New Mac - iMac or Mac Studio

[ShockTroop]

I am in the market to replace my 2011 27' iMac. The computer will be used for basic home computing and maybe some gaming. I like the all in one iMac design. When I buy I tend to max out specs for longevity purposes. I have noticed that the iMac I am looking at is around $2300 and a Mac Studio is roughly the same price. I would need to buy a new monitor, but those tend to be cheap. What is everyones opinions on these two options? I tend to be leaning to the Mac Studio for longevity purposes. Thanks!

 

[Boidem]

Hmm. To get a display anywhere near the quality of the iMac, you'd need to be spending quite a bit on top, so factor in another £1000+. Obvs the Studio Display is the right choice. I'm happy with my iMac; I'm glad it appeared before the studio, as it made my decision much easier. With an all-in-one, I use less power, and it's a much simpler solution.

 

[EugW]

The choice should probably be iMac vs 2023 M2 Mac mini + display.

I like the Huawei MateView 28" 3840x2560 3:2 monitor with my M1 Mac mini, but it depends on which country you're in (since it's not available in the US). I paid CA$699 (US$514) for this monitor.

The Apple Studio Display is probably better overall, but at 3X the price, and it's possible a new Apple display is coming in 2023 too.

The LG UltraFine 4K 27UP850N-W 3840x2160 16:9 monitor costs even less, currently CA$399.99 (US$294) in Canada, but it isn't as nice as the Huawei.

 

[maflynn]

I like the Huawei MateView 28"

I have an LG ultra wide and its a monitor, but I hate the base, which is similar to the image you have. The Hauwei, monitor looks real sharp - I don't know the quality of the display but it looks very nice on the desk

 

[ShockTroop]

I don’t think I need or am after a monitor that will rival the iMac if I went with the Studio.

 

[ShockTroop]

The iMac is such a good looking machine, but the specs are weak when comparing it to the studio and the price of the studio

 

[EugW]

I have an LG ultra wide and its a monitor, but I hate the base, which is similar to the image you have. The Hauwei, monitor looks real sharp - I don't know the quality of the display but it looks very nice on the desk

I'd give the Huawei MateView 28.2" a 4/5.

- Aluminum and aluminum-look construction, with tilt and height adjustability. (No swivel.)
- Bezels are only 6 mm, and of course, there is no iMac chin. Because of that it actually looks noticeably smaller than my 5K iMac despite being a bigger screen.
- Uses a multi-touch touch bar for settings navigation.
- Zero backlight bleed. I bought two Asus ProArts before this and one had mild backlight bleed in the corners and the other had bad backlight bleed one one side.
- Decent contrast for IPS. They advertise it to reach 1200:1 (and reviews confirm it is ~1000:1 to ~1200:1 depending upon how it's calibrated).
- Very bright. Advertised at 500 nits (which is roughly accurate according to reviews). The Apple Studio Display is advertised as 600 nits.
- Colours were slightly off out of the box, but look great after calibration. It's wide gamut and is advertised for 100% sRGB and 98% DCI-P3. After calibration with brightness set at 118 nits, my SpyderX Pro calibration device says it covers 100% sRGB, 97% DCI-P3, and 87% Adobe RGB. (In the Petapixel review, the Apple Studio Display was tested to cover 98% DCI-P3 and 85% Adobe RGB.)
- No sleep issues via USB-C or HDMI.
- It is the same 164 ppi as LG 27" 4K monitors, but it's 3:2 28.2" so it's taller. However, since it has almost 20% more pixels than 4K, I can get its max 60 Hz refresh rate only over USB-C or mini-DisplayPort. With HDMI 2.0, it maxes out at 50 Hz. That said, 50 Hz seemed fine for productivity. (30 Hz is too low but 50 Hz is fine.)
- At 164 ppi, text is very good in macOS, even when scaled with a non-2X multiplier. However, if I look closely, non-2X scaled text look slightly better on a 218 ppi 5K 27" display (like my 5K iMac). 164 ppi is way, way better than 137 ppi on a 32" 4K display though.
- Its main drawback IMO is that the brightness uniformity isn't great. There is some noticeable light fall-off at the edges. Plus this is magnified somewhat by its lower than average IPS viewing angles. I don't get significant colour shifts off axis (unlike VA panels) but there is increased light fall-off when viewed off-axis. If I move my head sideways so I'm looking at the edge of the panel straight-on, I don't really notice the light fall-off at the edge. However, if I look the centre of the panel straight-on, I do notice the light fall-off at the edge.

