I think I’ve calculated the size and resolution of the new big iMac

[thingstoponder]

First off I’d just like to say that I think there is virtually zero chance Apple replaces the 27” iMac with a 32” 6k iMac. It just makes no sense. The 6k XDR will remain their premium display and it will remain the biggest… and most expensive. The 5k iMac is a consumer machine and costs far less. They’re not going to match the size and resolution of their $5000 display. Not gonna happen. Also keep in mind there’s reporting from Gurman that a consumer display is on the way. Common sense says that it won’t be the same size as their $4999 display.

Okay, now on to my point…

I think the next big iMac will be have a screen size of around 28.7” and a resolution about 5480x3050. It will be called the 5.5k iMac and the screen size will be marketed as 29”. Why? Because that’s what they did to the 4K iMac. They increased the screen size to 23.5” and bumped the resolution to ~4.5k while keeping the PPI at 218.

How I arrived at this number is I went to https://www.sven.de/dpi/ and selected 5500 as the horizontal resolution and picked a screen size above 27 inches that gave me a PPI of 218 and kept adjusting the vertical resolution along with it to keep it at 16:9. I then decreased the resolution to 5480 because the 4.5k iMac isn’t actually 4.5k, it’s 4480 pixels high. Also a resolution of 5.5k gave me a screen size of 29”, I don’t think Apple will have the size be a bit below 29” and they will round up in marketing because that’s what they did with the 24”.

So there it is. In my humble opinion the next iMac with have a screen size of 28.7”, and a resolution of 5480x3050 with a PPI of 218. Same PPI as the 24” and same as previous retina iMacs.

I think my guess is very logical and also very likely. Anyone disagree? If so, please give some reasoning. Thanks!

 

[09872738]

I think my guess is very logical and also very likely. Anyone disagree? If so, please give some reasoning. Thanks!

I disagree. Below 30 inches is too small a size for 2021.

 

[JouniS]

The defining feature of the 27" iMac was that Apple took a class of displays that used to be unaffordable and made them affordable. That happened twice: first with the original 1440p display and then with the 5k display.

A 32" 6k panel is basically a 40% bigger version of a 27" 5k panel, which has been around forever. The only reason why 6k displays are still expensive is because people don't want to buy them at current prices. If Apple wants to make them affordable, they can simply choose to make them affordable, because big iMacs sell in sufficient quantities. If they were able to take the giant step from 1440p to 5k, they can certainly take the small step from 5k to 6k.

 

[neilw]

I disagree. Below 30 inches is too small a size for 2021.

Concur. I expect the size to be at least 30 inches, and by "at least 30" I mean "exactly 30 inches." 28.5 is not enough of an increase from from 27 inches.

 

[nambuccaheadsau]

I will take 9 to 5 Macs word for it being a 32".

 

[DanTSX]

32”-34”.
Not a chance it will be anything less.

 

[neilw]

32”-34”.
Not a chance it will be anything less.

You realize the Pro Display XDR is 32", right? By saying 32-34 you're saying there's a chance it will be *larger* than the already ginormous XDR. There is 0.0% chance of that happening.

The small iMac went from 20.8" wide to 21.5" wide, a very most .7" increase. Most of the screen size increase is offset by the smaller bezels.

The large iMac is currently 25.6" wide, the Pro Display XDR is 28.3. So a 32" display would be a 2.7" increase, which is quite large.

Around 30" sounds more likely to me, with a display that is the same DPI as the current (whatever weird resolution that works out to be). 32" wouldn't shock me, >32" is completely out of the question.

 

[CWallace]

Still think this is going to be the 32" 6K panel as used in the Pro Display XDR, just with miniLED and probably with lower peak and uniform brightness to keep the thermal envelope low enough it would not need the active cooling the XDR has.

And LG being able to increase production of the existing panel will lower the unit costs to Apple which would make it more affordable for the iMac Pro and increase margins on the Pro Display XDR.

 

[Voyageur]

Still think this is going to be the 32" 6K panel as used in the Pro Display XDR, just with miniLED and probably with lower peak and uniform brightness to keep the thermal envelope low enough it would not need the active cooling the XDR has.

And LG being able to increase production of the existing panel will lower the unit costs to Apple which would make it more affordable for the iMac Pro and increase margins on the Pro Display XDR.

But...WHEN?

