I love the 27" iMac. It should not come back.

[redheeler]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

edit: Someone asked for info about the conversion boards so here's a link to that thread: DIY 5k Monitor - success

 

[Jackbequickly]

I have owned 2 27” iMacs and loved them. If Apple were to introduce a new and updated one, I would sure take a look!

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

My first Mac was an iMac G3 DV+ bought in 2000. Since then, I've had several other Macs, including a MacPro, Mac Mini, a couple of 21.5" iMacs. I now have a 24" iMac M1. And it's perfect for my needs. I am that type of consumer that the iMac was originally aimed at; need it for basic everyday tasks, but also want to be able to do photo editing, video stuff and bit of audio etc. And the odd game. My M1 does it all, effortlessly. I'm not a 'pro' (although I do sometimes work professionally using my iMac), so don't need mega fast ultra cutting edge tech. The display size is perfect; I've tried larger and don't like it. So thanks to Apple for making exactly what I want.

 

[Jackbequickly]

Having choices is always good!

 

[theluggage]

The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

I don't personally like the form-over-function design of the 24" but it fills the need for a reasonably powerful, self-contained desktop ...and is very much the "spiritual successor" to the original iMac, as well as being more powerful and having a larger/better display than the outgoing "small" 21.5" iMac.

The trouble with 5k was that it's only really of interest to Mac users because the Mac OS is somewhat optimised for 220ppi. In Windows, which has a fully-scalable UI (swings and roundabouts) it's still nice but not generally worth the extra cost over 4k (and, when 5k originally appeared, 5k required dual cables & driver/GPU support). Consequently, its going to be an expensive, niche product. The entry-level 5k iMac was always something of a bargain by Apple standards (they were probably getting a smaller profit margin than they normally like) but that assumed that a 5k, 27", 16:9 glossy display was exactly what you wanted. Personally, I wanted a dual, matched display setup even if it wasn't quite up to 5k standards.

The other thing is that the potential market for the 5k iMac has likely been decimated - and not only because the 24" is good enough for many lower-end iMac customers. The general industry trend is towards laptops and mini-PCs anyway. Also, with Intel, iMacs offered more powerful desktop-class CPUs and flying-brick-class (if not desktop) GPUs which were too big and power-hungry for MacBooks. With Apple Silicon, they'd be using the self same Mx Pro and Mx Max systems-on-a-chip as the MacBook Pro and delivering much the same performance. I suspect that the main successor to the 5k iMac is going to be a MacBook Pro and the large screen of your choice. The Studio Display design is evidence of that - apart from the usual Apple penny-pinching (no height adjustment as standard, no secondary video inputs) and form-over-function (too thin for a proper mains plug) a lot of the "over engineering" comes from building in a massive but ultra-slim power supply so that it can charge a MacBook (completely unnecessary if you have a Mac Studio/Mini).

Having choices is always good!

Yes, it would be great if Apple could make a large screen iMac and a decent headless desktop range - but both ranges would be competing for a dwindling pool of desktop sales. Apple seem to have a pretty high bar for what constitutes a large-enough market, and don't even commit enough resources to keep the existing range completely up to date.

Even so - do you want a "large" iMac with a 27" screen, 30" screen or 32" screen? Do you want to pay extra for a "pro XDR" class miniLED display? OLED? There are a lot of display choices around now, and a headless system lets you pick and choose (4k works better with Mac than people seem to think. and there's even 4 choices of 220ppi display now - Studio Display, Pro XDR, Samsung 5k, Dell 6K).

 

[Jackbequickly]

I don't personally like the form-over-function design of the 24" but it fills the need for a reasonably powerful, self-contained desktop ...and is very much the "spiritual successor" to the original iMac, as well as being more powerful and having a larger/better display than the outgoing "small" 21.5" iMac.

