If you didn't have big storage & RAM needs, I'd point you to many of the same Macs offered above. But since you do, I'll throw out the more radical option: go PC. There's much competition there for upgraded commodity items like RAM & SSD, which drives those costs wayyyyyyyyyy down. There's ZERO competition for those in Mac, so Apple takes full advantage- and then some- as sole, "Company Store" charging 3X-5X market rates for stuff like that.
Not being so resolution finicky, Windows will nicely scale to
ANY monitor resolution, so that will also let you off the "5K Retina or bust" train that demands an expensive premium for (minimal competition) 5K monitors. So you can save a
LOT of relative cash there too.
PC is about Power vs. PPC. While you won't use the least power possible for select tasks, more power generally means
faster computing, so you'll get computing intensive tasks done faster by using more power. Yes, your desktop may run a little hotter, fans may run a little faster, etc... as one should expect when using more power. But the long-term pursuit of computing has always been
FASTER computing, not maximum power efficiency. The latter has only popped up among us Apple people as part of the rationale for "why silicon?"... and then Apple wins all such contests when PPC is made out to be a big deal vs. raw power. I notice no difference in the monthly electric bill.
PC will run far more software than Mac. If you have interest in software not available for Mac, you'll likely find it for PC. Much of the Mac stalwarts run on PC too. However, PC also has key
Apple apps such as Music, TV, etc, so you can easily move synching of Apple iDevices to PC, managing a big music and/or video collection there, etc.
If there is a few things that only Mac can do, maybe put the heavy lifting stuff (that needs all that RAM & SSD) on a new PC and add perhaps a modestly-equipped Mac Mini or MBair for the Mac apps that have no equivalent.
In embracing Silicon, we lose "bootcamp", which is a tremendous loss for those of us who
want Mac but
need Windows (too). So when I went Silicon, I added a Mac Mini-like PC too (
like this one), which I loaded up with 10TB of FAST SSD and 32GB of RAM (and a good graphics card). The whole thing cost LESS than
only the 8TB SSD upgrade at Apple "maximize for shareholders" pricing.
THE COLD HARD NUMBERS PART
Applying OPs hardware target by rounding up to 4TB SSD, Apple's $1200 price for that SSD upgrade
alone would buy that entire PC, OP could put in a fast
4TB m.2 drive and the
64GB RAM and still have some money left over for more... plus 2 more SSD slots open for whenever OP would like MORE internal storage. Both parts would be upgradable and/or replaceable at
any time in the future should either fail or OP just needs to grow into 8TB SSD... and that computer also offers 2 more empty SSD slots in which OP could fatten up storage many times above the current need (to 24TB internally as soon as NOW). Choose a Mac and need more RAM OR SSD at some point or have either part go bad and OP has to replace the
entire computer... exactly what OP is facing now with that iMac.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong: compare that PC with 4TB and 64GB for < $1200 vs. the equivalent config in a Mac... which I think is the minimum Studio MAX with 64GB and 4TB of Apple upgrades at $3599. The only other choice would be MBpro in clamshell mode but that config requires significant upgrades resulting in a $4699 price. So basically,
OP can pay about $1200 for a 64GB/4TB PC vs. either $3599 or $4699 for the 2 most accessible Macs that can be configured that way.
Unless I'm missing a cheaper Mac that can be configured with 64GB RAM and 4TB SSD as OP wants, my suggestion might be to shift the heavy lifting to a PC and pair it with maybe a refurb M2 Mac mini with 24GB RAM and 1TB SSD for $1189. Spend $2400 to get
BOTH that loaded PC and a pretty good Mac for Apple-specific needs or:
- spend $3599+ for only a 64GB/4TB Mac new... or
- refurb Mac Studio with aging M1 for $3149... or a
- minimal "internal" storage refurb Mac and then buying third party SSD in an external.
The lowest cost option for #3 appears to be a new minimal spec M2 Mac Studio upgraded to 64GB at Apple pricing but only 512GB SSD for $2399... and then paying a couple hundred for a 4TB
external SSD on top of that... basically approx.
doubling the price of the PC
with 4TB SSD and 64GB RAM
INSIDE. OP says he doesn't want attached storage, so this cheapest Mac option #3 is barely an option at about
TWICE the price. If OP rejects #3, hello nearly 3X the price.
MY OWN iMAC-TO-SILICON+PC EXPERIENCE
When I added a PC to my own Silicon Mac setup, I thought I would use it for Windows-only apps for client work but, over time, I've been giving it more and more to do: the more compute-demanding tasks because Power is
faster than PPW.
Contrary to popular spin by fans, Windows 11 is quite good. If you think you'll need some "old fashioned bootcamp" too (as ARM Windows is NOT full Windows), this should influence choice of monitor... likely ruling out ASD in favor of one with at least 2 inputs so it can be used with
both platforms. After > 10 years of iMac, I chose the
Dell 5K2K 40" ultrawide and it is fannnnnnnntastic! Screen looks as good as the old iMac but it provides so much more screen R.E. It has multiple inputs so both Mac and PC
share it... and it can even split screen to have both on screen
at the same time. A built-in (loaded) hub can make both share the
same keyboard and mouse too.
I'm a 24-year Apple everything guy... but modern Apple Inc is eroding my goodwill/halo view by charging way too much relatively for RAM & SSD, applying too much "lock down" etc. So while it may seem crazy for a long-term Apple guy to suggest consideration for a PC, it's only as crazy as thinking through how much of your "load" could possibly shift to PC and then perhaps putting a modest Mac in place with it for whatever app needs remain... or for a little Apple app polish.
