Pretty boring with the same form factor and ugly chin. I was hoping for something gorgeous looking that made me want to go out and buy one. Something that looks sleek, modern and progressive in my home office. Oh well, looks like my 2014 iMac will have to continue to collect dust.
It is those things. Apple isn’t going to do change for change’s sake. It’s a flat screen, not something from The Jetsons.
It was “fast” but only the speeds were pleasing. If you are not in the market for a MacBook Pro, then this is of limited interest.
NO replacement for a 27” iMac? Come on Apple ‘what were you thinking?’ This isn’t going to scare any competitors. A 30” iMac with a choice of M3 processors and especially the M3 Max with 64Gb of unified memory might have done the trick!
Well, the 5K is now officially dead, or on extended hiatus. The 24" iMac has been minimally improved to keep up; however, with only the basic M3 and support for only one external display, it's a glorified, all-in-one home computer. Maybe next year they will give us a 30-32" with an M3 Max. Basically stuffing an entry Mac Studio into a 5-6K display that can handle 64G of unified memory and at least two more 5K displays. And please keep the chins. I need a place for all the Post-Its...
The only way to get a 27" 5K display, an actual replacement for the 27" iMac, is to get the Studio Display ($1599) and pair it with a Mac mini ($1299, M2 10/16 core, 16GB, 512GB). The base M3 is not that much faster than the base M3. This system would cost in the $2900 range. The M3 iMac only has 8/10 cores, 16GB 512GB for $1900, less powerful and smaller screen. The iMacs are now only for schools, some businesses and general home use, not for businesses needing to do real work. Apple has decided, and it might be valid, that separating the display from the computer is the best way for heavier users going forward. Sure, get a laptop but they're only for people with good eyesight and for those who already have or are willing to buy an external display or two or three. The base Mac Studio M2 Max isn't that much more than the top end Mac mini ($700 more) with much more room for growth. The Intel Mac I'm using right now is a fully blown 2019 model with top end graphics card and 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD. It cost almost $6K. Add the 2TB storage to the base Studio ($2599 M2 Max, 12/30 cores, 32GB, 2TB) and use the Studio Display ($1599) and for $4200 it absolutely blows my 8-core i9 to smithereens. This really is the successor to the 27" iMac. Both the Mac mini and Mac Studio don't take up much room, fitting underneath the Studio Display. Time to get used to it.
It makes me nervous when Apple keeps talking about graphics when talking performance increase. Even the new chip features they talked about were graphics focused. Not everyone is doing high end graphics work. Sound like these chips are all about Vision Pro and the graphics workload they will have. Have to wait for sites to test but I wonder if doing audio will benefit. Audio work on M1 and M2 are about the same so how much will it change with M3.
Apple is also making a push towards gaming which was also mentioned in this event. Every event they're mentioning games recently. You take Apple's very impressive GPU performance numbers with the M3 family along with the improvements in macOS and the things Apple is doing to make creating Apple Silicon games easier I think Apple is really trying finally. It's only a matter of time before a big gaming studio starts creating Apple Silicon games not only for the Mac, but also iOS and iPadOS. So it's more than just GPU intensive tasks.
I wouldn't call the M3 GPU "impressive" without comparing it to other GPU's from Nvidia and AMD. I found interesting that Apple didn't compare their GPU with the competition. Maybe Nvidia and AMD still ahead. We'll see soon.
As others in this thread noted, the 24" iMac M3 was offered as a replacement for eitherthe 21.5" or27" Intel iMacs. That seemed odd to me. I wonder if that means we won't see a larger iMac any time soon (if ever).
Maybe we'll see a 24" iMac with M3 Pro or M3 Ultra -- in Space Black -- before too long. Matching 24" 4.5K displays would be nice too.
When Apple said explicitly that the 24" is designed to replace both 21" and 27", it suggests there won't be a bigger model. It's an average of both (21 + 27) / 2 = 24, (4K + 5K) / 2 = 4.5K. Exactly in the middle.
The 24" can probably handle an M3 Pro chip, M3 Max is a bit much, M3 Ultra is definitely not possible.
It doesn't rule out a larger model in future but there probably aren't 6K panels available that are cheap enough. The following Dell 32" 8K is $4k:
The only way to get a 27" 5K display, an actual replacement for the 27" iMac, is to get the Studio Display ($1599) and pair it with a Mac mini ($1299, M2 10/16 core, 16GB, 512GB). The base M3 is not that much faster than the base M3. This system would cost in the $2900 range. The M3 iMac only has 8/10 cores, 16GB 512GB for $1900, less powerful and smaller screen. The iMacs are now only for schools, some businesses and general home use, not for businesses needing to do real work. Apple has decided, and it might be valid, that separating the display from the computer is the best way for heavier users going forward. Sure, get a laptop but they're only for people with good eyesight and for those who already have or are willing to buy an external display or two or three. The base Mac Studio M2 Max isn't that much more than the top end Mac mini ($700 more) with much more room for growth. The Intel Mac I'm using right now is a fully blown 2019 model with top end graphics card and 72GB RAM, 2TB SSD. It cost almost $6K. Add the 2TB storage to the base Studio ($2599 M2 Max, 12/30 cores, 32GB, 2TB) and use the Studio Display ($1599) and for $4200 it absolutely blows my 8-core i9 to smithereens. This really is the successor to the 27" iMac. Both the Mac mini and Mac Studio don't take up much room, fitting underneath the Studio Display. Time to get used to it.
"The iMacs are now only for schools, some businesses and general home use, not for businesses needing to do real work."
Just like how it was when the iMac was first introduced 25 years ago.
Comments
The 24" iMac has been minimally improved to keep up; however, with only the basic M3 and support for only one external display, it's a glorified, all-in-one home computer.
Maybe next year they will give us a 30-32" with an M3 Max. Basically stuffing an entry Mac Studio into a 5-6K display that can handle 64G of unified memory and at least two more 5K displays.
And please keep the chins. I need a place for all the Post-Its...
The 24" can probably handle an M3 Pro chip, M3 Max is a bit much, M3 Ultra is definitely not possible.
It doesn't rule out a larger model in future but there probably aren't 6K panels available that are cheap enough. The following Dell 32" 8K is $4k:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories
What would be more likely to happen is the 27" panels get cheap enough that the 24" can become a 27" model. That won't be for a few years though.
They can even sit on a shelf under the desk, under the stand or on the back of the stand because the Studio Display has ports on it.
Just like how it was when the iMac was first introduced 25 years ago.