 

[CWallace]

But...WHEN?

I want to say WWDC since this will be a "pro" machine and Apple does have a track-record of announcing "pro" machines at WWDC - MacBook Pro, Intel iMac Pro, Mac Pro.

So my virtual money is on iMac Pro and MacBook Pro 14/16 at WWDC.

 

[09872738]

I want to say WWDC since this will be a "pro" machine and Apple does have a track-record of announcing "pro" machines at WWDC - MacBook Pro, Intel iMac Pro, Mac Pro.

So my virtual money is on iMac Pro and MacBook Pro 14/16 at WWDC.

I don‘t think they‘ll use the iMac Pro moniker any longer. The iMac Pro was just a rather poor attempt of a „Pro“ machine, just a stop gap to win some time to develop the current gen Mac Pro

 

[petvas]

I disagree. Below 30 inches is too small a size for 2021.

Too small for what? For me 27" is most of the times big enough, sometimes big..

 

[Pelinwin]

First off I’d just like to say that I think there is virtually zero chance Apple replaces the 27” iMac with a 32” 6k iMac. It just makes no sense. The 6k XDR will remain their premium display and it will remain the biggest… and most expensive. The 5k iMac is a consumer machine and costs far less. They’re not going to match the size and resolution of their $5000 display. Not gonna happen. Also keep in mind there’s reporting from Gurman that a consumer display is on the way. Common sense says that it won’t be the same size as their $4999 display.

Okay, now on to my point…

I think the next big iMac will be have a screen size of around 28.7” and a resolution about 5480x3050. It will be called the 5.5k iMac and the screen size will be marketed as 29”. Why? Because that’s what they did to the 4K iMac. They increased the screen size to 23.5” and bumped the resolution to ~4.5k while keeping the PPI at 218.

How I arrived at this number is I went to https://www.sven.de/dpi/ and selected 5500 as the horizontal resolution and picked a screen size above 27 inches that gave me a PPI of 218 and kept adjusting the vertical resolution along with it to keep it at 16:9. I then decreased the resolution to 5480 because the 4.5k iMac isn’t actually 4.5k, it’s 4480 pixels high. Also a resolution of 5.5k gave me a screen size of 29”, I don’t think Apple will have the size be a bit below 29” and they will round up in marketing because that’s what they did with the 24”.

So there it is. In my humble opinion the next iMac with have a screen size of 28.7”, and a resolution of 5480x3050 with a PPI of 218. Same PPI as the 24” and same as previous retina iMacs.

I think my guess is very logical and also very likely. Anyone disagree? If so, please give some reasoning. Thanks!

Pretto sure you’ll end up being right or extremely close, still being right. That’s a sufficient size. Very few people would want 32”. It’s too big…

 

[rpmurray]

I'm going for 33 inches, because 3 is a lucky number so 33 is twice as lucky and the fact that it's not in metric units makes it even more so. I pulled that number out of thin air based on nothing but wishful thinking. Anyone disagree? If so, please make up some plausible reason that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[09872738]

Too small for what? For me 27" is most of the times big enough, sometimes big..

My setup contains a 34“ plus a 47“ (4k) monitor. Mostly software development and related stuff. One can never have enough screen real estate.

 

[thingstoponder]

I will take 9 to 5 Macs word for it being a 32".

When did they say that? Maybe speculation, but there’s been no reporting or reputable leak from anyone that I’ve seen.

Concur. I expect the size to be at least 30 inches, and by "at least 30" I mean "exactly 30 inches." 28.5 is not enough of an increase from from 27 inches.

The 24” iMac was only two inches more than the 21.5”. Why isn’t that enough? Whose to say there will be an increase at all? It’s not a guarantee.

32”-34”.
Not a chance it will be anything less.

But why? Do you have any reason to believe this is what Apple will actually do and isn’t just what you want them to do?

I disagree. Below 30 inches is too small a size for 2021.

Why?

The defining feature of the 27" iMac was that Apple took a class of displays that used to be unaffordable and made them affordable. That happened twice: first with the original 1440p display and then with the 5k display.

A 32" 6k panel is basically a 40% bigger version of a 27" 5k panel, which has been around forever. The only reason why 6k displays are still expensive is because people don't want to buy them at current prices. If Apple wants to make them affordable, they can simply choose to make them affordable, because big iMacs sell in sufficient quantities. If they were able to take the giant step from 1440p to 5k, they can certainly take the small step from 5k to 6k.