The trouble with 5k was that it's only really of interest to Mac users because the Mac OS is somewhat optimised for 220ppi. In Windows, which has a fully-scalable UI (swings and roundabouts) it's still nice but not generally worth the extra cost over 4k (and, when 5k originally appeared, 5k required dual cables & driver/GPU support). Consequently, its going to be an expensive, niche product. The entry-level 5k iMac was always something of a bargain by Apple standards (they were probably getting a smaller profit margin than they normally like) but that assumed that a 5k, 27", 16:9 glossy display was exactly what you wanted. Personally, I wanted a dual, matched display setup even if it wasn't quite up to 5k standards.

The other thing is that the potential market for the 5k iMac has likely been decimated - and not only because the 24" is good enough for many lower-end iMac customers. The general industry trend is towards laptops and mini-PCs anyway. Also, with Intel, iMacs offered more powerful desktop-class CPUs and flying-brick-class (if not desktop) GPUs which were too big and power-hungry for MacBooks. With Apple Silicon, they'd be using the self same Mx Pro and Mx Max systems-on-a-chip as the MacBook Pro and delivering much the same performance. I suspect that the main successor to the 5k iMac is going to be a MacBook Pro and the large screen of your choice. The Studio Display design is evidence of that - apart from the usual Apple penny-pinching (no height adjustment as standard, no secondary video inputs) and form-over-function (too thin for a proper mains plug) a lot of the "over engineering" comes from building in a massive but ultra-slim power supply so that it can charge a MacBook (completely unnecessary if you have a Mac Studio/Mini).


Yes, it would be great if Apple could make a large screen iMac and a decent headless desktop range - but both ranges would be competing for a dwindling pool of desktop sales. Apple seem to have a pretty high bar for what constitutes a large-enough market, and don't even commit enough resources to keep the existing range completely up to date.

Even so - do you want a "large" iMac with a 27" screen, 30" screen or 32" screen? Do you want to pay extra for a "pro XDR" class miniLED display? OLED? There are a lot of display choices around now, and a headless system lets you pick and choose (4k works better with Mac than people seem to think. and there's even 4 choices of 220ppi display now - Studio Display, Pro XDR, Samsung 5k, Dell 6K).

So many words . . . . . .

I would still take a look at what Apple offered and buy if it suited me.

 

[drrich2]

Timely thread. I write this on my 2017 27" 5K iMac which recently had a Fusion Drive failure and was about to be trashed until another MR member suggested putting an external USB-C Samsung SSD drive on it; one Mac OS installation & Migration Assistant import from a Carbon Copy Cloner backup later, I'm still using it and it's snapper than it was with the internal drive! I've got a Phillips 4K monitor that cost around $350 a few years back and this year had a PC Magazine Editor's Choice - PHILIPS Brilliance 279P1 27" Frameless Monitor, 4K UHD IPS (3840x2160). Here's the PC Mag. review. I like it...but I like my iMac's display better.

But here's the thing...like a lot of people who shop for powerful home use computers, I'm budget/value conscious.

The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

$1,300 For just a monitor (even a really good one) for non-professional use in a world where good 27" 4K monitors are half that or less isn't in the cards. It's fine that Studio Displays exist for people who willing to pay the premium, but I doubt that's what most Mac Minis are hooked to.

I wonder what Apple or another manufacturer could produce for a 27" 5K monitor of iMac quality that's just a monitor. Not a Thunderbolt dock, no webcam, no ridiculously expensive height adjustable monitor stand or glare resistant nano-texture coating option, no bionic chip or internal storage, maybe no webcam and the monitor housing doesn't have to have such high-end machining. PC Magazine did a Studio Display review that touched on some of my points - do we really need all these things (even minus options like nano-texture and height-adjustable stand)? From the article -

"Is it "$1,599 fine" or "$2,299 fine," though? Almost definitely not the latter, at least for general use. About a dozen other monitors I could list off the top of my head would be better suited to general media consumption for a fraction of the cost."

Further down, it adds:

"It's just that pricing. A similar 5K model without the webcam and AI frills, and with a basic stand, at $999 would go gangbusters as a companion for a low-end configuration of the Mac Studio, or maybe even the latest Mac mini."

