M1 to M4 iMac

[beerglass007]

Anyone got a M1 iMac and thinking of upgrading to M4 next week ?

Can’t decide if it’s worth it now whilst my M1 is still worth some cash second hand

Also if the Mac mini is redesigned as quite fancy a 27” screen but not sure about all the hassle of cables and finding the right monitor where the iMac just works

 

[russell_314]

It depends on what you’re doing with the computer. Is there anything you wish would go faster when you’re using it? If you’re running a program that’s taking 20 minutes and you’re thinking I wish this wouldn’t take so long then it’s worth it. If you’re just using it to browse the web and listen to music then probably not. I don’t suspect you’re going to be thinking wow look how fast YouTube loaded compared to M1.

Also, you’ll need a good monitor if you want to use the mini vs the iMac. If you get anything less than the Studio Display you’re going to notice the downgrade.

I had the M1 iMac and loved it. I sold it because it didn’t get much use after I bought an M2 Air. I’ve always preferred laptops but that’s just me.

 

[Significant1]

If the rumors of no redesignb holds true, it only makes sense if you bought your M1 to small. If you need more computing power, a mini with m4 pro makes more sense unless m4 pro is coming to the imac.

 

[Kiimora]

I may consider upgrading for 2 reasons; more storage & ram, still has a good resale value and probably a change of colour. My mid -model yellow M1 is still going 💪 , albeit with 8/256!

 

[mogens]

I do, I plan to buy te one with 4 TB 4 ports, but only if the speed problems with USB 3.1 gen.2 external ssd’s is solved.

 

[Isengardtom]

I might

i have 256GB and 16 GB ram M1 and may sell it and get a new M4
I like the look of that green.

i know macs aren’t for gaming but I would like to play upcoming Civ 7 on it. Until I know their system requirements I might wait a bit

 

[ventuss]

I made the mistake of ordering the M1 with only 8GB of RAM, which struggled with video editing, so I ended up having to use my iPad Pro instead. Now, I’m planning to order the M4 iMac with 24GB to ensure everything runs smoothly.

 

[Kendo]

I might

i have 256GB and 16 GB ram M1 and may sell it and get a new M4
I like the look of that green.

i know macs aren’t for gaming but I would like to play upcoming Civ 7 on it. Until I know their system requirements I might wait a bit

Seems like a waste to me, you have an awesome machine. I'd probably wait for the M5 or M6 (by then, who knows, maybe they eventually release a 27" iMac).

To put it in perspective, the iPhone 16 Pro just came out. The M1 is slower than the A17 Pro single-core but it is the same speed multi-core and Metal (graphics). The M1 came out 4 years ago and is still keeping up with the newest iPhone so you know that if the iPhone 16 Pro is supported for 6 more years, the M1 will do the same.

If you only had 8GB RAM, then that would be a touch decision...

 

[Fishrrman]

mogens wrote:
"I plan to buy te one with 4 TB 4 ports, but only if the speed problems with USB 3.1 gen.2 external ssd’s is solved."

This is really the topic for another thread, but...
What are the problems you're having?

 

[mogens]

mogens wrote:
"I plan to buy te one with 4 TB 4 ports, but only if the speed problems with USB 3.1 gen.2 external ssd’s is solved."

This is really the topic for another thread, but...
What are the problems you're having?

This among other things.
https://eclecticlight.co/2022/04/18/m1-thunderbolt-ports-dont-fully-support-usb-3-1-gen-2/

 

[Isengardtom]

Seems like a waste to me, you have an awesome machine. I'd probably wait for the M5 or M6 (by then, who knows, maybe they eventually release a 27" iMac).

To put it in perspective, the iPhone 16 Pro just came out. The M1 is slower than the A17 Pro single-core but it is the same speed multi-core and Metal (graphics). The M1 came out 4 years ago and is still keeping up with the newest iPhone so you know that if the iPhone 16 Pro is supported for 6 more years, the M1 will do the same.