Note: This monitor supports HDCP 2.2 but I couldn't get that to work with my M1 Mac mini. I can't stream Disney+ in 4K from my M1 Mac mini. Everything I get out of Disney+ from the M1 Mac mini is limited to HD. I think this is an Apple Silicon on macOS compatibility quirk, because if I plug in my Apple TV 4K (which is Apple Silicon A10X on tvOS), I get full 4K support from Disney+ on this monitor.

 

[theorist9]

If you're used to the 27" screen size on your 2011 iMac, you might not like downsizing to the new iMac's 24". So on the face of it, a Studio + 27" 4k (or maybe the Mateview mentioned above) would seem to be the better choice. However, I think it comes down to whether you can tolerate the new MacOS's on a non-Retina (27" 4k) display, since these (unlike what you're running on your 2011 iMac) don't have subpixel text rendering, and thus don't look optimium on non-Retina monitors. The 24" iMac (~220 ppi) would offer that, while a 27" 4k (~160 ppi) would not.

The ideal device for your purposes would be a 27" iMac, but they don't offer that (yet).

Also, if you don't need to replace your 2011 iMac immediately, I'd wait until spring for the new AS models—they may release a new version of the Studio then; they might also release a Pro Mini, which may be enough for your needs.

 

[i486dx2-66]

whether you can tolerate the new MacOS's on a non-Retina (27" 4k) display, since these (unlike what you're running on your 2011 iMac) don't have subpixel text rendering, and thus don't look optimium on non-Retina monitors. The 24" iMac (~220 ppi) would offer that, while a 27" 4k (~160 ppi) would not.

This x1000.
Do not overlook how significant this difference can be.

A 2011 27" iMac tops out at High Sierra (10.13.x), which was the last OS version that officially still had sub-pixel rendering, so that's what you are used to. Mojave (10.14.x) "removed" it, but it could still be enabled via terminal commands. With Catalina (10.15.x) and beyond, the old quality text is officially gone.

A high-density display is now a firm requirement for a good experience with a Mac. You can't upgrade from say a 2010 Mac Mini to a 2020 Mac Mini without also upgrading your monitor - it's a distinct downgrade, even though your old monitor was "perfectly fine". Apple pulled the rug out from under us.

I myself have a 28" 4K monitor, and its... OK. I had a 27" WQHD which I loved before, but couldn't stand after the OS "upgrades". The 28" 4K is a lot more pixels, but also physically larger, so the density didn't go up as much as I would have liked. A 27" 5K would be a lot better.

 

[EugW]

This x1000.
Do not overlook how significant this difference can be.

A 2011 27" iMac tops out at High Sierra (10.13.x), which was the last OS version that officially still had sub-pixel rendering, so that's what you are used to. Mojave (10.14.x) "removed" it, but it could still be enabled via terminal commands. With Catalina (10.15.x) and beyond, the old quality text is officially gone.

A high-density display is now a firm requirement for a good experience with a Mac. You can't upgrade from say a 2010 Mac Mini to a 2020 Mac Mini without also upgrading your monitor - it's a distinct downgrade, even though your old monitor was "perfectly fine". Apple pulled the rug out from under us.

I myself have a 28" 4K monitor, and its... OK. I had a 27" WQHD which I loved before, but couldn't stand after the OS "upgrades". The 28" 4K is a lot more pixels, but also physically larger, so the density didn't go up as much as I would have liked. A 27" 5K would be a lot better.

Which 28" 4K, and what pixel density? A 28" 3840x2160p monitor is 157 ppi. Also, what seating distance?

For my 28.2" 3840x2560 "4K+" (164 ppi) monitor, IMO text quality is very good. I have it sitting right beside a 27" 5K iMac (218 ppi) too. Yes, the 5K is a better for non-2X scaled resolutions, but it's closer than some may think. The OP just needs to try something within budget for himself/herself.

This website has viewing distances for what is considered "Retina".

Display distance, retina and dimension calculator.

A display recommended distance and retina calculator..

tools.rodrigopolo.com

For 218 ppi it's 16".
For 164 ppi it's 21".
For 157 ppi it's 22".

