Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
27" iMac with 4.5K Retina Display?
- Thread starter BusanAA
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why? They've previously been shipping 5K 27 inch panels, why would they go with an inferior replacement?
To offer average consumers a larger iMac at a more affordable price point.
Sure the 5K 27 inch screen is gorgeous... However, if consumers were given the choice to choose between
a 24" iMac or a 27" iMac with a 4.5K retina screen I'd wager most would choose the 27 inch.
The 27” 5K iMacs started at 1,800 When they were available. Probably why the price of the 27” ASD is such a head-scratcher.
Exactly right. The original iMac/5K screen combo went from ~£2k to over £3.5k overnight when the Studio/Studio Display were released and the 5K iMac discontinued. I don't know what Apple were thinking.
Nah. At the same resolution just move the 24” iMac a couple inches closer and you have the same effect!
I guess the new iMac tries to cater to those who previously got the small iMac or the low-end 27-inch. Power users are left with the Studio, while also getting a standalone monitor that can be used in future setups as well.
Consider the specifications for the various Apple displays:
24-inch iMac -- 4480 x 2520 pixels -- 218 pixels/inch -- 4.5K
27-inch studio Display -- 5120 x 2880 pixels -- 218 pixels/inch -- 5K
32-inch Pro Display XDR -- 6016 x 3384 pixels -- 218 pixels/inch -- 6K
All have the same resolution - 218 ppi - and as the display size increases, the display 'rating' in 'K' goes up, but the quality of the displays is the same in terms of pixels/inch.
There are differences in brightness - both the 27-inch and 32-inch displays have higher peak brightness than the 24-inch iMac.
A 27-inch display with 4.5K would not make sense, it would have less pixels/inch than the 24-inch iMac.
24-inch iMac -- 4480 x 2520 pixels -- 218 pixels/inch -- 4.5K
27-inch studio Display -- 5120 x 2880 pixels -- 218 pixels/inch -- 5K
32-inch Pro Display XDR -- 6016 x 3384 pixels -- 218 pixels/inch -- 6K
All have the same resolution - 218 ppi - and as the display size increases, the display 'rating' in 'K' goes up, but the quality of the displays is the same in terms of pixels/inch.
There are differences in brightness - both the 27-inch and 32-inch displays have higher peak brightness than the 24-inch iMac.
A 27-inch display with 4.5K would not make sense, it would have less pixels/inch than the 24-inch iMac.
Thanks for that wonderful explanation.....
I realize a number of people love the 218 pixels/inch currently offered by Apple.
However, the vast majority of potential Apple customers are forced to choose between the following:
24" iMac
or
Mac Mini with Apple Studio Display (which most consumers cannot afford)
or
Mac Mini with a 27" with a 4K washed out matte monitor from some other manufacturer.
I'm still using a 2011 27" iMac that has a 108.79 (Pixels Per Inch) density. Nobody, has ever complained that it looked less sharp or blurry. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
There are numerous professors at my university still using older non-retina iMacs and are quite satisfied with them.
I know I would be happy with a 30% pixel increase over my 2011 non retina iMac and suspect most potential buyers of a 27" 4.5K iMac would be too.
I have the 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K that the 2011 kinda shares 2.5K displays with and after more than a decade I'd like to get onto a iMac 27" 5K with 2x the ppi, 2x nits of brightness and P3 colors.
Hopefully it comes in M2 ($1799) or M2 Pro ($2499) options.
This may occur between 2 months from now for the 25th year release anniversary of the iMac or 4 months from now.
Before 2033 there will be a better display like say a 8K or 10K that are double the ppi.
You may want to ask Dell U2723QE owners how they like their 4K display.
Hopefully it comes in M2 ($1799) or M2 Pro ($2499) options.
This may occur between 2 months from now for the 25th year release anniversary of the iMac or 4 months from now.
Before 2033 there will be a better display like say a 8K or 10K that are double the ppi.
You may want to ask Dell U2723QE owners how they like their 4K display.
Last edited:
Wow... I never realized that the 25th anniversary of the iMac release was approaching so quickly. It would be awesome if Apple released a 27" iMac at the price and configuration you suggested.
Also thank you for recommending the Dell U2723QE. The aesthetics of the monitor looks nice. However, It was indicated in many threads that OSX does not scale properly at 4K resolution. Sadly, the monitor also lacks:
a. webcam
b. good speakers
c. its not glossy (I prefer the rich colors in a glossy screen compared to a matte monitor - I will never buy matte)
These monitor manufacturers need to step-up their game. Most consumers would love an affordable quality all-in-one monitor.
Also thank you for recommending the Dell U2723QE. The aesthetics of the monitor looks nice. However, It was indicated in many threads that OSX does not scale properly at 4K resolution. Sadly, the monitor also lacks:
a. webcam
b. good speakers
c. its not glossy (I prefer the rich colors in a glossy screen compared to a matte monitor - I will never buy matte)
These monitor manufacturers need to step-up their game. Most consumers would love an affordable quality all-in-one monitor.