Which model has the best specs? Is the top of the line (512gb) overkill or should I buy the 256gb storage middle one? There are 3 different models advertised on Apple’s web site. I’m leaning toward the high end iMac. Not sure what color. I like the orange or silver.
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.
Apple Announces New iMac With M3 Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Have you seen a MacBook Pro??? Those are thinner than the iMac with the M3 Max.
It was very popular with professional users, especially graphic designers and video editors, and was often used in such production facilities. Especially when the 2013 Mac Pro came out and alienated a bunch of Pro users, they began to turn to the 27" Retina iMac, especially since it had a good variety of I/O ports (four USB 3.0, two Thunderbolt, Gigabit Ethernet, SD card slot), a beautiful 5K display, user-upgradeable RAM... this is why in 2017 Apple responded to that with the iMac Pro.
My college campus still has several 27" 5K iMacs in use in the Fine Arts building, but now they are looking to upgrade to Apple Silicon Macs. But since there's currently no pro-level iMac, they are considering either the M2 Pro Mac Mini or the Mac Studio; then they can at least use decent third-party UHD 27" displays with those.
It took Apple longer than 2 years to solder a new chip into the same old machine? Magical
I have an M1 MacBook Air and my daughter in college has a M2 MacBook Air. They are extraordinary machines that do a TON of real work. There is now a M3 MacBook Pro for sale. The M3 iMac is a real computer, it is not a toy. If you need more power you can get it in a M3 Pro or M3 Max MacBook Pro and by spring probably in a M3 Pro or Max Mac Studio. The M2 Pro and M2 Max Studio also has more power than the M3 today if you need it. The computer is no toy, if you need more fine... but don't make the M3 seem like it isn't a fast computer, because it is.
Oh please.
The iMac as incarnated in by Steve Jobs was intended for schools and home computers. That is the reason it exists. That has always been the reason it has existed.
If you think otherwise, you apparently came to the iMac during a brief period when Apple needed to show a beefier computer because their Mac Pro line was flailing.
Apple is always touting their use of recycled materials. Well, they just outdid themselves by recycling the old 24 inch iMac. What a letdown.
Do you feel comfortable with setting up an external SSD as your boot drive? Not difficult to do and a way to save a lot of money. However, if you've never installed MacOS before you might feel uncomfortable doing so. It's a decision that depends solely on comfort level and price.
You will find on the Apple Store that if you select either of those models you can then modify them to be any other configuration before checkout.
The Mac Pro is basically groupled with the Mini and Mac Studio. All three are systems would very much like you to buy an XDR display to work with.
The two camps in Apple are more likely:
1. "Green" ( bundled screens should be avoided on non laptops... very similar stuff the xMac folks grumbled about for over a decade. )
2. "Max Perf/Watt" ( on package RAM to lower power overhead. on package SSD controller to lower power overhead. on package GPU to lower power overhead , etc etc. etc. )
The iMac 24" shape in part comes from the fact they are laser focused on #2. They are putting plain Mn's into iPad Pros and iMac gets just as thin. The thin leads to less weight which is a "Green" offset since it has lower carbon impact to transport ( and store/inventory ).
The Mac Pro is a 'Mac'. In the modern era , the RAM , iGPU etc are what they are for all Macs. I think folks wishing the Mac Pro to go off on some Threadripper/Xeon W 'killer' tangent are fooling themselves. There is no financial rational motivation there for Apple to fork off that far in that direction for a very , very relatively low volume product all by itself.
The iMac 24" probably won't get killed. As long as M4 , M5 , M6 , etc get progressive improvements the performance zone that the iMac 24" will cover will grow over time. There are 'student lab' and other settings where the all-in-one device is just easier to secure.
Not any more telling that a '1 year later' Pencil for the iPad 10th generation. They aren't executing and/or it isn't a priority. It is also cheaper for them ( bill of materials costs). The fact that the EU is forcing them to switch rather than a situation where they were internally motivated to switch , makes it not surprising at all they are dragging their feet where they can.