I didn't like 32" 4K (138 ppi) and 32" QHD (92 ppi) monitors though for text quality.

For 138 ppi it's 25".
For 92 ppi it's 38".

I usually sit over 21" away from my desktop screen, but occasionally if I lean in it's under 21", maybe ~19".

 

[ForkHandles]

An iMac would be best for you.
A cheap display would be worse than an lower powered chipset in my opinion.

The separates are a great idea if you want to upgrade your power every five years, but the initial outlay would be greater.

 

[theorist9]

Which 28" 4K, and what pixel density? A 28" 3840x2160p monitor is 157 ppi. Also, what seating distance?

For my 28.2" 3840x2560 "4K+" (164 ppi) monitor, IMO text quality is very good. I have it sitting right beside a 27" 5K iMac (218 ppi) too. Yes, the 5K is a better for non-2X scaled resolutions, but it's closer than some may think. The OP just needs to try something within budget for himself/herself.

This website has viewing distances for what is considered "Retina".

Display distance, retina and dimension calculator.

A display recommended distance and retina calculator..

tools.rodrigopolo.com

For 218 ppi it's 16".
For 164 ppi it's 21".
For 157 ppi it's 22".

I didn't like 32" 4K (138 ppi) and 32" QHD (92 ppi) monitors though for text quality.

For 138 ppi it's 25".
For 92 ppi it's 38".

I usually sit over 21" away from my desktop screen, but occasionally if I lean in it's under 21", maybe ~19".

Except that people typically sit at >16" distances from a 27"-32" monitors, yet Apple still requires ~220 ppi for those to be considered Retina displays. Maybe that calculator is designed for those who only have 20/20 vision, yet many have better than than (I'm 20/13).

 

[theorist9]

I know I couldn't tolerate ~160 ppi for my main monitor, since I have that as a side monitor next to my 220 ppi 27" iMac. So if it were me, and I had your computing needs, I'd probably wait until spring and buy an M2 Mini or M2 Pro Mini (if such is offered), and put the money I saved (by buying a Mini instead a Studio) into an ASD. Note, however that a key limitation of the basic M2 chip is that it can only drive two displays (I mention this in case you later want a 3-monitor setup).

OTOH, you may not be as sensitive to text sharpness as me, and for you a 27" 4k might be fine. The only way to tell for certain would be to view MacOS on a 27" 4k side-by-side with a Retina display. Maybe you have a friend with that setup....

 

[i486dx2-66]

Which 28" 4K, and what pixel density? A 28" 3840x2160p monitor is 157 ppi. Also, what seating distance?
...
This website has viewing distances for what is considered "Retina".

My mac is at my workbench, and my seating position changes depending on what I'm working on.

Remember that there's more to text clarity than just meeting a loose definition of "Retina" / "can't see the pixels anymore". The concept is that at sufficient pixel density, computationally intensive display anti-aliasing is no longer required as the human eye's limitations basically does it for you. But the human eye can only work with what it's given - and vector-based content will still give the eye a more accurate representation when either resolution is beyond "retina", or anti-aliasing is used on a high-DPI display.

 

[EugW]

My mac is at my workbench, and my seating position changes depending on what I'm working on.

Remember that there's more to text clarity than just meeting a loose definition of "Retina" / "can't see the pixels anymore". The concept is that at sufficient pixel density, computationally intensive display anti-aliasing is no longer required as the human eye's limitations basically does it for you. But the human eye can only work with what it's given - and vector-based content will still give the eye a more accurate representation when either resolution is beyond "retina", or anti-aliasing is used on a high-DPI display.

Like I said, I have a 5K 218 ppi iMac next to a 4K+ 164 ppi monitor in my workspace. The 5K iMac is better but I’d say most people would be satisfied with 164 ppi. Some people wouldn’t (like you) of course but 164 ppi is very good overall.

In fact, the 164 ppi setup has become my primary machine at this point. However if I wish, I can upgrade the monitor for the Mac mini, or vice versa. I can’t with iMac. Its screen and computer are mated together permanently.

 

[leifp]

Know yourself, of course. Faced that choice, I would probably buy the Studio. It’s difficult to dissociate my own needs from that choice, of course.

