More screen real estate with a 4.5K iMac over a standard 24" screen?

[tornado99]

So I've just watched 10 different reviews of the new iMac, and at least half them didn't even show a webpage or page of text on the screen!

Out of the very few webpages shown I compared them to my 1080p 24" and my 4K 24". It seems, at least on the settings they had, you couldn't fit any more content on screen than a normal monitor.

Is this plausible? It would seem with the sharper text you might be able to decrease font size and then be able to have a larger workspace.

As a coder, this is kinda an important question, but not one single review has been from someone who uses a computer like I do! I always feel a bit tight on space with my current setup, and 27 inch screens feel a bit too large for me, but perhaps the new iMac isn't the solution either.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

The likely answer is, they're showing/using Default Resolution. Default Resolution does not take advantage of the full resolution/pixel density of the display.

The 24" is rated as a 4.5K display, with a higher resolution than comparable 24" 4K displays. Therefore, you should have a slightly larger desktop on the iMac than you would on a 4K 24" display.

Here's how Apple handles display resolution options in System Preferences > Display on the 27" 5K iMac:

"Larger Text - Looks like 1600 x 900"
(no description) - "Looks like 2048 x 1152"
"Default - Looks like 2560 x 1440"
(no description) - "Looks like 2880 x 1620"
"More Space - Looks like 3200 x 1800"

Native resolution 5120 x 2880
Pixel density - 218 ppi

According to the 24" iMac's spec sheet:

Native resolution 4480 x 2520
Pixel density - 219 ppi

One can assume that Default is therefore half of native resolution - 2240 x 1260

Compare that to the LG Ultrafine 4k 24" display - 3840 x 2160, or a presumed Apple default of 1920 x 1080

In other words, yes, the iMac should have a somewhat larger desktop/smaller text than that LG, all other things being equal.

 

[tornado99]

But in that case 1260 lines of effective vertical resolution is actually more than a 1920x1200 16:10 display, so you would think that it would be a significant improvement on standard 1080p. Certainly for me, I always feel normal 16:10 displays are less cramped.

I guess I should wait until hopefully some more technical folk gets their hands on these. I have zero interest in Final Cut Pro or Lightroom.

 

[thingstoponder]

Of course there’s more real estate, just not THAT much. It’s not going to be like using a 27”iMac.

But in that case 1260 lines of effective vertical resolution is actually more than a 1920x1200 16:10 display, so you would think that it would be a significant improvement on standard 1080p. Certainly for me, I always feel normal 16:10 displays are less cramped.

I guess I should wait until hopefully some more technical folk gets their hands on these. I have zero interest in Final Cut Pro or Lightroom.

The 4K iMac wasn’t 1080p. It was 4096x2304, so 2048x1152 of real estate.

 

[4sallypat]

.....
The 24" is rated as a 4.5K display, with a higher resolution than comparable 24" 4K displays. Therefore, you should have a slightly larger desktop on the iMac than you would on a 4K 24" display.

Here's how Apple handles display resolution options in System Preferences > Display on the 27" 5K iMac:

"Larger Text - Looks like 1600 x 900"
(no description) - "Looks like 2048 x 1152"
"Default - Looks like 2560 x 1440"
(no description) - "Looks like 2880 x 1620"
"More Space - Looks like 3200 x 1800"

Native resolution 5120 x 2880
Pixel density - 218 ppi

According to the 24" iMac's spec sheet:

Native resolution 4480 x 2520
Pixel density - 219 ppi

One can assume that Default is therefore half of native resolution - 2240 x 1260

Compare that to the LG Ultrafine 4k 24" display - 3840 x 2160, or a presumed Apple default of 1920 x 1080

In other words, yes, the iMac should have a somewhat larger desktop/smaller text than that LG, all other things being equal.

This is correct - having used the new M1 iMac for less than a day, the 4.5K Retina display just overtakes my 24" Cinema & 27" Thunderbolt display from 10 years ago!

The 24" Retina display makes the fonts sharp, crisp, and smoother in transition compared to my old display. It's even more colorful than my 4K 21.5" iMac.

My 24" Cinema display behind the new M1 iMac is connected to my M1 Mini....

 

[tornado99]

The 24" Retina display makes the fonts sharp, crisp, and smoother in transition compared to my old display. It's even more colorful than my 4K 21.5" iMac.

But when you view a website can you actually fit more of it on the screen (at a comfortable font size) than the 21.5" iMac?

 

[4sallypat]

But when you view a website can you actually fit more of it on the screen (at a comfortable font size) than the 21.5" iMac?

Yes, the 4.5K Retina does show more "real estate" compared to the 21.5" making it "feel" like I am viewing my 27" Thunderbolt display (I don't have a 5K to compare)....

The fonts are naturally Apple on the M1 iMac which is the reason I choose Apple displays even 10 years old because they look like the Macbook font/type.

I'll have the new M1 iMac connected to the 24" Cinema display as well as the 27" Thunderbolt display and report back...

 

[jungleghost]

Yes, the 4.5K Retina does show more "real estate" compared to the 21.5" making it "feel" like I am viewing my 27" Thunderbolt display (I don't have a 5K to compare)....

The fonts are naturally Apple on the M1 iMac which is the reason I choose Apple displays even 10 years old because they look like the Macbook font/type.

I'll have the new M1 iMac connected to the 24" Cinema display as well as the 27" Thunderbolt display and report back...

