Poll - Now That Apple Has Discontinued the 27" iMac, What Is the Best Replacement for an Older 27" iMac?

[dizmonk]

This really does suck. I've been waiting for Apple Silicon in a desktop. I'm all into the Mac Studio but I have ZERO interest in paying almost as much for the Studio Display. After looking constantly for a 32" 4k monitor to go with the Studio, it seems they fall into 2 categories.
1) Less than $500 which is finicky with connections to my M1 MBA and numerous complaints about flickering, dropouts, etc.
2) Near $1000 for a Dell/Gigabyte/LG which is Thunderbolt and has fewer complaints.

My issue if I wanted to spend $1000 or more on a monitor, I'd just cough it up and get the Studio Display.

I just want a 32" 4k under $500 that doesn't have all the drama...

 

[AL2TEACH]

The only replacement would be a refurbished 27' or a repair shop. Okay, I would go for an updated Apple Cube.

 

[ian87w]

For users with base config iMac: 24" iMac. The base 27" iMac comes with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD, something that the M1 iMac can perfectly accommodate, up to 16GB RAM and 2TB SSD. The 24" iMac should cover most people's needs.

For those needing larger display: mac mini + studio display. This group of people is getting the short end of the stick, as they end up paying more than they had previously did due to the cost of the studio display.

For those needing more RAM and larger display: mac studio + studio display. This might push the cost a bit, but the gain in performance, ports, and updated spec should satisfy people in this group.

I would discount 3rd party displays as those using an iMac probably are used to having everything integrated (webcam, speakers, etc). Unless of course you don't need a webcam.

 

[SoYoung]

Make it clear : The Mac Studio is NOT an iMac 27' replacement. The Studio is clearly made and targeted towards pro users or professional one. Its way too expensive for the average costumer who wants more than a casual machine but not a pro one.

Apple really drop the ball here and now there's big hole between casual and pro users. I don't want a macbook, I want a desktop computer. The only option right now is a refurb 2020 iMac, I don't see really much better choice. Its funny that Apple thinks everyone who want more than a casual machine is just for doing YouTuber stuff like video editing and stuff like that.

They literally open the doors for people that used to own a PC in the past and adopted Apple computers in recent years to seriously consider buying a PC again, and I'm one of those guys.

 

[icemantx]

Make it clear : The Mac Studio is NOT an iMac 27' replacement. The Studio is clearly made and targeted towards pro users or professional one. Its way too expensive for the average costumer who wants more than a casual machine but not a pro one.

Apple really drop the ball here and now there's big hole between casual and pro users. I don't want a macbook, I want a desktop computer. The only option right now is a refurb 2020 iMac, I don't see really much better choice. Its funny that Apple thinks everyone who want more than a casual machine is just for doing YouTuber stuff like video editing and stuff like that.

They literally open the doors for people that used to own a PC in the past and adopted Apple computers in recent years to seriously consider buying a PC again, and I'm one of those guys.

You can always stick with Intel and get a refurb 27” 2019/2020 version. Still plenty fast.

 

[colodane]

I'm still several months to a year from considering replacement of my 2017 27 inch iMac. But if I were to do so now, I'd be somewhat tempted to get the $2K studio. I like the form factor, design and capabilities.

But no way would I get the $1600 studio display with ho-hum display specs and a bum webcam.

I would get a 24 inch 4K display to use with the studio.

 

[theluggage]

Make it clear : The Mac Studio is NOT an iMac 27' replacement.

It depends which iMac: the 5k iMac ran from $1800 for a fairly weak i5 to $3200 for a 10 core i9/5700 XT (but still only 8GB).

So, a top-end iMac would have cost $3800 if you'd paid Apple the $600 they wanted for the 32GB RAM upgrade. Lets say $3600 if you got 3rd party RAM.

C.f. a M1 Max Mac Studio (10 core, 32GB RAM) + Studio Display = $3600.

First problem is the lower end of the 5k iMac range - if you consider the i5 CPU as roughly equivalent to a $1100 i5 Mac Mini then it felt like you were getting the 5k display, webcam, speakers etc. for well under $1000, which was an absolute bargain. I doubt that Apple were making a loss but they must have been taking a lower profit margin than usual.

Second problem is that, although the Studio Display is undoubtedly a nice display, all the reviews suggest that it's really not significantly better than the panel that's been used in the LG since 2016 and the iMac since 2017.

