Viewable Screen Dimensions of New MacBook Pros

I currently have a Mac mini with a non-retina 27" monitor. The only way I would get one of the new MacBook Pros is to use it w/o using my external monitor. To clear my desk I would use the Mac mini as an always-on, headless machine (I may have another question about that later). Does anyone know the viewable screen dimensions of the 14" and 16" (height/width) MacBook Pros? I want to mimic this on my current monitor. I understand that I won’t be able to mimic the resolution but that’s OK.

From the specs:

Width: 14.01 inches (35.57 cm)
Depth: 9.77 inches (24.81 cm)

And as I recall, they made a lot of the 3mm border on the release show, so the dimensions above -6mm should be about right.

True for the top and sides, but not only does the bottom bezel appear a bit thicker, we also have to take into account the hinge as well.

Taking John’s width (which should be pretty close), maybe we can get to the height for the 16” using some math:

35.57cm wide - 6mm bezels = 34.97cm
3456 pixels wide / 34.97cm = 98.8 pixels per cm (equivalent to 251 pixels to inch, close enough to the published value of 254 I’d say our math checks out)
2234 pixels tall / 98.8 pixels per cm = 22.6cm

So 34.97cm x 22.6cm.

2cm for the bottom bezel and hinge seem pretty reasonable.

Same for the 14”:
31.26cm wide - 6mm bezels = 30.66cm
3024 pixels wide / 31.26cm = 96.7 pixels per cm (equivalent to 245 pixels to inch, a bit further from published value of 254 so the math may be a bit more dodgy this time)
1964 pixels tall / 96.7 pixels per cm = 20.3cm

31.26cm x 20.3cm

Again, about 2cm shorter than the notebook’s published height. Seems reasonable. Maybe @JohnAtl can check my math.

The dimensions I quoted are the closed dimensions, so no need to subtract the hinge.
The bottom bezel does seem a bit thicker than the other three though. Maybe 6mm.

Looking at it in Acorn with the rulers on, the top looks to be 3mm according to the ruler, which would put the bottom at ~6mm.


Width: 14.01 inches (35.57 cm)
Depth: 9.77 inches (24.81 cm)

35.57cm - (3mm+3mm) ~= 34.97cm (13.77 Americans)
24.81cm - (3mm+6mm) ~= 23.91cm (9.41 Americans)

That doesn’t math though.
sqrt((13.77^2)+(9.41^2)) = 16.67 Americans diagonally, so the bottom bezel must be taller(?), or wider bezels all around.


By the hinge, I’m referring to the space between the ‘deck’ and the bottom edge of the lid. That alone looks at least as wide as the size bezels, plus that bottom bezel looks quite a lot thicker than the side or top ones.

1 Like

Yes, you’re right. I didn’t think about it pivoting like that.
If you subtract 3cm from the depth (height to me), it makes it work out to
sqrt((13.77^2)+(8.6^2)) = 16.23 Americans.

Thank you to @JohnAtl and @ChrisUpchurch. Do you know how many times I’ve scrolled past those dimensions? Maybe my inability to see this gives me my answer. Not only just stick with the Mac mini and a 27" monitor, maybe I need to lower the resolution to 1152 X 648. Thank y’all for the calculations. Y’all had that done before I could even find my slide rule.


Turns out we could have just used this screen size calculator. :slight_smile:

Worth noting is that the 16.2" diagonal screen has about one third of the screen area as a 27" screen.

118" vs. 327.6"

Nice tool. So that makes the 16" 3:2 ratio?

They don’t mention it explicitly, that I’ve found, but it’s probably 16:10.

1 Like

3456/2234 = 1.547
3024/1964 = 1.540

16:10.34 ?

Maybe the pixels aren’t square?

Or maybe everything below the notch is 16:10, with that extra .34 being bonus real estate on either side of the notch?

1 Like

Yeah, seems like someone said you get the same amount of uninterrupted screen as the previous 16", and pushing the menubar up around the notch is a bonus because the menubar doesn’t occupy uninterrupted area.