The 27" Thunderbolt Display really looks too bad next the retina 4.5K display? Or it's just worse but decent enough to not bother you?

 

[4sallypat]

The 27" Thunderbolt Display really looks too bad next the retina 4.5K display? Or it's just worse but decent enough to not bother you?

I use the 27" Thunderbolt display perfectly with the 24" iMac just fine- the 27" is my text / document / web content display; while the 24" is my video & photo apps.

 

[jungleghost]

I use the 27" Thunderbolt display perfectly with the 24" iMac just fine- the 27" is my text / document / web content display; while the 24" is my video & photo apps.

WoW, seriously? The text it's not way better on the 24" iMac? I'm thinking buy a 27" TB display. But after retina screens, I'm guessing that I won't take it or get used to it.

 

[4sallypat]

WoW, seriously? The text it's not way better on the 24" iMac? I'm thinking buy a 27" TB display. But after retina screens, I'm guessing that I won't take it or get used to it.

It's the fonts that displays on the Thunderbolt that makes me continue to use it - like I have for the past 10 year on this display.

We have 3 of these displays in use and love them - large screen for text, web html, etc...

The 24" is acceptable but I prefer to use it more for video, photos, editing, etc...

 

[Amethyst1]

It's the fonts that displays on the Thunderbolt

So you like fonts that look awful?

Joking aside...

The 27” Thunderbolt Display has 109 ppi, which results in awful (blurry/fuzzy) text rendering on macOS. The 24” iMac’s display has about 220 ppi which is perfect for the vastly improved text rendering that the HiDPI (“Retina” in layman’s terms) modes provide.

I had a 27” Thunderbolt Display and fonts looked like crap on it on recent macOS. Unbearable.

In other words: users looking for a monitor that has sharp font rendering should stay the hell away from the Thunderbolt Display, because it doesn’t provide that anymore.

 

[jungleghost]

So you like fonts that look awful?

Joking aside...

The 27” Thunderbolt Display has 109 ppi, which results in awful (blurry/fuzzy) text rendering on macOS. The 24” iMac’s display has about 220 ppi which is perfect for the vastly improved text rendering that the HiDPI (“Retina” in layman’s terms) modes provide.

I had a 27” Thunderbolt Display and fonts looked like crap on it on recent macOS. Unbearable.

In other words: users looking for a monitor that has sharp font rendering should stay the hell away from the Thunderbolt Display, because it doesn’t provide that anymore.

Thank you, I'll be far away from the old TB 27".

 

[Amethyst1]

Thank you, I'll be far away from the old TB 27".

It's a bit of a shame really because it's still a decent monitor, but macOS' font rendering ruins it.

 

[jungleghost]

It's a bit of a shame really because it's still a decent monitor, but macOS' font rendering ruins it.

I'm thinking buy the LG 24UD58, it's 23.8 4K (around 185ppi) do you think it's enough to get a sharp image? For me, 32" 4K it's no way sharp, but 27" 4K it's mid level sharp, maybe the 24 4K will be "good sharp" (not perfect like the iMac, but still very very good). Both LG Ultrafine are overpriced to me.

 

[Amethyst1]

I'm thinking buy the LG 24UD58, it's 23.8 4K (around 185ppi) do you think it's enough to get a sharp image?

It’s fine to my eyes.

 

[tornado99]

I'm thinking buy the LG 24UD58, it's 23.8 4K (around 185ppi) do you think it's enough to get a sharp image? For me, 32" 4K it's no way sharp, but 27" 4K it's mid level sharp, maybe the 24 4K will be "good sharp" (not perfect like the iMac, but still very very good). Both LG Ultrafine are overpriced to me.

I find 185ppi perfectly sharp for everything I use it for. But try and get this if you can. It's a brighter panel

Electriq 24 Inch 4K UHD 60 Hz Freesync HDR Gaming Monitor

Electriq 24 Inch 4K UHD 60 Hz Freesync HDR Gaming Monitor

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[Sheepish-Lord]

I still don't get how Apple advertises the iMac 24" being a 4.5K display yet the max scaled resolution called 'More Space' is only 2560x1440...am I missing something here?

 

[jungleghost]

I still don't get how Apple advertises the iMac 24" being a 4.5K display yet the max scaled resolution called 'More Space' is only 2560x1440...am I missing something here?

You are getting full 4.5K, but the UI is at the size of 2560x1440. You can get the native size, pressing option on display settings, but everything will be super small.

 

[Amethyst1]

I still don't get how Apple advertises the iMac 24" being a 4.5K display yet the max scaled resolution called 'More Space' is only 2560x1440...am I missing something here?

The 24" iMac has a 4480×2520 display, which Apple call "4.5K". If you select the "More Space" option that "looks like 2560×1440", what actually happens is that macOS creates a framebuffer that is twice as wide and twice as tall as that resolution (i.e. 5120×2880), draws the UI elements and text etc. on that framebuffer at 200% their normal size ("HiDPI") and then downscales that to the 4480×2520 screen. This gives you screen estate equivalent to a 2560x1440 monitor yet noticeably sharper, because all the pixels of the iMac's display are still being utilised. However, this downscaling still introduces a slight blurriness that you don't get if (and only if) you use the default "looks like 2260×1240" setting. At that setting, the framebuffer is the same size as the display's native resolution so no downscaling is required and everything is pin-sharp.

 

[cyberstudio]

Over the years the iMacs have been remarkably consistent - text is the same size regardless of screen size so for more screen real estate you get a bigger screen.