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.
Is it crazy to buy a 2020 Intel 27" iMac? And if not, how much to pay?
- Thread starter FleetwoodMacintosh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm running Monterey on my daily driver and I really like it. I was running Mojave before.
Honestly, at this point Intel Macs are scrap metal since Apple has already started their descent into obsolescence. Which is great for you if you are planning to use it as a Windows-only machine because you should be able to get them more or less for free.
If you don't have a need or want to run Windows then I would personally not purchase an Intel Mac at this point... Sure it'll be supported for at least another 3 years, but it's similar to buying an LG phone when LG has officially exited the market.
The trade-in value for a 2020 base-model iMac is currently less than $800. Prices have tanked so hard that some resellers are not even taking in 2020 models due their massive recent decrease in value.
Mind you, that's the one that Apple is still selling brand-new for $1,800 as we speak.
I watch used iMac 27 prices in New England on Craigslist and the dealers have a glut of them. They're posting ads every day trying to move them. Typical is where they are trying to sell 2014 iMacs for about $900. Nobody is biting. I saw a 2012 i7 with 32 GB of RAM go for $390 recently which is probably a reasonable price. People that want to sell iMacs quickly have to have low asks or their systems sit on Craigslist forever.
I think those that need Intel Macs for their workflow will put a floor on how much the latest Intel Macs will drop in value even once new larger screen Apple Silicon iMacs are released. If Microsoft releases a retail version of ARM Windows that allows Bootcamp to come back and if this performs well then that would obviously change things a bit.
#1 is hard to say. Rumors are that Apple is prepping the release of a new Mac Pro that still utilizes Intel-based internals. Granted, Apple has abandoned pro markets before (I'm still smarting over the sudden discontinuation of Aperture; they've also essentially dropped their Server-version operating system and in the past, their server hardware) but it's difficult to believe they would cut support for their highest-end computer in just three years. Maybe they'll do something special for the Pro like giving an add-on card to enable the neural network features for those who need or want them, but there's nothing in the rumor mill about that at the moment. Still, assuming a new imminent release Intel Mac Pro is true, it's fair to assume support for the next 4-5 years.
#2 Depends a bit on how hard a bargain you're trying to drive, I guess. Anywhere from 50-80% of the cost seems fair, or lower.
#3 is something I don't think we can even imagine. The neural chip stuff isn't exactly new, as it has been on iOS devices for at least a few generations. It's new on Macs, though. Programmers may be able to predict some of this better than us end-users.
This is an uncomfortable transition period. I virtualize Windows with Parallels, and while I don't do it frequently, I do it often enough that I'll definitely feel it at some point whenever I upgrade to a system with Apple Silicon (unless ARM-based Windows and its x86 emulation come along for the ride as well, the virtualization of which is still being worked out on Apple Silicon Macs). Current M1-based systems wouldn't necessarily be a full upgrade in every respect for me, either. I'm still hoping that the "M1X" or "M2" systems are enthusiast-level systems that cover more of what I'd like. For now, if my current Intel iMac bit the dust, I'd get another Intel-based iMac.
And there is one feature that is only available on T2 Macs,
Windows Precision Touchpad gestures in new Boot Camp
Apple finally supports Windows Precision Touchpad gestures in new Boot Camp update
A new update brings all the gestures you need.
www.theverge.com
So if you want an iMac and want to use bootcamp, make sure its either the 27" 2020 or the iMac Pro.
Assuming you're in the USA, and this is in USD:
1. I'd pay no more then $1,500 for this machine. It is used, and it is slow (compared to the M1)
2. But... Apple does have a bad reputation of supporting first generation anything (first generation of Intels were only supported for about 4 years, the first iPhone was supported for 3 years, etc). I expect the M1 and this machine to stop getting support at about the same time.
3. Apple does support older equipment that's been on the market for a while for a very long. For example, they just pushed down an update today for the iPhone 5s, released in 2013, giving it about 9 years of service life (2013 - 2022, when the update becomes outdated).
1. I'd pay no more then $1,500 for this machine. It is used, and it is slow (compared to the M1)
2. But... Apple does have a bad reputation of supporting first generation anything (first generation of Intels were only supported for about 4 years, the first iPhone was supported for 3 years, etc). I expect the M1 and this machine to stop getting support at about the same time.
3. Apple does support older equipment that's been on the market for a while for a very long. For example, they just pushed down an update today for the iPhone 5s, released in 2013, giving it about 9 years of service life (2013 - 2022, when the update becomes outdated).
