Anyone prefer the 24" LED ACD over the 27" iMac LED ACD??

[jjahshik32]

I'm debating with myself right now whether to pick up the 24" LED ACD (before its sold out at all the apple stores as well as it being $200 cheaper and noticed student discount is $100 off additionally) or to wait for the 27" LED ACD.

Things that worries me about the 27" LED ACD:

1) Might have yellowing issues like the current 27" iMacs.
2) Other problems with the 27" LED ACD like the first revs such as horizontal line issues or display lowered brightness buzzing issue (like the current 27" iMacs).
3) Far higher % of receiving dead/stuck pixels as it has a much higher pixel count.
4) Heat issues.
5) Bad backlight bleeding issues (usually bigger displays have this problem).
6) Resolution is too high to read text from a good distance. I hear some people saying that the 24" LED ACD is the perfect size/resolution and that the 27" iMac's resolution is "TOO SMALL."

I've owned the 24" LED ACD since the first time it was released but sold it about 6 months ago and I regret it ever since.

The 24" LED ACD that I had was perfect with no issues such as backlight bleeding or yellowing at all and so far I've been through a few displays and have always been dissatisfied with its quality. I suppose nothing beats the H-IPS panel + LED backlighting combo.

I'm so eager to pick up the 24" tomorrow but everytime I look at the 27" iMac's display it makes me want to wait for the 27" LED ACD.

 

[genkiginko]

Looks like you have made your mind up. $300 is $300, though.

 

[mitx]

I'm also debating with myself about that choice, but I never had a apple cinema display.


Besides the size (and resolution), are there any technical differences between the two monitors?

 

[TheBritishBloke]

How would we know what problems they're going to have? We don't know anything about them.

All I can tell you is I'm going to be buying one at the same time I buy my imac when they're refreshed next year. I want two monitors of the same size, resolution and I believe they're also the same aspect ratio.

 

[ValSalva]

Hopefully after about ten or eleven months (since the 27" iMac was first released) you'd like to think that Apple has either fixed the 27" display problems or had their supplier do so. There would be no excuse for any yellowing or banding on the new 27" ACD

 

[knarzie]

I've got the 24" cinema display hooked up to my macbook pro and my brother's got the 27" iMac a few weeks ago. Very much depends on what you are using it for. I mostly use it for word processing, the web, email and watching the odd movie. Can't see much difference to the iMac display, although I find everything a little crisper on mine (I know, not very technical).

Seems to me it's more of a question whether or not you want an 'all-in-one' mac or a separate display.

 

[GyroFX]

been using 23 ACD and 24 Dell Ultra Sharp for the past 4-5 years. I just got a 27" iMac and though some texts are small, i'm loving the space it's providing. It helps a lot when you're in the adobe suites and needing more room around your palette, etc. I'm enjoying the 27" for what it is thus far

 

[reebzor]

I prefer my 24" ACD over my friends 27" iMac.

Too much pixels.

 

[wickedny5]

i'm on the same boat

I just bought my 15" macbook pro and want to have a display for it at home. I don't do professional film or photography, but I am an advanced amateur and take my photography and film very serious. I know the 24inch has more real estate vertically but doesn't have the higher resolution of the 27inch.

My question is will the higher resolution have a benefit for photo editing?? I currently have a Canon Rebel T2i and the resolution of each pic is 5184 x 3456 pixels.

• 24inch ACD has a resolution of 1920 X 1200
• 27inch ACD has a resolution of 2560 x 1440

 

[ton123]

Had the same dilemma as well.

But i guess i will be returning my 24 cinema LED (still in the 14days return date) and wait another month. I think the 60% more pixels worth the wait and money.

As for the yellowing issue , my acd 24 does exhibit some yellowing as well. Thou its not really that significant as some people report.

 

[Freis968]

I purchased a 27" iMac and the screen was too darn big for me, had to return it. Prior to buying the iMac I have been using a 24" Westinghouse monitor. I have found that 24" is the perfect size for me personally.

 

[dave12345]

I purchased a 27" iMac and the screen was too darn big for me, had to return it. Prior to buying the iMac I have been using a 24" Westinghouse monitor. I have found that 24" is the perfect size for me personally.

yep - just bought a 24" ACD - perfect size after my 30" which I found to big - couple of dead pixels though so getting a replacement.