Back in 2017 you could have said "fine, this is expensive, but it's hands-down the best, highest-resolution display available without paying 10x as much and it will still be a good display in 5 years time" - today, we've got miniLED and other HDR tech starting to appear, Apple already making 6k displays which are about due for a price cut... so it's really hard to see a 5k, edge-lit panel, that's merely a bit brighter than what you could get 5 years ago as an investment for the ages.

Its only real distinguishing factor is that 5k resolution being a "sweet spot" for MacOS - and having used a 28" 4k display next to my 5k iMac I'd say that the advantage of 5k over 4k is there but really not worth $600-$800 over a good quality 4k, especially if you factor in the wider choice of sizes and formats.


The only part that has got consistent praise in the reviews is the speakers which are always described as "the best sound we've heard out of a display" - which is roughly equivalent to saying "the best cup of coffee I've tasted out of a gas station vending machine". Nobody is going to be mixing pro audio on built-in speakers - any "studio" remotely concerned with media creation is going to be using proper monitor speakers or headphones, nobody is going to make so much as a podcast without external mics.

OK, so not everybody is going to be using "pro" monitor speakers, mics and external audio interfaces but... hello... this is Apple and audio production (or video production including audio) is a pretty significant chunk of their "pro" market - and for them the audio facilities of the Studio Display are irrelevant. The major selling point of a display is always going to be the display.

 

[Phil77354]

It depends which iMac: the 5k iMac ran from $1800 for a fairly weak i5 to $3200 for a 10 core i9/5700 XT (but still only 8GB).

So, a top-end iMac would have cost $3800 if you'd paid Apple the $600 they wanted for the 32GB RAM upgrade. Lets say $3600 if you got 3rd party RAM.

C.f. a M1 Max Mac Studio (10 core, 32GB RAM) + Studio Display = $3600.

First problem is the lower end of the 5k iMac range - if you consider the i5 CPU as roughly equivalent to a $1100 i5 Mac Mini then it felt like you were getting the 5k display, webcam, speakers etc. for well under $1000, which was an absolute bargain. I doubt that Apple were making a loss but they must have been taking a lower profit margin than usual.

Second problem is that, although the Studio Display is undoubtedly a nice display, all the reviews suggest that it's really not significantly better than the panel that's been used in the LG since 2016 and the iMac since 2017.

Back in 2017 you could have said "fine, this is expensive, but it's hands-down the best, highest-resolution display available without paying 10x as much and it will still be a good display in 5 years time" - today, we've got miniLED and other HDR tech starting to appear, Apple already making 6k displays which are about due for a price cut... so it's really hard to see a 5k, edge-lit panel, that's merely a bit brighter than what you could get 5 years ago as an investment for the ages.

Its only real distinguishing factor is that 5k resolution being a "sweet spot" for MacOS - and having used a 28" 4k display next to my 5k iMac I'd say that the advantage of 5k over 4k is there but really not worth $600-$800 over a good quality 4k, especially if you factor in the wider choice of sizes and formats.


The only part that has got consistent praise in the reviews is the speakers which are always described as "the best sound we've heard out of a display" - which is roughly equivalent to saying "the best cup of coffee I've tasted out of a gas station vending machine". Nobody is going to be mixing pro audio on built-in speakers - any "studio" remotely concerned with media creation is going to be using proper monitor speakers or headphones, nobody is going to make so much as a podcast without external mics.

OK, so not everybody is going to be using "pro" monitor speakers, mics and external audio interfaces but... hello... this is Apple and audio production (or video production including audio) is a pretty significant chunk of their "pro" market - and for them the audio facilities of the Studio Display are irrelevant. The major selling point of a display is always going to be the display.

Lots of good points here. To begin with, I agree with your pricing comparison. My late-2014 iMac 27" (16GB RAM, 500GB SSD) was $2999 + tax, later upgraded RAM to 32GB. It's now 7 ½ years later, a Mac Studio + Display will be slightly more expensive for the same configuration - and performance that is a world beyond what I've been using for all that time. (Of course if I purchase a Studio + Display, I'll end up paying more than that, but it's because I'll get more storage than what I have now).

Your line regarding the Studio Monitor speakers is the best I've read here on the forum for a long while: "the speakers which are always described as "the best sound we've heard out of a display" - which is roughly equivalent to saying "the best cup of coffee I've tasted out of a gas station vending machine". LOL!!

 

[OW22]

If going from iMac27in to ASD + other Mac, just a word on the difference between the ASD and the iMac in height.