As of today, the 2020 iMac is not "slow" compared to the M1. In some respects it is slower (like single core), and in other respects it is faster (like multi-core and graphics):
Last edited:
Maybe the list of supported Macs of the next MacOS could give you some idea.
For instance, iMacs earlier than 2015 won't be supported. We are talking about six years...
Yeah, Geekbench 5 for the iMac M1 is 1,719 / 7,357.
Geekbench 5 for the 2020 iMac i7-10700K is 1,239 / 7,237. The i9-10910K is 1,242 / 9,390.
OpenCL for the M1 is 18,260. For the iMac, the Radeon Pro 5500 XT scores 41,133, The 5600 XT scores 52,668 and the 5700 XT scores 59,758. The Mac Pro has even higher specs which is why Apple's going to release a new generation of Intel chips for it. I wouldn't mind if they put 11th gen Intel chips in the iMac 27. That would get single-core performance on par with the M1.
See the Monterey on Unsupported Macs thread. One guy has a Late 2009 iMac 27 running Monterey. I'm going to give it a shot on my Late 2009 iMac after I get my 2014 MacBook Pro 15 running on it. The hardware list is arbitrary.
I care about the features the Intel Macs have right now that the M1 Macs do not such as the ability to run all current MacOS software natively, the ability to boot into Windows and the ability to run x86 Linux VMs. Speaking of VMs, the user upgradeable memory and large number of available cores are other Intel iMac advantages.
I agree that ARM Macs are the future but right now for the work I need to do, an Intel Mac is a better fit. Most of the ARM only features of Monterey are just fluff and if I really want access to them, my next iPad will provide it.
If it was the iMac that was released in August of 2020, then I would say go for it. Apple put everything into the "Last Intel iMac" which in turn made it the best bang for your buck Mac in quite some time. If it was released prior to August of 2020 I would give it a hard pass.
1) The current trend is 6+ years of support, but I wouldn't put it past Apple to end 2020 Intel support a year early for a two-year difference against a hypothetical Late 2021 M2: say unsupported 2026 vs 2028. First-gen M1 support is a wild card.
2) $1700-1800 [70-75%] seems reasonable for a $2500 2020 5K (or 2019 with specs equivalent to a $2500 2020). Say, a 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 8-core CPU, Pro 580X or Pro 5500XT with 8GB VRAM.
The $1400-1500 suggestions feel like a serious low-ball, especially when the M1X or M2 replacement doesn't even have a release date yet. Sometimes low-balls are accepted or used as an opening bid in negotiations, but that seems too low for a friendly offer to a friend. Maybe offer $1600 and be ready to go to $1700?
3) See Monterey for examples of the type of new features that are restricted to Apple Silicon.
The problem with this statement is that it doesn't take Apple's well-known history of completely arbitrary and unnecessary limitations into account. Which, coincidentally, include some of the features on the missing-on-Intel list given that many of those don't really require the Neural Engine but have been implemented in a way to do so for reasons unbeknownst to us mere mortals.
The Apple Maps enhancements certainly don't need the Neural engine. However, most of those features only apply to a handful of cities and are basically fluff features anyway.
In fact, nothing on the Monterey only list is a must have feature and very most people with an Intel Mac own other Apple devices. Not all of those support the new features either of course but if they are that important to someone they can always buy a new phone or iPad.
@Maconplasma You've misconstrued my post. I am not saying I don't know the reasons why these features require the Neural Engine. I am saying that there is very clear evidence that some of those features do not require Neural Engine support but have nevertheless been implemented by Apple in a way that does. And to clarify: what I mean by "clear evidence" is that some of these features haven been implemented by others before, and in some cases years or even decades before machine learning and Apple's Neural Engine were even a thing. Yes, I realize this is speculative and yes, I realize that some of the features not supported on Intel hardware actually do require Apple's Neural Engine to work. However, others such as simple OCR clearly do not.
Anyway, those minor details are not the point. The point is that Apple has a history of arbitrarily holding back features from older devices to entice people to purchase new ones. It's been a well-proven strategy for years, and I can't blame them for doing it over and over again. It does, after all, seem to work quite well.
Anyway, those minor details are not the point. The point is that Apple has a history of arbitrarily holding back features from older devices to entice people to purchase new ones. It's been a well-proven strategy for years, and I can't blame them for doing it over and over again. It does, after all, seem to work quite well.