> the slightly higher density of the Times version (compare row by row)

I don't think that's the comparison you want to draw? The rows appear to hold very similar amounts of text.

But the rows on the left, in Times New Roman, are shorter than the rows on the right. So even though "one row" holds the same amount of text, one column-inch of Times New Roman holds more rows.

The Times New Roman looks more readable to me because it has thicker strokes. This isn't really an issue in a digital font; you can't accidentally apply a thin layer of black to a pixel and let the color underneath show through.