Apple never took the very expensive 30” display and made an iMac out of it. There’s no precedent for doing this with the $4999 6k display.

Still think this is going to be the 32" 6K panel as used in the Pro Display XDR, just with miniLED and probably with lower peak and uniform brightness to keep the thermal envelope low enough it would not need the active cooling the XDR has.

And LG being able to increase production of the existing panel will lower the unit costs to Apple which would make it more affordable for the iMac Pro and increase margins on the Pro Display XDR.

MiniLED? No chance. If it did then the 24” would have had it. The 27” iMac is a companion to the smaller iMac and is not a pro computer. It’s not getting MiniLED. The 21.5 and 27” had the same display other than size. I would bet $100 the Apple Silicon iMacs will too.

I want to say WWDC since this will be a "pro" machine

According to who? It’s a replacement for the 5k iMac which Apple did not see as a pro computer considering they made a much more expensive iMac called “Pro”.

 

[Moonjumper]

Apple never took the very expensive 30” display and made an iMac out of it. There’s no precedent for doing this with the $4999 6k display.

The iMac often did follow the Apple Cinema Display sizes. For example, I had a 24" iMac with the same 16:10 1920x1200, following that the iMac had 27" 2560x1440. Then they had a retina version pixel-doubled with 5120x2880.

The only bigger Cinema Display was 30" 2560x1600. I would love a retina version of that at 5120x3200, but I doubt we will see a 16:10 aspect ratio at that size (despite all Apple laptops having that ratio, to great benefit).

It is 7 years since the first 5K iMac. The cost of the panel must have gone down enormously since then, but there was nothing higher at the time, and only a few using the same panel to match it. A larger panel with a high resolution would only be the same scenario as the 5K introduction, well not even the same jump. The XDR size would be logical in many ways. The reason that is so expensive is the backlighting (impressively bright LED array that requires an extensive cooling system), which the iMac could do without. We won't see an XDR display in the iMac, but we could see a screen with the same size and resolution that benefits from the economies of scale from reusing the LCD panel.

However, Apple has shown they are happy on the iPad to go with screens that are in the same range, but different. If they do, but not 32", then I expect it will be be 30" as starting with a different first digit is a big difference psychologically.

 

[neilw]

The 24” iMac was only two inches more than the 21.5”. Why isn’t that enough? Whose to say there will be an increase at all? It’s not a guarantee.

I think it's extremely unlikely that they would bump the smaller size and then leave the larger one as is. With smaller bezels, that would make the large one physically smaller than it used to be. I just don't see it happening.

The small iMac screen size increased by 9.3%. A 28.5" screen on the big one would be a 5.5% increase. I wouldn't rule it out, it just doesn't sound right to me. I am guessing (that's all it is) larger than 28.5" and no larger than 30".

MiniLED? No chance. If it did then the 24” would have had it. The 27” iMac is a companion to the smaller iMac and is not a pro computer. It’s not getting MiniLED. The 21.5 and 27” had the same display other than size. I would bet $100 the Apple Silicon iMacs will too.

This still leaves then with a significant opening to make an iMac Pro, if they choose to. Regular display in the normal large iMac, miniLED display in the Pro, along with... who knows what else. Dunno, just spitballin'.

 

[CWallace]

I don‘t think they‘ll use the iMac Pro moniker any longer. The iMac Pro was just a rather poor attempt of a „Pro“ machine, just a stop gap to win some time to develop the current gen Mac Pro

Could be, but considering I expect this to have a larger, higher-resolution monitor, an M-series SoC with more CPU and GPU cores (and perhaps a separate GPU), at least 32GB of RAM capacity and maybe 64GB and storage up to 8TB, it is going to be a very different beast than the 24" iMac and therefore I believe Apple could call it the iMac Pro for those reasons.

And I do believe Apple is moving back towards the "four-quadrant | consumer-professional" matrix that Steve introduced. This machine would very much fit in the "professional desktop" quadrant of that product matrix whereas the 24" iMac is well-suited to the "consumer" quadrant.

MiniLED? No chance. If it did then the 24” would have had it. The 27” iMac is a companion to the smaller iMac and is not a pro computer. It’s not getting MiniLED. The 21.5 and 27” had the same display other than size. I would bet $100 the Apple Silicon iMacs will too.

