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    #6
    I started out with a 21.5" Mac and loved it. However, now that I have a 27" iMac the 21.5" sometimes seems small. Unless you have either space or money constraints, I'd go with the 27".
     
  7. plucky duck macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    #7
    The 27" looks huge in the showroom at the store, but after a week of usage it felt just right. Now? It feels a tad small. Get it if you have the space for it. The ability to multitask given the extra real estate and resolution is addicting.
     
  8. Mr Rogers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #8
    Get the big iMac

    A few considerations:

    Having used 27in iMacs for a year, the 21in iMac is now too small for me for daily use, indeed, if I had an option, I'd get a 30 or 32in iMac if it existed at a decent price point - thats the positive side of things.

    On the down side, and given my own experience having now owned 4 27in iMacs, they are a pain in the backside to lug around and get repaired - they suffer with known major LCD issues, and finally, you'll find yourself forever cleaning the screen.

    Best advice, if the 27in revamped model is a good price point, buy it, if not, get a refurbished BTO i7 2011 model - you'll not be disappointed.
     
  9. Tumej macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    Defitenely go with 27''
    21.5'' is $1,499.00
    27'' is $1,699.00

    21.5'' is $200 less, but it's 5.5'' smaller
    21.5'' screen is 20% smaller than 27''

    My opinion:
    27'':D
     
  10. Liquinn Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #10
    That's what I found with the Thunderbolt Display in the store, it felt huge in store but you do get used to it.

    I'd go for the 27" if you have the funds. ^_^
     
  11. socco macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    #11
    I'm in the same situation. I'll be upgrading from a 13" Macbook, so either one is going to seem huge to me.
     
  12. vladfein macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    #12
    My guess is – you are NOT in marketing.
    One might say that 27” is 25% bigger than 21.5”.
    But why stop at diagonal?
    21.5” has 44% less pixels than 27”.
    And, of course, 27” has 77% more pixels than 21.5”!
    That’s how you do it :)
     
  13. Madmats macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #13
    27"!

    I'm going to order my first iMac on Monday/Tuesday and it will of course be the 27", for the resolution alone. The resolution on the 21" (1920x1080 no?) is not enough anymore.
     
  14. Flunkyturtle macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2011
    #14
    I had this choice last year and decided for the 21.5, simply because i didn't need the 27 inch size, any movies i want to watch i simply extend my screen to my LG 42 inch tv. depends what you think you'll be doing on the iMac from day to day :)
     
  15. sebastien19, Jun 7, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012

    sebastien19 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    thanks for your advice i think im gonna go for 27 last question

    what can't we change on a 27in imac after purchase i know the ram and harddrive can be upgraded what about the rest

    is it possible to add ssd
    change the processor
    video card ?
     
  16. Henriksdk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    #16
    i'm buying a 27" so i just have to live with it :rolleyes:
     
  17. emoore macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    #17
    Quick answer:

    SSD addition is difficult, involves removing the display
    Can't change processor or video card.

     
  18. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    You can't change the HDD without many potential problems. Even installing an ssd involves removing the display panel. The gpu is an embedded version. You cannot swap it. It's weird that it's a desktop with less serviceability than a laptop.
     
  19. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    #19
    Adobe software? Sure. Games? I doubt you can run many semi-modern games at native resolution on a 27"
     
  20. unfrostedpoptar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #20
    Yes - I miss my old 30" monitor when I went to the iMac 27. Doing computer chip design, I can never have enough screen area!


    I'm just closing up a 2-month disaster of buying a 27" iMac that didn't work right and had to carry it to the local Apple store 3 or 4 times in a month! Very ironic since it wasn't ever supposed to move and I had just bought an MBA 11" to carry around. So I own the biggest and smallest Macs made today!


    Yep - just got a refurb from Apple yesterday. Cheaper than any used models on eBay and has a warranty same as a new one.

    Again, needing lots of area, the 2 TB/Mini-DP ports are hooked to Dell u2711s for a triple 27" screen! Still working on a better way to mount the displays and computer. Probably using the heavy-duty (can hold the iMac) Ergotron arms that Apple sells on their web store. Not only are 3 screens bigger than 2 screens, but this way I don't have the frame gap right in the middle! Pictures soon :)

    Back to the OP - go for the refurb 27". It's about $1400+tax for the base model. I would rather have gone the Mac Pro route since I generally hate all-in-one computers (can't upgrade parts separately), but to get the same setup would have cost me an extra $1500!
     
  21. ivoruest macrumors 6502

    ivoruest

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Guatemala
    #21
    If you get the top of the line then yes. The iMac 27" is huge! but it will do many great things in Photo editing and Adobe Photoshop and those. For gaming is not the best option. You'll need to lower the resolution in order to play at very good FPS. Also, youll need to sit far away because the screen is massive and if you sit close enough you'll even have to move your head to look at all the screen. But still, the 27" is the best option. Go for the high end you'll not regret and it is not extremely expensive for what you get!
     
  22. unfrostedpoptar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #22
    This is why all-in-ones suck. Unfortunately, there's no way to get a Mac Mini to drive 3 27" displays and a Mac Pro would have cost me an extra $1500-$2000 for what I needed over an iMac so I gave in :(
     
  23. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #23
    I agree all in ones suck. I only suggest them when someone is going to buy a mac and they make more sense than Apple's other offerings for that person. I think Apple likes them because they can force a high minimum sale on conservative hardware by the bundled nature of it. They're very generic solutions overall. I mean Apple doesn't really make anything purpose built. They make mass market products that people will use. Much of the time you make compromises once you're tied into their ecosystem. Below the mac pro, my biggest issue isn't raw cpu power. It's an issue of a capable gpu with adequate vram for certain applications and adequate IO options. Beyond that even the top macbook pro cpus would keep most things in real time for me, and if it's something extremely long that I have to run overnight, I'd pretty much have to go to the 12 core level to change that. Going a couple steps up doesn't turn many hours into minutes. If I was on Windows, I'd probably build my own system.
     
  24. Mister Bumbo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    #24
    Personally I think the 27" is too big, this due to my desk only being 60cm deep, instead I use a 21.5" with a 24" hooked up to it for the extra space - also a solution for some things. One could also argue that the high 21.5 and the low 27" share graphics cards and hence the 21.5" gets better performance.
     

Share This Page