I did some quick calcs and the top of the ASD with the standard stand is 3.8cms shorter than the top of the iMac. Accounting for the bezels etc the top of the ASD screen in 5 cms lower than the top of the physical iMac or 2.5 cms (1 inch lower than the top of the iMac screen.

My current iMac is at the perfect eyeline for me so the ASD would have to be propped up with a book or one of those stands or you'll need to get the adjustable stand which I'll probably do. So a side by side comparison on websites, the site on the right is how it will appear on an ASD with the fixed stand as opposed to the normal iMac on the left.

 

[TinaBelcher]

This really does suck. I've been waiting for Apple Silicon in a desktop. I'm all into the Mac Studio but I have ZERO interest in paying almost as much for the Studio Display. After looking constantly for a 32" 4k monitor to go with the Studio, it seems they fall into 2 categories.
1) Less than $500 which is finicky with connections to my M1 MBA and numerous complaints about flickering, dropouts, etc.
2) Near $1000 for a Dell/Gigabyte/LG which is Thunderbolt and has fewer complaints.

My issue if I wanted to spend $1000 or more on a monitor, I'd just cough it up and get the Studio Display.

I just want a 32" 4k under $500 that doesn't have all the drama...

yeah i know what you mean... if the studio display was 32 inches i'd more likely buy it... and also the stand is too low. I'm afraid of hunching over on a 27 inch

 

[DSTOFEL]

Of course the answer to a large degree depends on your individual needs. For my use case (General stuff, MS Office, Lightroom and Final Cut Pro, My options coming from a 27 inch late 2015 iMac that I’m replacing were:
-24 inch M1 iMac (the option I chose: 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD from Apple refurb: $1,609)
-2020 iMac (Apple Refurb has a ton of models at some great prices right now).


I prefer one of the All-in-one solutions…so the M1 Mini and Studio are out for me. If a 27-30 inch iMac does eventually come, I’m guessing it might come in the form of an iMac Pro with some version of M1 chip and be closer to the $3,000 range. That’s more than I‘d want to spend to meet my use case.

 

[Phil77354]

If the 27" iMac were still available, which version would you buy?

If you'd have got the highest end, $3200 model and upgraded the RAM to 32GB at Apple prices then you'd have been pretty close the price of a M1 Max Studio + Studio Display (OK, so I'd have got a cheaper third party RAM upgrade, but then I'd probably not get the studio display). So, Mac Studio. . . .

I continue to debate this with myself . . . your comparison is exactly right, and in fact my late-2014 iMac 27" was $2999 with 512GB SSD ahd 16GB RAM. When I finally make a decision on a replacement, I'll get more storage than I have now and the end result will be that a Studio + Studio Display will only be more expensive because of my decision to get greater capability, i.e. storage. The RAM is already enough with the Studio.

Although to your exact question - if the 27" was still available, I would not purchase it because it is still Intel. Whatever I get next, it will have one of the new processors. And that is why I'm still hesitating, thinking that a larger iMac could still be in the future, even if it is another year away . . .

 

[turbineseaplane]

I hope a larger iMac still happens at some point.

The AS + ASM they're offering up now is much more of a replacement for an iMac Pro user than a normal 27" iMac user.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Is it possible for Apple to upgrade the stock 512 GB storage on the latest iMac 27 with one of those 8 TB drives? I do a lot with external storage but I really wish I would have also done a larger internal drive when I got it new. [edit] I saw they are soldered in for life. I guess I'll continue to use external drives.

 

[Phil77354]

Is it possible for Apple to upgrade the stock 512 GB storage on the latest iMac 27 with one of those 8 TB drives? I do a lot with external storage but I really wish I would have also done a larger internal drive when I got it new. [edit] I saw they are soldered in for life. I guess I'll continue to use external drives.

I think the 27" iMac (Intel) has replaceable internal drives.

 

[pshufd]

Another option is the used or refurbished 2017, 2019 or 2020 iMac, basically to tide you over until Apple does an M1 iMac 27. At least for a couple of years. If they never do so, then you get another couple of years to decide on what to do. The Studio is overkill for me. I want more RAM than what's available on the mini and I want a good price.

 

[pshufd]

Is it possible for Apple to upgrade the stock 512 GB storage on the latest iMac 27 with one of those 8 TB drives? I do a lot with external storage but I really wish I would have also done a larger internal drive when I got it new. [edit] I saw they are soldered in for life. I guess I'll continue to use external drives.