If you only had 8GB RAM, then that would be a touch decision...

I know, but it's the 256GB storage I'm struggling with. it's definitely very fast. I'll see how much I can still get from it and offset that with the cost.

Personally I don't think M5 will add much. M6 might be on 2NM so that could be worth it but I guess we won't see that until 2027 or something.

 

[bob24]

If the rumors of no redesignb holds true, it only makes sense if you bought your M1 to small. If you need more computing power, a mini with m4 pro makes more sense unless m4 pro is coming to the imac.

I actually don’t understand why they don’t offer M Pro upgrades on the iMac in the same way as they do on the Mini.

If you want an all-in-one Apple computer the only option is their lowest class of computer chips. I am not asking for Max or Ultra, but at least Pro would make sense.

 

[Lift Bar]

I actually don’t understand why they don’t offer M Pro upgrades on the iMac in the same way as they do on the Mini.

If you want an all-in-one Apple computer the only option is their lowest class of computer chips. I am not asking for Max or Ultra, but at least Pro would make sense.

Might be a thermal thing with the design. Also it doesn’t fit in with their marketing of the device as a “pretty looking do everyday tasks” kind of computer.

 

[bob24]

Might be a thermal thing with the design. Also it doesn’t fit in with their marketing of the device as a “pretty looking do everyday tasks” kind of computer.

The iMac form factor definitely allows for easier thermal management than a laptop (and they even managed to fit Max series - let alone Pro - in laptops).

It has to be a marketing reason and I agree they would probably give the same answer you provided on that front. But it is inconsistent with putting Pro series chips in the Mac mini which is meant as the entry level desktop Mac with 2 whole product lines above it (Mac Studio and Mac Pro).

And this is also assuming that the only customers interested in an all in one design are those who want the most basic specs, which I don’t think is quite true).

 

[Lift Bar]

The iMac form factor definitely allows for easier thermal management than a laptop (and they even managed to fit Max series - let alone Pro - in laptops).

It has to be a marketing reason and I agree they would probably give the same answer to provided on that front. But it is inconsistent with putting Pro series chips in the Mac mini which is meant as the entry level desktop Mac with 2 whole product lines above it (Mac Studio and Mac Pro).

And this is also assuming that the only customers interested in an all in one design are those who want the most basic specs, which I don’t think is quite true).

Sure there’s a market out there for it but it’s probably not large enough for Apple to go after. If they can get pro users to by the m series pro lineups and purchase a 5K studio display or 6K display from Apple then that’s great for them.

The iMac uses an utterly unique screen (I don’t believe any other screen is available which is 4.5k and 24” right?) so it has no real peer.

Apple provides a lot of options, but they’re not in the business of giving you a great deal. They’re in the business of maximizing profits. I would suggest they probably spend a lot of effort figuring out what to make and not make. Certainly more effort and analytics than we do here.

 

[GeneticBloom]

The iMac form factor definitely allows for easier thermal management than a laptop (and they even managed to fit Max series - let alone Pro - in laptops).

It has to be a marketing reason and I agree they would probably give the same answer to provided on that front. But it is inconsistent with putting Pro series chips in the Mac mini which is meant as the entry level desktop Mac with 2 whole product lines above it (Mac Studio and Mac Pro).

And this is also assuming that the only customers interested in an all in one design are those who want the most basic specs, which I don’t think is quite true).

I don't believe there's a fan in the iMacs, which there is on the MBP's with the Pro chips. That could be part of the reason there isn't the Pro chip available.

 

[kagharaht]

I don't believe there's a fan in the iMacs, which there is on the MBP's with the Pro chips. That could be part of the reason there isn't the Pro chip available.

There are fans in the iMac. I have the M3 version full spec and there are 2 fans that run pretty high when using Topaz software. As far as Pro chips, honestly I don't understand why those are chosen vs a PC. The PC is always much faster if you go by Geekbench numbers on their website. Multicore test, Macs doesn't even get to the top 100 last I looked. If I was still working and with our graphics guys, I would suggest a PC instead of Mac for high end work.

