full time photographer and retoucher
our studio has a older mac pro 3,1 and a 5,1 and a high end PC for tether with Capture one mostly and some PS work on large files (over 2GB usually)
we have to get two new machines
we do fine for most editing on the older macs depending on what we are doing
PS does not take adv of the GPU very well and only for a few filters blurs and liquify etc.. so very small use for most
CPU speed is what helps more than number of cores BUT the cores can help with other programs
IMHO pick the highest base imac and make it a i9 and choose a 512gig SSD and use external storage and get 32 gig upgrade kit from macsales
might squeak a touch over $3100 though ? but would be fast for everything but most likely over kill
the others that are saying less of a base iMac are just as correct because again depending on what you are doing in PS and size of files etc.. light retouching a couple layers a lower model will do you just fine
I might say look at a mac mini i7 with 512 ssd and aftermarket ram is about $1699 with ram from macsales .com and a benq SW2700 monitor will be way better for color accuracy then the iMac monitor which is a great monitor for daily use but its not a good photo editing monitor IMHO to glossy fake contrast edge to edge etc.. the BenQ is about $600
you are then left over with some money to buy some storage IF you needed a bit more GPU some of the new external easy to use ones start at $399 sonnet puck 560 could help some with that need for certain PS filters
comparing my intel 7820x build with a 1080 gpu nVME drives etc.. to my old mac 5,1 updated with better gpu standard SSD etc.. most edits are the same while only a few large 16 bit files in the 1GB and larger size are really quicker on the more high end computer
so I just feel adobe is more the problem then the computer and a less computer then state of the art is needed with
I am a fan of a proper monitor though once you use a nice monitor you should see the why many say this