Apple moved the iMac 24" to USB-C so they don't really have to do much there. The EU statues allow 'old' products to keep on shipping ... so if they don't change the mouse/trackpad/keyboard then don't have to move to USB-C. In the mean time the giant pile of USB-C to Lighting cable providers can keep selling product (including Apple).
That is a huge stretch. The chassis of the MBP 14"/16" didn't really change at all either. The Mini is still the same basic form factor as it was in the Intel era. etc. etc.
More so says that Apple doesn't send large amount of Mac stuff through the Design group at any one time. If Apple makes large changes to Mac X then Mac Y doesn't move.
Apple has charted a path. The main problem is that Apple's path when it comes to screen tech is usually glacially slow. Apple's discrete docking-station monitors are sold for more than several years at a time with no changes. As much as an iMac adopts a 'blessed' screen tech by Apple , it is also assuming that "long time no changes" constraint also.
When Apple does a major change in screen tech then the iMac might change. Until then , same old chassis with same old screen.
You know that’s all great that they are coming out with the new iMacs, I‘ve always loved iMacs, had one before, but it would have been nice if they made darker options, or if they I dunno just made a red and black one? I dunno maybe it’s because I just love red stuff? Anyways this line at the end of the keynote cracked me up, all in the same breath John Ternus says “the new iMac is up to 2.5x more faster than our most POPULAR 27’ intel iMac and up to 4x faster than our most POWERFUL 21.5’ intel iMac. Like….what? That’s probably the most underhanded way of trying to sell people on the idea of buying a computer I’ve heard Apple do in awhile. It would at least not be as bad if Apple had a PDF where you could read what computers they are talking about, along with when they showed all those graphs.
I think it’s more that the computer buying public, in general, doesn’t want all-in-ones. Apple is not-making the systems that people as a whole are not-buying.
Makes sense! If the performance of the M3 isn’t needed, there’s little the iMac offers.
I know, right? The first iMac was literally a bright blue fisher price “family’s first Mac”.
Well that was an embarrassing presentation, “Big”, No Apple, thats been a small display for quite a while now, hence why you used to have a 27 inch option. It is also NOT an ideal display to go to if you had a iMac that was bigger before. Neither I nor a ton of other people are going to be interested in this till it does have a bigger display.
Got to wonder if they’re just trying to get people to buy a Mac mini or Mac Studio at this point.
Got to wonder if they’re just trying to get people to buy a Mac mini or Mac Studio at this point.
The same reason we’re not going to get an M4 iMac. it’s not on an annual release cycle and there’s really no reason for it to be. I think every two years is a reasonable upgrade cycle. The only reason we got an M2 versus M1 Air is the form factor change.
Yes 100%, although if it ever did exist I would assume it would be priced lower than Studio+Studio Display.
I’m glad it’s moved away away from that ugly space gray look
Only 100GB of bandwidth for the M3 in the iMac. They crippled it. Guess they really wanted to hit a price point. Yikes. The new M3 base MBP have a much better matched 300GB. Then of course max out at a blazing 400GB.
Last edited:
Also, it’s a logical way to keep the MacBook Air a step behind the Pro line, which is entirely fair and reasonable. The MacBook Air didn’t become trash just because the M3 chip was released. It’s very much like the iPhone strategy these days.
That being said, it would make more sense for the Air to have the base chip, and the Pro line to have the others. But honestly, is this that big a deal? The MacBook Air is fantastic for the intended audience.
Exactly this. You can have a maxed out Mac Pro and if you’re browsing the web or editing word documents, there’s going to be no noticeable difference between that and the base model MacBook Air. Not everyone has a YouTube channel where they need to edit 8K video.
I wouldn’t be surprised if those crying for a 32in. iMac are largely the vocal minority around here. And if they had gotten a 32in. iMac they would have been wailing loudly over the price.