To sum it up, for a recognized brand name new 5K 27" monitor on par with the 27" iMac, without the costly frills (e.g.: Thunderbolt doc functionality, etc...), what's out there? Quick Amazon shopping shows for nearly $860 (+ tax) at 12% off, this LG Monitor 27MD5KL-B Ultrafine 27" IPS LCD 5K UHD Monitor for Apple Mac. It's got Thunderbolt capability. Others I see seem to be in the $950+ range.

Is that the practical reality today? If you want 5K, you've gotta pay a $500 premium over 4K, albeit picking up added functions like Thunderbolt you may not need?

 

[redheeler]

Timely thread. I write this on my 2017 27" 5K iMac which recently had a Fusion Drive failure and was about to be trashed until another MR member suggested putting an external USB-C Samsung SSD drive on it; one Mac OS installation & Migration Assistant import from a Carbon Copy Cloner backup later, I'm still using it and it's snapper than it was with the internal drive! I've got a Phillips 4K monitor that cost around $350 a few years back and this year had a PC Magazine Editor's Choice - PHILIPS Brilliance 279P1 27" Frameless Monitor, 4K UHD IPS (3840x2160). Here's the PC Mag. review. I like it...but I like my iMac's display better.

But here's the thing...like a lot of people who shop for powerful home use computers, I'm budget/value conscious.


$1,300 For just a monitor (even a really good one) for non-professional use in a world where good 27" 4K monitors are half that or less isn't in the cards. It's fine that Studio Displays exist for people who willing to pay the premium, but I doubt that's what most Mac Minis are hooked to.

I wonder what Apple or another manufacturer could produce for a 27" 5K monitor of iMac quality that's just a monitor. Not a Thunderbolt dock, no webcam, no ridiculously expensive height adjustable monitor stand or glare resistant nano-texture coating option, no bionic chip or internal storage, maybe no webcam and the monitor housing doesn't have to have such high-end machining. PC Magazine did a Studio Display review that touched on some of my points - do we really need all these things (even minus options like nano-texture and height-adjustable stand)? From the article -

"Is it "$1,599 fine" or "$2,299 fine," though? Almost definitely not the latter, at least for general use. About a dozen other monitors I could list off the top of my head would be better suited to general media consumption for a fraction of the cost."

Further down, it adds:

"It's just that pricing. A similar 5K model without the webcam and AI frills, and with a basic stand, at $999 would go gangbusters as a companion for a low-end configuration of the Mac Studio, or maybe even the latest Mac mini."

To sum it up, for a recognized brand name new 5K 27" monitor on par with the 27" iMac, without the costly frills (e.g.: Thunderbolt doc functionality, etc...), what's out there? Quick Amazon shopping shows for nearly $860 (+ tax) at 12% off, this LG Monitor 27MD5KL-B Ultrafine 27" IPS LCD 5K UHD Monitor for Apple Mac. It's got Thunderbolt capability. Others I see seem to be in the $950+ range.

Is that the practical reality today? If you want 5K, you've gotta pay a $500 premium over 4K, albeit picking up added functions like Thunderbolt you may not need?

9 years ago I would've been very surprised about how few options there are for 5K in 2023. I don't like 3840x2160 at 27", it's fine for a TV but for a computer the interface scaling is weird. Either the interface is huge or tiny, unless you want to put up with non-integer scaling which looks terrible (I manually turned it off on my Intel 16" MacBook Pro).

 

[AlexJaye]

I guess. I've been eyeing a replacement for my Late 2012 27" iMac but since they dropped the 27", I am no longer looking at Apple for that.

 

[drumcat]

It's like anything else that's a combination product. If either breaks or becomes obsolete, they both do.

I would never recommend an iMac over a monitor and a MacMini. iMac would have to be a really specific use case, and they just aren't that common. People just enjoy the simplicity, and for that, I do not blame them.

 

[ErikGrim]

Luna Display replaces Target Display Mode for iMacs to stay useful as monitors.

 

[ThomasJL]

It's like anything else that's a combination product. If either breaks or becomes obsolete, they both do.

I would never recommend an iMac over a monitor and a MacMini. iMac would have to be a really specific use case, and they just aren't that common. People just enjoy the simplicity, and for that, I do not blame them.