If either would fill your uses just fine the Studio will last many years longer for updates (that’s an assumption I’m making based on specs that usually impact macOS updates: RAM amount, and system baseline speed [transfer speed: 67GB/s for M1, 400 GB/s for M1Max], CPU [approximately 2x] and GPU [approximately 4x] performance).

The Studio has many more attachments built it (2-4 Thunderbolt/USB-C, headphone jack + Ethernet on the iMac, 4-6 Thunderbolt/USB-C, 2 USB-A, headphone jack, Ethernet, HDMI, and SD card slot on the Studio) and can support many more monitors if that ever becomes of interest.

The Studio is more flexible in all ways. BUT the iMac is an all in one (I really miss my 5K iMac).

 

[Lioness~]

I went with the Mac Studio and the Studio Display.
But as you say, you can always buy a cheaper display to the Mac Studio.
I wouldn’t go for an iMac today. I traded in, and said goodbye to, a 2013 iMac when I bought the new stuff.

 

[tstafford]

If budget matters, I'd rather buy the iMac 24 than a Studio and a cheap display. The Studio/display will still cost more and the image quality won't be as good. I had an iMac 24 and upgraded to a Studio/ASD but if I was tight on budget the iMac is a great machine for anyone who does internet/email/office stuff.

 

[EugW]

If budget matters, I'd rather buy the iMac 24 than a Studio and a cheap display. The Studio/display will still cost more and the image quality won't be as good. I had an iMac 24 and upgraded to a Studio/ASD but if I was tight on budget the iMac is a great machine for anyone who does internet/email/office stuff.

Or get a Mac mini with a good display.

 

[pshufd]

You can put 32 GB of RAM in your 2011 iMac (assuming 27 inches) but the M1 iMac is limited to 16 GB. I have an M1 mini but upgraded to a Studio as the RAM limitation was annoying. Even 32 GB means that there are two programs that I can't run at the same time without swapping. 27 inch QHD monitors are pretty cheap these days if you like the size and resolution of your current iMac.

 

[Danfango]

Don't go near any non Apple display. I tried a few and was hideously disappointed. There are no good 5k options out there at 27" other than the studio display.

Best options on the table:

1. 24" iMac and lump it. It's not that much smaller and is a fine upgrade. A 16Gb one is perfectly capable of doing pretty much everything.
2. 27" studio display and base 14" macbook pro. Comes up cheaper than the base model studio and gives you a second XDR screen and portability should you desire it.

I'm using option (2) and love every minute of it. I have zero regrets with this set up. It's absolutely the best machine/display combo I've ever had.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I would go for the iMac on a basis of value. The combination of performance, screen size and quality, speakers and mic, it makes sense for your needs. The Studio is more of a creative workhorse for those that work with media and who need the flexibility to choose their own display, speakers, mouse and keyboard etc.

Don't be put off by the fact M1 is no longer the latest chip. Yes you could probably hold out for a refresh (most likely early '23), but it's still more than good enough for what you'll be doing.

 

[tstafford]

Don't go near any non Apple display. I tried a few and was hideously disappointed. There are no good 5k options out there at 27" other than the studio display.

Best options on the table:

1. 24" iMac and lump it. It's not that much smaller and is a fine upgrade. A 16Gb one is perfectly capable of doing pretty much everything.
2. 27" studio display and base 14" macbook pro. Comes up cheaper than the base model studio and gives you a second XDR screen and portability should you desire it.

I'm using option (2) and love every minute of it. I have zero regrets with this set up. It's absolutely the best machine/display combo I've ever had.

This is a controversial take but one I agree with 100%. I wanted three displays and a dedicated desktop so I went Studio. But I'm with you on this one.

 

[EugW]

The M1 iMac is too small IMO. I'm personally not really interested in that. YMMV.

 

[tstafford]

Or get a Mac mini with a good display.

I get this point and it's fair.

The problem IMHO is that the iMac monitor is far superior to anything you could get short of an ASD. This is a recurring topic on MR. Basically there are those of us (see above Danfango) who simply find the experience of font scaling on 4K monitors unacceptable. It's a personal taste thing. Heck for years my in-laws said they couldn't tell the difference between "regular" and HDTV!

Setting aside the rumored upcoming refresh, the M1 iMac is arguably the best deal in the Apple line up. Ultra high quality monitor, good looking keyboard/mouse, Touch ID if you want it (and you do) with enough power for home user tasks like web/email/office docs.