Confused about maximum display resolution of iMac 21.5" 2019

Question

Level 2

230 points

Confused about maximum display resolution of iMac 21.5" 2019

Hi,

My Late 2013 iMac 27" has just failed, and I'm looking to replace it with a used iMac which can natively run both Mojave (because I still use some Mojave apps) and the latest OS, Sequoia. I've settled on either the 27" 2019 iMac 19,1 model, or the 21.5" 2019 iMac 19,2 model.

Ideally I'd get the 27" (I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a reasonably priced one), but a used 21.5" is currently available, and I'm wondering if it will be sufficient for my needs. I recognise it's not as powerful, but I'm OK with that, but my main concern is that the screen resolution is big enough.

I'm used to a 2560 x 1440 pixel resolution on my old iMac 2013, and my hope is that the 4096 x 2304 of the 21.5" iMac 2019 will actually mean I can fit more on the screen (a good thing), but I'm not sure if this is the case, as it's a Retina screen.

My question: Does the 21.5" iMac 2019 maximum resolution actually allow more on the screen than my old 27" iMac 2013? Can anyone please provide a screen grab from a 21.5" iMac 2019 at it's maximum resolution for comparison purposes?

Ultimately, if the 21.5" iMac 2019 fits more stuff on the screen than my 27" iMac 2013, then I'd be happy, even though things would presumably appear smaller than I'm used to on my old iMac 27" 2013.

Thanks.

Posted on Sep 27, 2024 4:41 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Top-ranking reply

Servant of Cats

Level 8

36,833 points

Sep 27, 2024 4:48 PM in response to Gerb

Gerb wrote:

I'm used to a 2560 x 1440 pixel resolution on my old iMac 2013, and my hope is that the 4096 x 2304 of the 21.5" iMac 2019 will actually mean I can fit more on the screen (a good thing), but I'm not sure if this is the case, as it's a Retina screen.

No. Not if you want to keep things readable. Your eyes are sensitive to physical size. The increased resolution of the Retina screen means that the 21.5" Retina 4K iMac can draw things sharper, and in more detail, than the older 27" 2.5K iMac can. But the ideal setting for that iMac will be Retina "like 2048 x 1152" mode. You may be able to crank Displays {Preferences/Settings} up a notch towards More Space, at the expense of smaller text/object size. Crank the setting all the way to 4096 x 2304 and you will basically be viewing a 2x2 stack of 10.75" screens, each containing minuscule versions of the things that would normally fit onto a single 21.5" screen. That is more or less guaranteed to be unreadable, and is why Apple came up with Retina modes.

Analogy: Commercial printing presses have resolutions much greater than any display (even Retina displays) – but you don't see publishers printing books in 2- and 3-point type ("to fit more on the paper") just because they can.

Reply

Answer 2

Sep 27, 2024 5:08 PM in response to Gerb

Gerb wrote:

I've never used the default resolution on any other iMac or MacBook Pro I've owned; always used the very highest resolution available without issue, and could cope with at least the next jump up I expect.

I saw the latest 16" Macbook Pro Liquid Retina XDR in an Apple Store yesterday, and tried out the highest resolution via the Advanced options on the Display settings pane — so 3456x2234 native resolution at 254 pixels per inch according to the specs. The screen real estate was huge, but things became just a bit too small to be usable. I'm hoping the 4096 x 2304 of the 21.5" iMac 2019 would be something between that and the 2560 x 1440 of my old iMac 2019 27".

Rough PPI numbers (from a calculator):

(27" iMac) 2560x1440 pixels on a 27" screen => 108.8 PPI
(21.5" 4K Retina iMac) 4096x2304 pixels on a 21.5" screen => 218.6 PPI
(16" M3-family MBP) 3456x2234 pixels on a 16" screen => 257.1 PPI

If you run all three machines at full resolution, without using any Retina modes, text and objects on the 21.5" iMac will only be about 1/4 as big on the 21.5" iMac as on the 27" iMac. Text and objects will be even smaller on the 16" MBP.

Reply

Answer 3

dialabrain

Level 10

136,349 points

Sep 27, 2024 6:02 AM in response to Gerb

You're welcome. I guess to put it another way, you couldn't get more on the screen at the default resolution. At 4096 x 2304 you could but it would be impossible to read.

Reply

Answer 4

dialabrain

Level 10

136,349 points

Sep 27, 2024 4:53 AM in response to Gerb

FWIW, most humans could not read anything at 4096 x 2304 on a 21.5" screen. The default resolution would be about half that.

Reply

Answer 5

dialabrain

Level 10

136,349 points

Sep 27, 2024 6:25 AM in response to Gerb

Well, to give you an idea here's a screen shot from my 24" M3 iMac at 4480 x 2520. I sure couldn't work that way. :)

Reply

Answer 6

Gerb Author

Level 2

230 points

Sep 27, 2024 6:19 AM in response to dialabrain

I've never used the default resolution on any other iMac or MacBook Pro I've owned; always used the very highest resolution available without issue, and could cope with at least the next jump up I expect.

I saw the latest 16" Macbook Pro Liquid Retina XDR in an Apple Store yesterday, and tried out the highest resolution via the Advanced options on the Display settings pane — so 3456x2234 native resolution at 254 pixels per inch according to the specs. The screen real estate was huge, but things became just a bit too small to be usable. I'm hoping the 4096 x 2304 of the 21.5" iMac 2019 would be something between that and the 2560 x 1440 of my old iMac 2019 27".

Reply

Answer 7

Gerb Author

Level 2

230 points

Sep 28, 2024 2:31 AM in response to Servant of Cats

Thanks - yes, that makes sense, especially with the print example. My hope is that I'll basically get the same equivalent real estate on the 21.5" 2019 Retina that I enjoyed on the 2013 27" iMac, even with a physically smaller screen.

It seems that I may actually get more than that (by which time it becomes unreadable at 4096 x 2304) but if there's a stop down from the maximum then that still seem like it would fit the bill. Perhaps something between 2048 x 1152 and 4096 x 2304, as you suggest.

Reply

Answer 8

Gerb Author

Level 2

230 points

Sep 27, 2024 5:51 AM in response to dialabrain

Thanks — yes, that's an extension of my question too really; I don't (currently) have access to the 21.5" iMac to check either way, so am very much reliant on others to advise.

Reply

Answer 9

Gerb Author

Level 2

230 points

Sep 27, 2024 6:24 AM in response to Gerb

Edit: deleted (reply duplicated my reply somehow).

Reply

Answer 10

Gerb Author

Level 2

230 points

Sep 27, 2024 6:36 AM in response to dialabrain

Thanks — that's very helpful. Certainly gives me a rough idea of what it might be like, assuming the 2019 model scales similarly, and has a similar number of pixels per inch.

Reply