Good point. Generally speaking, computers become obsolete faster than displays. Heck, the 19 year old 30-inch Apple Cinema Display (released in 2004) would still be a respectable choice for the latest maxed-out Mac Pro.

 

[mectojic]

Big yes! The iMac is a consumer device.

It was fairly obvious from a mile away that the 4-5k, retina display realm would be the final frontier for quality display panels. Other than high-end improvements like the XDR display, a 4 or 5k retina display will be literally the perfect monitor for 99% of people, forever. You can't improve on retina.
That's why the 27-inch 5k iMac was ultimately not sustainable as a product, when the display would long outlast the CPU. But we may one day reach a CPU bottleneck too, when the Apple Silicon finally slows down in yearly improvements, and then an all-in-one will make sense again. I'm betting in 10-15 years.

 

[0339327]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

Disagree 100%.

The 27” iMac is perfect for:
> TV replacement for home
> Basic business computer
> Space saver for light to medium workload
> Desktop computer as a second machine for someone who does most of their work on a laptop.
> Photoshop and graphics work
> Basic video editing

The MacMini and a monitor are not nearly as clean as an iMac. My office has two 27” iMacs that still function great. For the replacements of others, we had to go with a Mac Mini and monitor.

Guess what? Whenever our office replaces a desktop machine (PC or Mac), we get a new monitor too!

Apple took a popular, and loved machine and dumped it because… they’re Apple, and lately Apple’s been increasingly good as pissing off the most loyal of their customer base.

 

[mectojic]

Disagree 100%.

The 27” iMac is perfect for:
> TV replacement for home
> Basic business computer
> Space saver for light to medium workload
> Desktop computer as a second machine for someone who does most of their work on a laptop.
> Photoshop and graphics work
> Basic video editing

Just a question, why doesn't the 24-inch iMac suffice for all those use-cases? Seems perfect to me, especially with the "space saver" requirement.

 

[ErikGrim]

Just a question, why doesn't the 24-inch iMac suffice for all those use-cases? Seems perfect to me, especially with the "space saver" requirement.

Because it is tiny

 

[tothemoonsands]

Just retired my 2020 intel iMac 27”. Splurged with 2 Apple Studio displays, and a 14” M3 Max MBP.

I had my fingers crossed that a docked MBP setup would work to save the cost of needing a Mac Studio. To my surprise, the answer is a resounding yes. Works fantastic! Displays wake instantly, OWC dock keeps Ethernet connection active, etc.

Fantastic experience. I was waiting for a new 27” iMac, but now I would never go back. It just makes sense to separate the display from the computer.

 

[0339327]

Just a question, why doesn't the 24-inch iMac suffice for all those use-cases? Seems perfect to me, especially with the "space saver" requirement.

Nope

24” screen is too small in the modern world. We typically use two 27” monitors for everyone, even the accountant.

 

[masotime]

Grade A+++ clickbait title.

 

[foxtictac]

Luna Display replaces Target Display Mode for iMacs to stay useful as monitors.

Yes, but it only does 45Hz on a 5K Retina iMac. If they could get that up to 60Hz original refresh rate, it would be a solid option.

 

[aries81]

Nope

We typically use two 27” monitors for everyone, even the accountant.

what for though?

 

[Basic75]

the Mac OS is somewhat optimised for 220ppi

That is a weird way of saying that Apple isn't capable of implementing true resolution independence. As for the iMac, the first 27" iMac back in 2009 was a great machine that cost little more than an equivalent stand-alone monitor of the same quality but with a full computer thrown in. With upgradeable RAM and target display mode. For me that was the pinnacle of the iMac and I used it for 10 years.

 

[mectojic]

Nope

24” screen is too small in the modern world. We typically use two 27” monitors for everyone, even the accountant.

Strange. I'm quite comfortable working on a 24-inch and 27-inch. The difference feels pretty small to me. Actually prefer the 24 in some cases.