External drives are the way to go unless you have an iMac where they are replaceable without too much work. I just added one to a 2010 iMac for Virtual Machine performance and it worked out well. I think that those of use with iMacs prefer a pure look but Apple makes that very expensive.

 

[icemantx]

I have a late 2014 Retina 5k iMac and will be replacing it with, well nothing for now.

Today I am going open my iMac replace the HDD with an SSD (split the fusion) to keep it going a bit longer and provide a little bump in speed. Having said that, if I were to buy a replacement to this iMac, it would likely be the 24" Silver iMac 16gb/2TB version. I could see myself going to the Mac Mini + Studio Display at some point, but will hold off for now to see what later in 2022 brings (working on the Christmas list early - LOL)

 

[pshufd]

I have a late 2014 Retina 5k iMac and will be replacing it with, well nothing for now.

Today I am going open my iMac replace the HDD with an SSD (split the fusion) to keep it going a bit longer and provide a little bump in speed. Having said that, if I were to buy a replacement to this iMac, it would likely be the 24" Silver iMac 16gb/2TB version. I could see myself going to the Mac Mini + Studio Display at some point, but will hold off for now to see what later in 2022 brings (working on the Christmas list early - LOL)

Why not go with an external? Much less work and USB 3 performance should be really good. My 2014 has an original Apple 500 GB SSD and performance is fine. But I would have just attached an external if it had a HDD.

 

[azentropy]

I think there is a large gap between the Mac mini and the Mac Studio. Apple currently does not have a M1 Pro "desktop". It goes from the M1 (mini) to the M1 Max (Studio). I'd still like to see either a Mac mini with a "Pro" processor, most likely now a M2 in the future) or an even lower spec Mac Studio. Something like a Mac mini with a M1 Pro, 8-core CPU, 14-core GPU, 16GB RAM, 512GB - $1299 or $1499 with the 10/14 version.. It would have been a good starting point for a replacement for the midrange 27 iMac. Maybe we will see the Mac mini line expanded a bit more with the next refresh to the M2 line eventually.

 

[solideliquid]

I’d get a Mac Studio base or 14” MBP base model and a Dell 40” curved 5k ultra wide display for $1700.

 

[icemantx]

Why not go with an external? Much less work and USB 3 performance should be really good. My 2014 has an original Apple 500 GB SSD and performance is fine. But I would have just attached an external if it had a HDD.

Just not a big fan of external boot drives. Prefer internal and don’t mind taking it apart.

 

[ADGrant]

I'm still several months to a year from considering replacement of my 2017 27 inch iMac. But if I were to do so now, I'd be somewhat tempted to get the $2K studio. I like the form factor, design and capabilities.

But no way would I get the $1600 studio display with ho-hum display specs and a bum webcam.

I would get a 24 inch 4K display to use with the studio.

The Studio Display has better specs than your iMac display and the webcam hardware is fine. It's similar to the one in the iPhone 11 (which I have) or the current iPad. Clearly they need to fix the software.

 

[ADGrant]

The only part that has got consistent praise in the reviews is the speakers which are always described as "the best sound we've heard out of a display" - which is roughly equivalent to saying "the best cup of coffee I've tasted out of a gas station vending machine". Nobody is going to be mixing pro audio on built-in speakers - any "studio" remotely concerned with media creation is going to be using proper monitor speakers or headphones, nobody is going to make so much as a podcast without external mics.

OK, so not everybody is going to be using "pro" monitor speakers, mics and external audio interfaces but... hello... this is Apple and audio production (or video production including audio) is a pretty significant chunk of their "pro" market - and for them the audio facilities of the Studio Display are irrelevant. The major selling point of a display is always going to be the display.

Most people on this iMac forum are probably using their iMacs built in speakers. The Studio Display speakers are similar to the speakers in the current 24" iMac. They are supposed to be better than the 27" iMac speakers which sound fine to me.

 

[ADGrant]

Right now for me there is no another option. I was waiting new bigger Apple Silicon iMac and then Apple killed it suddenly and offered us Studio setup which seems powerful yet ridiculously expensive if you consider the Studio Display especially.
I`ve been using a base model M1 Macbook Air and was waiting for the bigger iMac. However since this won`t happen anytime soon, I put my Air on sale today and planning to buy one of the latest 5k iMacs and use it for the next a few years. Then I`ll see what Apple is going to offer.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to buy the new Studio Display and plug your M1 MBA into it?