 

[gianly1985]

On the 24" it will be always easier to game at native res (like with a 5870 macpro), given the lower res.

The 27" has audio over MDP, better speakers+sub, more workspace.

 

[jbyun04]

would it be too much for my 15" MBP 2.8ghz c2d to drive a 27" ACD? Whenever I game I just disconnect my external anyway so I'm not worried about that, I'd just use only for graphic design

 

[highdefw]

24" seems perfect, but when modeling in Maya or editing in FCP, extra screen res will always come in handy...

 

[Icaras]

Sorry to bump this thread guys, but this question has been bugging me for a week now and I am still undecided.

The problem for me is I sit about 23-25" away from my monitor, which could make the 27"s higher pixel density more of an issue.

In fact I was just at the Apple store today, constantly jumping back and forth between both the ACD 24" and an iMac 27" and the text size is noticeably different.

I game too, so the above comment about the 24" ACD being more resolution friendly for gaming makes me even more undecisive.

Ah, decisions....Anyone else whos also in the same boat here make up their minds?

 

[gianly1985]

Gaming ----> 24" imho.

We're talking +60% pixels on the 27".

Mac's GPUs are already not_so_powerful/not_so_upgradable, no reason to stress them with humongous resolutions.

Unless you want to play in "blurry mode" (= how I call lower-than-native resolutions).

So gamers, grab a 24" while it's still around.

Even using a 24" as an external gaming display for a 27" iMac could make sense for someone. Imagine having it sitting on the side, with a gaming keyboard and gaming mouse, while your apple wireless keyboard and MM are next to the actual iMac. While the 5750 (aka mobility 5850) of the current iMac still allow for some 2560x1440 gaming, at 1920x1200 it will give better framerates and "last longer" in terms of years of new (heavier) games playable @native_res.

 

[FuNGi]

yep - just bought a 24" ACD - perfect size after my 30" which I found to big - couple of dead pixels though so getting a replacement.

I use the 24 inch LED as well and just love it. I've used other's 30" ACD's and thought it just too darn big. I shouldn't have to physically move my head from side to side to work. That and there is a sort of pompous air that I perceive to having a 27-30 monitor on your desk at work. Although, I must admit that the 24 inch seems outlandish next to a 13 inch MBP screen I say stick with the 24 inch for a bit more grounded gaming/work/movies.

 

[daneoni]

24" for me if i was deciding. Anything else is too big

 

[Icaras]

Gaming ----> 24" imho.

We're talking +60% pixels on the 27".

Mac's GPUs are already not_so_powerful/not_so_upgradable, no reason to stress them with humongous resolutions.

Unless you want to play in "blurry mode" (= how I call lower-than-native resolutions).

So gamers, grab a 24" while it's still around.

Even using a 24" as an external gaming display for a 27" iMac could make sense for someone. Imagine having it sitting on the side, with a gaming keyboard and gaming mouse, while your apple wireless keyboard and MM are next to the actual iMac. While the 5750 (aka mobility 5850) of the current iMac still allow for some 2560x1440 gaming, at 1920x1200 it will give better framerates and "last longer" in terms of years of new (heavier) games playable @native_res.

Hi Gainly, thanks for the excellent reply. I will primarily be using this display for work in Logic Pro, with gaming on the side. What I'm afraid with using the 27", is that sitting at over 20" away, the text and user interface will just be too small. I don't require glasses but i wouldn't want to speed up the need for one So work-wise, I gain the benefit of added real estate, but at the expense of smaller work interface (text, images, etc.)

As for games, i totally understand every point you've you made and each one makes complete sense. However, I will be connecting this to my Mac Pro (got the hex-core with 5870), so i wont be locked down to a specific GPU at least. And future GPUs will only continue to get more powerful, to better support 2560 resolutions.

Also, wouldn't the game industry begin to adopt and shift towards 16x9 gaming? If all displays are moving towards that direction, i would expect future games to more widely support 16x9 resolutions. I think all Valve source games support 16x9 ratios now.

In other words, isnt the 27" more 'future proof', as some would call it? Assuming you had a Mac Pro with an upgradeable GPU, would this constitute any difference in your opinion towards the 27"?

