24GB, but not sure if that is something inherent to the chip vs an issue that can be solved in a non-laptop enclosure
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.
New iMacs???
- Thread starter Mac2004
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
24GB, but not sure if that is something inherent to the chip vs an issue that can be solved in a non-laptop enclosure
I think a lot of people would go for that. But at that price it will totally cannibalize sales of just about every other current product line. It would start at $2500.
Base Mac Studio plus base display plus keyboard and trackpad costs $4,300. So much more than the $1,499 iMac. I feel like that iMac pricing is from another era. People are gonna miss how affordable the 24” iMac is whenever it is upgraded.
Yes that’s what I think. Potentially the larger iMac will just be the iMac Pro, which means it would come with the Max and Ultra chips. If they were going to just do a basic 27” LCD with the M1 they would’ve done that already in my opinion. I think the struggle is the primary market for a larger iMac is someone wanting a machine closer to a workstation-level which is why I don’t think we got a basic M1 27” iMac.
With keyboard and mouse - absolutely. This is precisely what my wife would want.
If it was XDR and closer to $4,000 I'm out. Not paying that kind of money on a machine where the display is likely locked out from target mode. While I get why, it is super annoying that our 2015 iMac is about to be a brick once security updates cease. We should at least be able to plug a mini in to it and keep using the display, but alas no.
Well, when you look at the M1 lineup, hasn't it been:
- M1 - 8-16 gigs
- M1 Pro - 16-32
- M1 Max - 32-64
- M1 Ultra - 64-128
So... since we know that lots of components get doubled between each chip, I would guess there's doubling on the memory controller side going on as well.
In Windowsland, for many years, the bigger-screened laptops were LOWER end than the smaller-screened laptops. You could find lots of low-end 17" laptops and very few comparably low-end 13" laptops.
Apple has, of course, followed the opposite practice since... probably the move to Intel? And I'm sure they've had some success (and big profits) selling 15.4-16" MBPs to people whose needs would have been met quite nicely by an MBA except they wanted a bigger screen.
The thing is - is this the result of detailed market research showing that no one wanted a 15" with the internals of the 13" models for $200 more? Or did their market research tell them that people who wanted a bigger screen were willing to pay substantially more... so... let's sell them a higher-end laptop than they need and pocket the profits?
And I would think the same principle applies, if not more so, in desktops - with laptops there is a benefit to a smaller laptop, but other than to save money, would anyone rather have a 21.5" iMac over a 27"?
Wether or not that’s true, now you can find plenty of larger laptops with high-end specs. Plus laptops and desktops are different use-cases.
More on topic: My guess is that Apple wants to sell a high-end iMac that very easily rivals their intel 27” in both CPU and GPU. Right now the M1 Ultra is the only chip that beats out the iMac Pro - but that’s also a 5-year-old machine so we’d hope it could do that. What Apple needs is a chip that far surpasses the iMac Pro in every way. That could be an M2 (or 3) Ultra chip.
Of course, they could also offer a low-end model too, meaning you could maybe get a 27” iMac with M2 all the way up to an M2 Ultra (or M3 who knows what gen it’ll be), but Apple likely didn’t want to only announce a low-end 27” iMac because it would have been a step down from the intel model. This would look bad and make it seem like apple silicon can’t compete with intel.