 

[bob24]

Sure there’s a market out there for it but it’s probably not large enough for Apple to go after. If they can get pro users to by the m series pro lineups and purchase a 5K studio display or 6K display from Apple then that’s great for them.

The iMac uses an utterly unique screen (I don’t believe any other screen is available which is 4.5k and 24” right?) so it has no real peer.

Apple provides a lot of options, but they’re not in the business of giving you a great deal. They’re in the business of maximizing profits. I would suggest they probably spend a lot of effort figuring out what to make and not make. Certainly more effort and analytics than we do here.

It isn’t about “good deal” for me (I definitely don’t expect a free upgrade from Apple ).

I prefer the all-in-one form factor whereby everything is built-in meaning all parts are perfectly integrated and optimised with zero clutter and cables. I don’t see why this should be associated with only getting Apple’s lowest-end CPUs.

One way to think about it is that iMacs are stuck to the performance level of Apple’s lowest-end laptops (which also have entry-level M chips).

This is something new since Apple silicon was introduced, and historically iMacs used to have significantly more power than an entry-level laptop.

 

[wilberforce]

It isn’t about “good deal” for me. I prefer the all-in-one form factor whereby everything is built-in meaning all parts are perfectly integrated and optimised with zero clutter and cables. I don’t see why this should be associated with only getting Apple’s lowest-end CPUs.

One way to think about it is that iMacs are stuck to the performance level of Apple’s lowest-end laptops (which also have entry-level M chips).

This is something new since Apple silicon was introduced, and historically iMacs used to have significantly more power than an entry-level laptop.

I agree. I just ordered one of the M4 iMacs. It will be in a conspicuous living room area so it needs to look uncluttered and pretty. However I would have much preferred an M4 Pro or Max chip, to do photo graphics editing. I don’t care much about cost. Best I could do is order it with 32GB memory and 2 TB SSD

 

[Lift Bar]

This is something new since Apple silicon was introduced, and historically iMacs used to have significantly more power than an entry-level laptop.

While it may feel like the iMac historically provided higher-end power, that period was actually brief and largely limited. Most iMacs were designed with a consumer focus, balancing performance with design and ease of use. The powerhouse moments came with models like the iMac Pro and the final Intel 27-inch models, but Apple has often returned to a more mainstream performance approach with each new design phase.

Since the Apple Silicon transition, iMacs are indeed positioned closer to entry-level MacBooks, but Apple has historically crafted iMacs more for consumer convenience than professional-grade performance… those high-powered models were the exceptions, not the norm.

Also entry laptops are now very powerful. The efficiency is off the charts now so you don’t gain as much from a desktop as you once did.

 

[bob24]

While it may feel like the iMac historically provided higher-end power, that period was actually brief and largely limited. Most iMacs were designed with a consumer focus, balancing performance with design and ease of use. The powerhouse moments came with models like the iMac Pro and the final Intel 27-inch models, but Apple has often returned to a more mainstream performance approach with each new design phase.

Since the Apple Silicon transition, iMacs are indeed positioned closer to entry-level MacBooks, but Apple has historically crafted iMacs more for consumer convenience than professional-grade performance… those high-powered models were the exceptions, not the norm.

Also entry laptops are now very powerful. The efficiency is off the charts now so you don’t gain as much from a desktop as you once did.

I’m not with you on this, it isn’t just the iMac Pro and the latest 27 iMacs.

For exemple see a 2017 21 iMac vs a 2018 15 MBP:
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/421
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/429

Roughly the same performance even though I picked an entry-level iMac vs a slightly newer high end laptop. And we aren’t at all in iMac Pro or latest iMac 27 territory.

Today‘s iMacs just can’t compete in a similar way with MacBook Pros and Apple has clearly made the iMac lower-end.

