I was using a 27" iMac since getting it new in 2010. I've been using the new M1 24" iMac for a month now and I absolutely do NOT miss that extra screen size. This new iMac is a huge upgrade.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anyone gone from a 27” iMac to a 24” M1
- Thread starter dimme
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Part of the huge upgrade is going from a non-retina screen to a retina screen.
When I bought my 2014 27" iMac (since sold), which was the first retina iMac made, they had it displayed in the Apple Store next to the 2013 non-retina 27" iMac. It was a revelation. Very clever. I was like: Shut up and take my money!
For those of you thinking to go from a relatively new 27" Intel iMac to the 24" M1, there are mainly two things to consider:
- Do you mind the reduced screen size?
- Do you need more than 16GB of RAM?
Broadly agree - and whilst I take many claims about how much more efficient the Unified Memory is with a large pinch of salt, my experience so far is that it does seem to handle the memory pressure being pushed in the yellow a lot better than any intel Mac I've used.
Frankly on this M1 I can't tell when I'm working the memory hard without looking at the Activity Monitor, whereas my intel Macs notify me by starting to slow down and stutter...
On that basis this machine (16GB) behaves as though it's got more RAM than my 24GB 5k iMac... Your experience may of course vary depending on what you use it for!
Edit: I should add that my intel iMac is a Late 2015 model, so a newer one may be better at handling high memory pressure than mine, so closer to the M1 experience.
Last edited:
Yes, I have the feeling that my iMac has something between 24 and 32GB of RAM. I notice zero slowdowns whatsoever, no matter what I am doing on my Mac. Even when using Final Cut Pro the memory pressure is yellow, with at least 20 apps open at the same time too.
For me 16GB is enough. This is the best iMac I have ever had.
It is not just screen size but actual screen estate in terms of "looks like" resolution = font size. For 27" 2560x1440 is usual so in 24" iMac the same is only 2240x1260. It does not sound much but it is actually noticeable.
But in case of Mac Mini M1, you could get 32" monitor and get 3008x1692 with the same size fonts as in previous examples!
Surely you can use also 2560x1440 in 24" iMac but fonts get even smaller, so it depends a lot how good eye sight is and still some may prefer larger fonts even they have good eye sight since that causes less eye strain.
I spent a few minutes setting up my new 24" today. I have not migrated stuff and done work on it yet, but I am feeling like I am not going to miss the real estate.
So I cancelled the mini and ordered the 24" iMac. Way overthought this purchase but in the end it came down to what screen I could get for my budget. For my needs the iMac is the right choice. So until it shows up I'm on my trusty old 2013 MacBook Pro (one of the best Macs I ever owned).
Last edited:
I've owned a 2010, 2013, and 2017 27" iMac over the past decade+. I was so tired of the massive dated bezels and silver and black appearance so I sold it and bought a Yellow 24" iMac. M1 was obviously a major part of that decision as well.
I'll say this, it's definitely noticeably smaller at first and you'll be wondering if you made the right choice. As the days go by though, you get used to the 24" size and the difference fades away. The joy of some color vibrancy, thinner bezels (the white is pleasant actually) and the speed of M1 will make you happy.
It also seems likely to me that the 27" won't get a straight replacement. Instead, it may be some kind of hybrid between the affordability of the 27" iMac and the power of the iMac Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if they call it the iMac "Pro" and it starts somewhere around $1,999 with upgrades quickly taking it over $3K.
I may be wrong, but if that is what they do, I'll be even happier I purchased the 24" iMac while it was fresh and new because it would be hard for me to justify the cost of the power simply for a larger screen. We'll see at some point in the next year or so.
I'll say this, it's definitely noticeably smaller at first and you'll be wondering if you made the right choice. As the days go by though, you get used to the 24" size and the difference fades away. The joy of some color vibrancy, thinner bezels (the white is pleasant actually) and the speed of M1 will make you happy.
It also seems likely to me that the 27" won't get a straight replacement. Instead, it may be some kind of hybrid between the affordability of the 27" iMac and the power of the iMac Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if they call it the iMac "Pro" and it starts somewhere around $1,999 with upgrades quickly taking it over $3K.
I may be wrong, but if that is what they do, I'll be even happier I purchased the 24" iMac while it was fresh and new because it would be hard for me to justify the cost of the power simply for a larger screen. We'll see at some point in the next year or so.
My stepfather has a 27" iMac, and I'm quite used to working on it. After using my new 24" iMac for a few weeks, I have to say I don't miss the extra screen area. I actually find the new iMac easier to capture at a glance, the larger screen area would have been mostly in my peripheral vision and so hard to concentrate on.
In terms of memory (I have a 16 GB config) I haven't been able to stress the new machine at all. I've mostly been using it for light tasks but I have to say it flies through anything I give it.
In terms of memory (I have a 16 GB config) I haven't been able to stress the new machine at all. I've mostly been using it for light tasks but I have to say it flies through anything I give it.
have you guys noticed that with a 27 inch screen you turn your head side to side to read things in windows and its tiring? is this an issue wiht the 24 inch? I kinda find that using a larger monitor and trying to have windows open on the sides is not practical. two word documents side by side for example or one in the middle and some notes on each side. I had 2 32 inch 4k monitors but I found that even using one, I had to put teh writing app in the center to feel comfortable. Also debating whether I should get the 24 inch or wait. Im thinking tis better to have slightly more space vertically than horizontally for document writing/reading when it comes to fatigue moving eyes and head around. any input?