The 12.9" iPad Pro received a miniLED screen, but the 11" did not so there would be precedent to use miniLED in the larger (and more expensive) iMac.

And going back to the "consumer / professional" matrix, if the iPad Pro (12.9) gets miniLED as does the MacBook Pro (as multiple rumors point to), then it stands to reason if this "big brother" iMac is labled as an iMac Pro then it, too, could get miniLED where the 24" did not.

(And Apple's eventual goal appears to be to to have all consumer and professional products on miniLED as the price comes down.)

According to who?

According to the hundreds of forum members commenting in all the 24" Hate threads about how the 24" iMac is not a "pro" machine or is a "toy".

It’s a replacement for the 5k iMac which Apple did not see as a pro computer considering they made a much more expensive iMac called “Pro”.

Well the 2020 iMac 5K via BTO options could pretty much hold it's own against the 2017 iMac Pro.

So if this "big brother" model is called an iMac Pro, it does not have to start at $4999 - it just needs to scale there via BTO options.

 

[DanTSX]

When did they say that? Maybe speculation, but there’s been no reporting or reputable leak from anyone that I’ve seen.


The 24” iMac was only two inches more than the 21.5”. Why isn’t that enough? Whose to say there will be an increase at all? It’s not a guarantee.



But why? Do you have any reason to believe this is what Apple will actually do and isn’t just what you want them to do?


Why?



Apple never took the very expensive 30” display and made an iMac out of it. There’s no precedent for doing this with the $4999 6k display.



MiniLED? No chance. If it did then the 24” would have had it. The 27” iMac is a companion to the smaller iMac and is not a pro computer. It’s not getting MiniLED. The 21.5 and 27” had the same display other than size. I would bet $100 the Apple Silicon iMacs will too.




According to who? It’s a replacement for the 5k iMac which Apple did not see as a pro computer considering they made a much more expensive iMac called “Pro”.

That’s a lot of quotes

 

[NotTooLate]

My setup contains a 34“ plus a 47“ (4k) monitor. Mostly software development and related stuff. One can never have enough screen real estate.

Well current large screens have a very low PPI , Apple stopped putting low PPI displays into their high end machines ages ago , so a 34" and higher you are looking at a crazy resolution , you think they will go to those extremes ?

 

[JouniS]

Well current large screens have a very low PPI , Apple stopped putting low PPI displays into their high end machines ages ago , so a 34" and higher you are looking at a crazy resolution , you think they will go to those extremes ?

A 34" display is usually 21:9, which makes it a wider version of the usual 27". The retina resolution at that size would be 6880x2880, which is comparable with the 6k XDR display. I think that would be the ideal size for a single-display setup.

 

[CWallace]

Well current large screens have a very low PPI , Apple stopped putting low PPI displays into their high end machines ages ago , so a 34" and higher you are looking at a crazy resolution , you think they will go to those extremes ?

Well the Pro Display XDR is Retina at 32" and 6016 by 3384 pixels.

They could also go insane and do a 31.5" 8K display at 7680 by 4320 which would be "Super Retina" at 280ppi ("normal" Mac Retina is 218ppi). Frankly I would love this because it would match a 4K display when in HiDPI mode, but considering Dell is charging $3999 for their 8K display (and Apple would certainly use the same panel), we'd be lucky to see an iMac Pro with it start at $4999 (and not with 32GB and 1TB, to be sure).

 

[DarthMoops]

I'm going for 33 inches, because 3 is a lucky number so 33 is twice as lucky and the fact that it's not in metric units makes it even more so. I pulled that number out of thin air based on nothing but wishful thinking. Anyone disagree? If so, please make up some plausible reason that has nothing to do with reality.

Sorry but you're wrong, 3 is in fact a "magic number."

 

[Jorbanead]

The 5k iMac is a consumer machine and costs far less. They’re not going to match the size and resolution of their $5000 display. Not gonna happen

Id argue the 5K iMac is more of a “prosumer” iMac. The M1 iMac is the consumer iMac.

The Pro Display XDR is not $5,000 because of the screen size. It’s all the additional features that come with it that make it so expensive. It’s highly unlikely the larger iMac would come with all those features. However I agree they’d probably do a 30” iMac and a 30” prosumer display to match.