Also, how does it make sense that a product such as the Mac Mini which is clearly entry-level as it has 2 higher-end desktop product lines above it (Mac Studio and Mac Pro) has an option to upgrade to M Pro chips, while the iMac which is the only option as an all-in-one doesn’t also offer an M Pro chip option?

Of course Apple can do as they please, but to me they have 100% downgraded their all-in-one customers when it comes to accessing faster chips (the cheapest iMac even gets a binned version of the M4 with disabled cores, while the cheapest Mini doesn’t get such treatment).

 

[GeneticBloom]

There are fans in the iMac. I have the M3 version full spec and there are 2 fans that run pretty high when using Topaz software. As far as Pro chips, honestly I don't understand why those are chosen vs a PC. The PC is always much faster if you go by Geekbench numbers on their website. Multicore test, Macs doesn't even get to the top 100 last I looked. If I was still working and with our graphics guys, I would suggest a PC instead of Mac for high end work.

Oh, I see. Yeah I don't know why there wouldn't be the option then for the Pro, other than marketing.

 

[Lift Bar]

I’m not with you on this, it isn’t just the iMac Pro and the latest 27 iMacs.

For exemple see a 2017 21 iMac vs a 2018 15 MBP:
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/421
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/429

Roughly the same performance even though I picked an entry-level iMac vs a slightly newer high end laptop. And we aren’t at all in iMac Pro or latest iMac 27 territory.

Today‘s iMacs just can’t compete in a similar way with MacBook Pros and Apple has clearly made the iMac lower-end.

Also, how does it make sense that a product such as the Mac Mini which is clearly entry-level as it has 2 higher-end desktop product lines above it (Mac Studio and Mac Pro) has an option to upgrade to M Pro chips, while the iMac which is the only option as an all-in-one doesn’t also offer an M Pro chip option?

Of course Apple can do as they please, but to me they have 100% downgraded their all-in-one customers when it comes to accessing faster chips (the cheapest iMac even gets a binned version of the M4 with disabled cores, while the cheapest Mini doesn’t get such treatment).

Yes but it’s not historically the iMac way is all I’m saying. It became for a time a very powerful computer. Alongside a real dearth of pro options. With the advent of the M series chips and the Studio the iMac is going back to its roots is how I see it.

 

[bob24]

Yes but it’s not historically the iMac way is all I’m saying. It became for a time a very powerful computer. Alongside a real dearth of pro options. With the advent of the M series chips and the Studio the iMac is going back to its roots is how I see it.

I think you might be idealising Apple’s past laptops a bit.

If we go back yet another decade and look at a 2009 iMac vs a 2009 15 MBP (oldest comparison I could find on the Geekbench website):
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/imac-mid-2009-intel-core-2-duo-p7550-2-3-ghz-2-cores
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/...d-2009-intel-core-2-duo-p8700-2-5-ghz-2-cores

The iMac beats the MBP by a small margin.

I couldn’t find older numbers than this, but while I agree with you the iMac was originally more playful and casual than it later became and Apple is trying to go back to those roots, I am not sure you are right in thinking this ever translated into being limited to entry level laptop performance before 3 years ago.

 

[Lift Bar]

I think you might be idealising Apple’s past laptops a bit.

If we go back yet another decade and look at a 2009 iMac vs a 2009 15 MBP (oldest comparison I could find on the Geekbench website):
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/imac-mid-2009-intel-core-2-duo-p7550-2-3-ghz-2-cores
- https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/...d-2009-intel-core-2-duo-p8700-2-5-ghz-2-cores

The iMac beats the MBP by a small margin.

I couldn’t find older numbers than this, but while I agree with you the iMac was originally more playful and casual than it later became and Apple is trying to go back to those roots, I am not sure you are right in thinking this ever translated into being limited to entry level laptop performance before 3 years ago.

Oh yes I see what you’re getting at. Yes indeed laptops are substantially faster and much more comparable to desktops than the past. The old entry level iMacs were much faster than entry level laptops.