But i am now starting to lean towards the 24" after everything you've said...

 

[Sixtafoua]

I have the 24'' and I don't think I could fit anything bigger on my desk, so that is a reason not to get the 27''.

 

[jonnysods]

I have two 24's, one at my home office and one at my work office. Awesome monitors. I would love the 27's though. I don't like 16:9 that much though.

 

[logicpro7]

I am going to order the 27" to replace my 24". I will be mainly using it with Logic Studio.

So if any of you UK guys are looking for a mint boxed 24" in the next few weeks, feel free to contact me before i list it on ebay.

 

[gianly1985]

Hi Gainly, thanks for the excellent reply. I will primarily be using this display for work in Logic Pro, with gaming on the side. What I'm afraid with using the 27", is that sitting at over 20" away, the text and user interface will just be too small. I don't require glasses but i wouldn't want to speed up the need for one

That can definitely be a problem:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/352057/

I hope they fix this "issue" in OSX 10.7 and give us real resolution independence.

Until then, I'm a bit afraid of high PPI displays.

Of course if one can really take advantage of the added real estate and boost one's productivity, then that could be a bearable trade off.

As for games, i totally understand every point you've you made and each one makes complete sense. However, I will be connecting this to my Mac Pro (got the hex-core with 5870), so i wont be locked down to a specific GPU at least.

I see, well that's definetely an advantage over people willing to use it as an external monitor for their mbp/imac.

Also, wouldn't the game industry begin to adopt and shift towards 16x9 gaming? If all displays are moving towards that direction, i would expect future games to more widely support 16x9 resolutions. I think all Valve source games support 16x9 ratios now.

Yes but, at the same time, I don't think support for 16:10 resolutions will be dropped anytime soon.

In other words, isnt the 27" more 'future proof', as some would call it? Assuming you had a Mac Pro with an upgradeable GPU, would this constitute any difference in your opinion towards the 27"?

1) Yes it's more future proof, in terms of:
- pixel density (hopefully one day enjoyable in PERFECT resolution independence, iOS style)
- aspect ratio
- audio over Mini-DP

2) Yes, being able to upgrade the GPU is definitely a good way to tame this beast.

That's the latest and greatest ACD, make no mistake. Probably in your situation I'd take the 27".

BUT....
- small-ish system fonts and UI elements
- lower FPS in gaming than one could obtain on the 24" ACD, at native res

Play a bit with a 27" iMac and see how big is the former issue for you.

 

[3282868]

Is this for your MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro?

I ask as why not get 2 24" LED LCD's? More desktop real estate without the 27" pixel issue.

I have a 2008 8 core Mac Pro w/ the ATI HD Radeon 4870 running a 24" LED on the MDP and a 7 year old 23" CCFL on the DVI port. My 23" is dying out, so I got another 24" LED before they run out (course I'm running into issues with the ATI 4870 only having one MDP and the ACD's don't have a MDP in for daisy chaining, which DP is supposed to support). Thinking I might either get the GT 120 in addition to the 4870 I have or wait for the new 5770. All of them have been confirmed to work in the 2008 Mac Pro models even though Apple claims they do not, in fact the GT 120 was listed as 2008 compatible then Apple "mysteriously" dropped it, even though many have it running in their Mac's (they want you to buy a Mac Pro, not upgrade and save $$$).

If it's for your MacBook Pro, you can get a MDP "hub/splitter" which should power two 24" LED's (the hub should help with power), especially on your 17" model.

In fact, a company sells just that for $149. It takes one MDP and splits it off to power two LED LCD's. They have to be the EXACT same displays, so if you get 2 24" LED's you're set, and $149 for the splitter is a great deal. The company shows it with a MacBook Pro.

http://www.cinemaview.com/product/cinemaview-duo

I know, two 24" LED's plus a splitter is a heck of a lot more than one 27" LED LCD, but you'll get more real estate without the pixel, etc. issues.

1) Yes it's more future proof, in terms of:
- pixel density (hopefully one day enjoyable in PERFECT resolution independence, iOS style)
- aspect ratio
- audio over Mini-DP

The 24" models have audio over MDP as well, the USB is simply for the USB, all MDP/DP connections carry audio, so no difference there bet the 24" and 27" models.