Dell S2721QS monitor vs. iMac 24" display

[Jim Lahey]

Anyone have any thoughts on this Dell 27"monitor paired with M1 Mac mini vs. M1 iMac 24" display? It's very cheap at the moment and gets favourable reviews. I don't expect it to match the iMac for outright image quality, and of course the ppi will be lower, but it's a much better size for me and works out at around ~£1000-£1100 all-in with the base mini vs. minimum £1500 for the iMac.

I don't like the style of the iMac, but I could be swayed by the quality of the display if it's leagues ahead of the Dell. Basically, is the iMac display £500 better than this Dell? I don't have access to either, so can't realistically make an informed choice before purchase.

All opinions and experiences welcome. Thanks for reading.

 

[Stephen.R]

If your eyesight is decent, I expect that 'default' macOS resolution (i.e. "looks like 1920x1080") on the Dell is going to be annoying. It's going to look like a "my first numbers" book, with massively over-sized UI elements and text.

You can scale it to something more reasonable, but that is (a) less clear and (b) much more work for the GPU. I have no first hand knowledge of how well or poorly the M1's GPU handles UI scaling like that.


If you want the best picture quality, the iMac is going to beat the Dell hands down in terms of clarity, due to its massively higher PPI, (218 vs 163) which in turn means you're more likely to need to use a scaled resolution, which makes it even worse.

Edit: typo, missing a word.

 

[Mr.Blacky]

The Dell display has more features, but purely form the specs, the iMac display has the better picture.
And the iMac display would be maybe £150 - £200 more expensive than the Dell one, not £500.

 

[Jim Lahey]

The Dell display has more features, but purely form the specs, the iMac display has the better picture.
And the iMac display would be maybe £150 - £200 more expensive than the Dell one, not £500.

The overall solution is £500 more expensive than the Mac mini + Dell.

 

[Amethyst1]

And the iMac display would be maybe £150 - £200 more expensive than the Dell one, not £500.

The base iMac may be "only" £1250 but has a less powerful GPU and fewer ports than the Mac mini. Which is probably why the OP chose the £1450 model as comparison.

 

[Jim Lahey]

If your eyesight is decent, I expect that 'default' macOS resolution (i.e. "looks like 1920x1080") on the Dell is going to be annoying. It's going to look like a "my first numbers" book, with massively over-sized UI elements and text.

You can scale it to something more reasonable, but that is (a) less clear and (b) much more work for the GPU. I have no first hand knowledge of how well or poorly the M1's GPU handles UI scaling like that.


If you want the best picture quality, the iMac is going to beat the Dell hands down in terms of clarity, due to its massively higher PPI, (218 vs 163) which in turn means you're more likely to need to use a scaled resolution, which makes it even worse.

Edit: typo, missing a word.

It‘s a 3840x2160 display so surely there shouldn’t be any scaling issues?

 

[Amethyst1]

It‘s a 3840x2160 display so surely there shouldn’t be any scaling issues?

There may well be. If you run it at default, things will be way too large. If you run it at, say, looks like 2560x1440, you have non-integer scaling with its issues that @Stephen.R pointed out.

 

[Jim Lahey]

The base iMac may be "only" £1250 but has a less powerful GPU and fewer ports than the Mac mini. Which is probably why the OP chose the £1450 model as comparison.

Correct. Sorry for any confusion. I wouldn’t buy the base iMac as its cooling is gimped and I 100% need wired gigabit ethernet.

 

[Stephen.R]

It‘s a 3840x2160 display so surely there shouldn’t be any scaling issues?

The default resolution for macOS on 4K displays like this, is basically "@2x" scaling - so four physical pixels (a 2x2 square) to render one "screen" pixel. This gives you a UI that "looks like" 1920x1080. (Sorry if you know this stuff already, not trying to be condescending, some just don't know how it works).


So, while a 4K 27" display with a scaled UI of 2560x1440 does IMO likely look better than a native 27" 2560x1440 screen - it's going to look worse than a display running at an equal "@2x" (or hypothetically "@3x" if one were available) because there's no fractional pixel display, so thin lines and light weight fonts will look crisp.


I'm not saying non-even scaling is terrible. I use it myself on 2, 4K 24" Dells. But that's mostly because there's not really any other practical option (and there was literally no other option when I bought them - the 27" Ultrafine is now available here, but it's ridiculously overpriced IMO). These displays also reduce the issue a little, because they're ~185 PPI, vs 163.


If you want a 27" specifically, the LG Ultrafine 5K would IMO be a better choice to go with the mini. But it's going to be a lot more money.

 

[Jim Lahey]

The default resolution for macOS on 4K displays like this, is basically "@2x" scaling - so four physical pixels (a 2x2 square) to render one "screen" pixel. This gives you a UI that "looks like" 1920x1080. (Sorry if you know this stuff already, not trying to be condescending, some just don't know how it works).


So, while a 4K 27" display with a scaled UI of 2560x1440 does IMO likely look better than a native 27" 2560x1440 screen - it's going to look worse than a display running at an equal "@2x" (or hypothetically "@3x" if one were available) because there's no fractional pixel display, so thin lines and light weight fonts will look crisp.