This was probably the issue I had with my 27-inch. It was actually too big and meant I was constantly having move my neck to use the screen. When I got it back in 2015 my desk was bigger and I could have it placed about a foot further away from me, and that was great, but my new desk is smaller, and it was simply too close for comfortable use. I ended up with a lot of windows in the center of the screen, and nothing around the edges to minimize the problem.
The 24-inch screen is just about perfect. Yes, I'd prefer more space, but I can take in the entire screen at once, and not have to move my neck side to side or up and down to use it. No neck-ache at the end of the day.
The question of vertical vs. horizontal space is an interesting one that I have considered too. In fact what I have found is that I tend to work in pages in my text documents, and the 24-inch is perfectly good for that. With other types of files, including photos, videos, spreadsheets, slide decks, horizontal space is more critical anyway. In these uses, the ability to 'see' the entire width of a 24-inch screen without moving my head is a significant benefit.
I agree that the 24" is the perfect size (for me). Depending on how far away you sit from the screen, you will not have to move your head a lot to see all the contents of the screen. What I like even more though is using apps like Safari using the full width of the display. I can see almost all content with minimal head movements. On my previous 27" iMac this was just not possible.
I am not saying that 27" is a bad display size, but I think 24" is the right size for a lot of people. Of course if you are using multiple apps at once and you multitask between them a lot, then 27" is better.
I do not miss the old iMac at all and I love my M1 iMac. The display is one of the reasons.
I am not saying that 27" is a bad display size, but I think 24" is the right size for a lot of people. Of course if you are using multiple apps at once and you multitask between them a lot, then 27" is better.
I do not miss the old iMac at all and I love my M1 iMac. The display is one of the reasons.
I was not planning on down sizing, but it was forced on me, when I had to replace my 27” iMac that was not practical to fix. I did not want to by a intel Mac when everything is going to M1. I have the 24“ iMac sitting about 5 inches closer that the 27” and for the most part I prefer the size. I finding pretty much the same as stated above, when on the 27” I tend to use just the center of the scree to avoid constantly turning my head. I do miss the extra space in Lightroom, but I changed my layout a bit and it’s working for me. In the future I may add a second 24’ display for Lightroom. But for now I’m happy with the 24”.
Last edited:
I also have my iMac about 10cm closer than I had my 27" iMac. It works great and I do not regret getting the 24" model.
And I am another. My 27" 2015 up and died on me when I told it I may get a M1. Don't ever let 'em know is my advice. After the first week screen size is not an issue.
This rather depends on what you are doing. If looking at websites, I center a Safari window on the screen (I have a 27"), and for that case I agree there is no advantage in having a 27" over a 24".
But when working on two documents side by side, it is really nice to have the extra width.
Also, for photo editing software, like Lightroom where there are library/adjustment panels on each side, a larger screen dramatically increases the size of the central area one is working on. For photo editing it is almost impossible to have too big or too high resolution. I would like to have something like a 35" 8k screen.
Also, for working on engineering drawings it is nice to be able to see the entire drawing in high resolution without constantly zooming in and out.
Just bit the bullet and went back to the 27" iMac. I definitely liked the overall design of the new 24", but there were two things that annoyed me to the point of making the change. First, Airplay to HomePods is wonky. It works after a fresh boot, but often doesn't work after waking from sleep. It works fine on Intel Macs and all my iOS devices. Second, the more I used it, the more I missed the larger display. Yes, I could have waited for the new, larger iMac, but when I can easily address something that annoys me, I do. If the 24" display works for you and you either don't use Airplay or don't mind it not working sometimes, then the 24" machine is certainly worth a look. Also, Touch ID is a great feature.
That's not good advice. Just because the RAM access on M1 is faster doesn't mean that the physical allocation has changed at all.
An app that requires a minimum amount of memory will continue to use the same amount, regardless whether it is running on an Apple Silicon or Intel Mac. It really worries me that people - specially reviewers - are purporting the idea that speed determines the purpose of RAM, without considering other factors such as the SSD die installed.
Moreover; the idea that with unified memory being faster you don't need as much capacity, since you can just 'swap' the data - that is very reckless in terms of the health of the system.
I own an M1 Mac mini and Intel MacBook Pro, and both devices use almost the same amount of RAM (If anything, the M1 uses more). Lightroom continues to gobble up as much RAM as you can throw at it, and regardless of speed, the swap usage is very high.
For me it's more so about resolution and usable desktop area than size. If you're going to offer me a 27" with a fixed 2560x1440 usable res versus a 23.5" with up to 4.5k scaled usable desktop area, I'll take the 23.5" any day. Both are Retina of course and have this option, but I'm willing to downgrade the size of the screen if I'm not losing major working resolution.
Sure, a 27" or larger looks nice when viewing media and is quite impressive, what really matters at the end of the day is how the resolution affects your work flow. However I am used to displays with a minimum height of 12 inches and this is less than that, but I'm sure in practice it would work quite fine...
Sure, a 27" or larger looks nice when viewing media and is quite impressive, what really matters at the end of the day is how the resolution affects your work flow. However I am used to displays with a minimum height of 12 inches and this is less than that, but I'm sure in practice it would work quite fine...
I'm definitely in the market for a new machine, having had my late-2013 27" iMac, and seeing it slow down this last year. It has 32GB of RAM, but all this talk about needing only 16GB of RAM on the new 24" machines has me wondering if that will be enough down the road in three to four years. I personally do work in Photoshop as well as other graphic apps like 3D. Then there's Apple Music going to lossless format. How well does all that work with only 16GB?