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.
End of iMacs?
- Thread starter dvoros
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same boat here. Trying to decide if I can live with a 24" or if I should good the Mac Mini with a 27" 4K monitor. Studio Display is just too expensive for my needs.
I caved last week and bought a base 16 inch MBP (with 1TB SSD) to replace my 2014 5k iMac. I managed to get it for just £1,850 so couldn’t resist! I figured whatever the external mini LED monitor apple will release next should be compatible with this MBP, so will purchase that once it becomes available to complete the upgrade. Its been great having the extra portability to sit outside and move it around the house.
Your 2013 does not yet have a retina display so you could get an M1 Mac mini with 16GB RAM and a decent 27" IPS display with the same 2560x1440 as your iMac. A decent upgrade that won't cost the world.
macOS only properly supports ~110ppi and ~220ppi, unfortunately the choice is very slim for 220 as the majority of recent displays falls uncomfortably in between these two resolutions. There are still some decent choices around 110 like many 27" and 34" displays.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, I chose to purchase a 5K 2K 40” ultrawide to pair with my new Studio Ultra. It is neither 110ppi nor 220ppi. Coming from a string of iMacs, such comments- which fill all such threads in abundance- gave me some concern about blur, etc. I have “perfect” 20:20 vision so I’d definitely see blur.
Reality: looks great. I don’t see any negatives vs. the “perfect” choices made by Apple in those iMacs. In fact, I can’t see a quality difference vs. the iMac screen it replaces… except now I have much more screen RE.
“We” sling this kind of stuff around so hard but have we actually tested such things with our own eyes? I can assure anyone reading this thread that there are more good choices of monitors to pair with desktop Macs than only the two offered by Apple.
If the wall of specific spec “musts” (that happen to align with only what Apple offers) give you any doubt, take a MB to a monitor retailer and hook it up to some. You may be quite surprised to discover that Mac output can look great on a wide variety of screens instead of only two. You may save some money too… and/or get whatever size and shape screen you actually desire vs. only 2 choices from our favorite company. Personally, I’m thrilled with the added width of the ultra-wide I chose.
No doubt, Apple's 2 choices are high-quality, beautiful screens. So if you end up with either, congratulations on buying a great monitor. But they are definitely NOT the only possible options that can display great quality Mac output. Go see for yourself.
Reality: looks great. I don’t see any negatives vs. the “perfect” choices made by Apple in those iMacs. In fact, I can’t see a quality difference vs. the iMac screen it replaces… except now I have much more screen RE.
“We” sling this kind of stuff around so hard but have we actually tested such things with our own eyes? I can assure anyone reading this thread that there are more good choices of monitors to pair with desktop Macs than only the two offered by Apple.
If the wall of specific spec “musts” (that happen to align with only what Apple offers) give you any doubt, take a MB to a monitor retailer and hook it up to some. You may be quite surprised to discover that Mac output can look great on a wide variety of screens instead of only two. You may save some money too… and/or get whatever size and shape screen you actually desire vs. only 2 choices from our favorite company. Personally, I’m thrilled with the added width of the ultra-wide I chose.
No doubt, Apple's 2 choices are high-quality, beautiful screens. So if you end up with either, congratulations on buying a great monitor. But they are definitely NOT the only possible options that can display great quality Mac output. Go see for yourself.
Last edited:
There's a big dose of "your mileage may vary" around this.
While there's no doubt that 220dpi (Apple 5k/6k displays) is the best, ~160dpi (i.e. "4k" UHD @27") is still very usable and definitely better than 110ppi. The "support" issue is really that system fonts, icons, dialogues etc. are designed for either 110 or 220ppi - so you get a choice between tiny (using the 110ppi versions at 160ppi), rather chunky (using the 220ppi versions at 160ppi) or using a non-integer scaled mode to get them "just right" at the expense of a very slightly "soft" result (you're getting 5k downsampled to 4k) and extra GPU load (an M1 or better shouldn't break a sweat).
Opinion seems to vary between "non-integer scaled mode will make your eyes bleed" and "just stop climbing up on the desk with a jeweller's loupe and doing A/B comparisons with a display that costs 3x as much". I incline towards the latter.
Plus - it's mainly about dialogues, menus etc. since virtually every creative application allows you to freely zoom the content (or set font sizes in code editors etc.) and even a 160ppi screen will give you a lot more detail/clearly render smaller text than a 110ppi one.
I'm currently trying out a Huawei Mateview with a view to replacing my iMac with a Mini or Studio driving a pair of MateViews. This is a 3840x2560, 3:2, 28.3" screen with Mac mini/studio-esque styling. So it's effectively the same width as a 27" 16:9 screen, but with another 2.5" of vertical height and the same ppi as a 27" 4k UHD screen. I find the extra height partly counteracts the larger system fonts/menus/icons making it very usable in 2:1 mode. Is it in the same league as the 5k iMac/Studio Display? Not quite - but it's pretty good and you can buy 4 for the price of a Studio Display. May not be available in some countries because reasons that belong in another forum.