I'm not saying non-even scaling is terrible. I use it myself on 2, 4K 24" Dells. But that's mostly because there's not really any other practical option (and there was literally no other option when I bought them - the 27" Ultrafine is now available here, but it's ridiculously overpriced IMO). These displays also reduce the issue a little, because they're ~185 PPI, vs 163.


If you want a 27" specifically, the LG Ultrafine 5K would IMO be a better choice to go with the mini. But it's going to be a lot more money.

That‘s great information. Thanks for taking the time. Looks like I will have to rethink. I really don’t like the style of the iMac but I also won’t like a sub par display, and I don’t want to spend thousands.

 

[Amethyst1]

Looks like I will have to rethink.

It's been discontinued and is small-ish, but the 21.5" LG UltraFine 4K has 218 ppi so will give you a very sharp picture and "correctly-sized" UI/text without needing to scale. And it's pretty much the only option besides 5K or 6K if you value this.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Come to think of it, my current 27" is 1920x1080 (2012 Mac mini) and I actually find the UI element size perfectly fine for my needs, so perhaps this would look good on a 3840x2160 panel after all? Not 'retina' but still double the ppi I have now, and 27" which is the size I'd like.

 

[Mr.Blacky]

The overall solution is £500 more expensive than the Mac mini + Dell.

Mac mini £700 + Dell monitor £320 + Magic Mouse £80 + Magic Keyboard £100 to £130 + webcam/speakers let's say £100 = £1300 to £1330, iMac is £1450. ?‍♂️

 

[Amethyst1]

Come to think of it, my current 27" is 1920x1080 and I actually find the UI element size perfectly fine for my needs, so perhaps this would look good on a 3840x2160 panel after all?

Yep. In that case, things have the same size but be a lot sharper.

 

[Mr.Blacky]

The base iMac may be "only" £1250 but has a less powerful GPU and fewer ports than the Mac mini. Which is probably why the OP chose the £1450 model as comparison.

The iMac display still wouldn't be £500 more expensive.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Mac mini £700 + Dell monitor £320 + Magic Mouse £80 + Magic Keyboard £100 to £130 + webcam/speakers let's say £100 = £1300 to £1330, iMac is £1450. ?‍♂️

I wasn't clear but I already have keyboard and trackpad. No further costs.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Yep. In that case, things have the same size but be a lot sharper.

Excellent. In which case I think the mini + Dell idea is back on the table.

 

[Amethyst1]

Excellent. In which case I think the mini + Dell idea is back on the table.

You may want to purchase a USB-C to DisplayPort cable to hook up the Dell. It comes with a HDMI cable and the mini does have HDMI but apparently it's not always smooth-sailing.

 

[Mr.Blacky]

I wasn't clear but I already have keyboard and trackpad. No further costs.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you said:

... is the iMac display £500 better than this Dell? ...

Which implies, the iMac display is £500 more expensive, or does it not?

 

[Jim Lahey]

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you said:

Which implies, the iMac display is £500 more expensive, or does it not?

That wasn't the best way to frame the question, granted. It's perhaps a bit clearer in the previous paragraph. The two setups, for me, have a £500 disparity (I already own keyboard, trackpad and speakers - don't need webcam). What I should have asked is - is the display in the iMac worth paying an extra £500 over what the Mac mini + Dell combination will set me back.

But in any case thanks all for your help and opinions. I am now better informed and will give it some thought. Can't really bring myself to downsize to 24" and don't like the iMac so it's pretty much ruled out. At the moment I think the Dell running at a scaled 1920x1080 on the Mac mini is the best compromise for me, but I haven't totally decided.

Thanks again y'all.

 

[Stephen.R]

Come to think of it, my current 27" is 1920x1080 (2012 Mac mini) and I actually find the UI element size perfectly fine for my needs, so perhaps this would look good on a 3840x2160 panel after all? Not 'retina' but still double the ppi I have now, and 27" which is the size I'd like.

Right, yep if that UI scale is ok for you, then the new one will look the same size (barring any OS UI size differences from whatever it's running now, to Big Sur) but much sharper.

"Retina" is more complex than just the PPI. Viewing distance is also important. That's part of why I tend not to use that term now given how differently people can be using their computer/display.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Right, yep if that UI scale is ok for you, then the new one will look the same size (barring any OS UI size differences from whatever it's running now, to Big Sur) but much sharper.

"Retina" is more complex than just the PPI. Viewing distance is also important. That's part of why I tend not to use that term now given how differently people can be using their computer/display.

Thanks. Viewing distance will remain the same on the same size panel so I'll effectively be doubling my ppi. Should be markedly superior.

PS. It's currently maxed out on 10.15.7 and I'm getting a bit tired of Catalina. I run Big Sur on my MacBook Pro and it makes the mini look like something from 1983 by way of comparison.

 

[Stephen.R]

Good luck, hope you enjoy the new setup!

 

[Jim Lahey]

Good luck, hope you enjoy the new setup!

Thanks. Not decided for sure yet and not ready to buy, but when I do pull the trigger I think it will be the mini + Dell.

 

[Amethyst1]

"Retina" is more complex than just the PPI. Viewing distance is also important. That's part of why I tend not to use that term now given how differently people can be using their computer/display.

It's just a marketing term after all. I hate it when people refer to non-Apple displays as "Retina" when a more fitting term would be e.g. "high-ppi". Rant over.