 

[MayaUser]

Just a question, why doesn't the 24-inch iMac suffice for all those use-cases? Seems perfect to me, especially with the "space saver" requirement.

because is a lot smaller...and that means not only screen estate but also only M3 can be placed inside it

 

[tomscott1988]

I always hated the iMac as I was a Mac Pro user. They seemed completely pointless to me until apple made the 2013 Mac Pro which was also expensive and useless. At the time the laptops were slow and the Mac Pro was non expandable and not substantially quicker than what you could upgrade the 2010 Mac pro with for peanuts. You could house all your clutter in the machine which was apples mantra in the first place.

I used my 2010 Mac Pro up to 2018 when I got a good deal on a 2017 5k iMac and it ran circles around the 2013 Mac Pro and my Mac Pro but the reason I disliked all in ones was because I couldn't put any drives in it, I was a relic from the pc world and enjoyed building PCs until I went to UNI in 2006 and realised the Mac was so reliable and loved the user experience.

Anyway I got over it and bought an OWC thunderbay 6 and didn't look back. That was until 2020 when the MacBook Air came out. That again was twice the speed of my iMac and I have used it ever since waiting for a new 27+ iMac to arrive. The thing about the iMac that I came to love was the screen and it was just such a simple concept and with thunderbolt you could pretty much do anything you wanted. With some clever desk arrangement you could have a clean set up.

Alas the new Mac Pro is a ridiculous sum of money and no longer suits my needs and tbh now I have moved over to everything being external I would have to spend yet more money to buy enclosures to make it internal again.

The thing that pains me is the iMac was the value proposition, £1700 to start and add your own ram. Now with apple silicon the studio display which is essentially the same display as my 2017 iMac is nearly as much as the base was in 2017. If you buy the base Mac mini which isnt suitable for me with 8gb and 256gb ssd and the studio display its £400 more than the base iMac was.

Paying £1500 for essentially an 8 year old display in a new frame is insanity to me, even apple had balls putting this out at that price. I have a feeling it was meant to be more but it never came to fruition so all that engineering has come at a cost.

I also have a 2020 maxed iMac (in my sig) and it was was £2800 and I still cant get a studio display and an apple silicon Mac with 64gb of ram for lower than this. The Mac Studio on its own is £2899 with M2 Max, 12‑core CPU, 38‑core GPU, 16‑core Neural Engine with 1tb and 64gb of ram add £1500 for the display £4399 which is £1599 more than the iMac was.

Mines got 64gb and to upgrade any of the apple silicon Macs to 64gb would cost £800... absolute insanity and regardless of how efficient unified ram is, ram is ram and if you have it it will get used. Im a graphic designer and photographer and I mentioned in another thread yesterday that my usage at the end of the day was 59gb and 30gb was being used by photoshop alone. I get low ram messages from iStat all the time. Granted I could upgrade it to 128gb but its the processor that is the bottleneck.

So ye the iMac all in one is not environmentally friendly from a longevity perspective but separating them has made apple able to charge 50% more money. What is ironic is that non of apples desktops are upgradable either so essentially those machines are in the same boat, ye you can just swap your machine out of your set up but all they have done is separate and called it progress. There is also little benefit of the desktops over the laptops as they basically perform the same.

Even more ironic is all I wanted was a smaller Mac Pro in the first place that has more expandability than the Mac mini and the studio although a fabulous machine right now will be a paper weight in the same manor.

Essentially we've gone from a complete solution in the original Mac Pro to appliances that you add things to externally with no upgradability without buying a complete new machine. Choosing your upgrade options is far more important than it ever was.

Aesthetically now every pro desk looks a complete mess because of the appliance nature which is what apple set out to solve in the first place.

The other thing about desktop chips is the power efficiency thing has little benefit apart from electric bills. What is bonkers is that even the base M chips are powerful enough for most. The M2 is quicker than a full fat i9 from 2020 twice in single 20% in multi which is insane. But they have gimped them with 24gb of ram max for £400 and only one external display.

I use 3 displays the iMac and 2 4k LG 27" so I would have to get a max chip to get the same functionality that essentially you could do with a base MacBook Air in 2019. (not that you would want to, but you could)