The 24" M1 iMac is now the most expensive Apple Silicon Mac

[Yebubbleman]

As a preface: This post is not to knock anyone who went out and bought either variant of 24" iMac. This is merely an observation.

With the Intel 21.5" 4K Retina iMacs, the amount of power and performance that you'd get would always be greater than that of the contemporary Mac mini, MacBook Air, and whichever 13" MacBook Pro was out at the time (let alone the 2-port Intel variants). It would have a higher starting price tag, but you'd always get substantially more computing and graphics horsepower out of it.

Now, with the M1 being mostly the same across all four Mac models that have it in terms of performance. The M1 iMac, when spec'ed similarly to the previous most expensive M1 Mac (the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro), is $200 more.

I'm not sure, in the history of Macs, let alone personal computing, that we've had a scenario where you have a laptop and a desktop with the exact same specs and, roughly, the exact same performance where the desktop was actually MORE money than the laptop. If anything, the desktop is usually cheaper, assuming that kind of equivalency. This is true of the Mac mini in relation to the MacBook Air and the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro. But the iMac seems to change this a bit.

 

[Serban55]

"But the iMac seems to change this a bit."
but but but the 24" imac must be more expensive than the others M1 macs because of its display alone
Another topic that can be close

 

[Altis]

I was tempted by the new iMac, but with educational pricing, it was CAD$900 more than the similar-spec'd Mini (8/8 core, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB storage) at CAD$1950 vs $1050, . The laptops came in the middle, around $1800 for the MBP and $1750 for the MBA (which has double the storage space at 512 GB, $1400 for the lower processor and 256 GB storage which compares with the base+16GB iMac at $1750).

The display is really nice (which I think is where all the cost goes) and I like the idea of an all-in-one, but CAD$900 buys a decent monitor that I can choose more specifically to my taste and use it with other devices. The Mini is just such a crackin' little machine that it's hard to pass up.

 

[Yebubbleman]

"But the iMac seems to change this a bit."
but but but the 24" imac must be more expensive than the others M1 macs because of its display alone
Another topic that can be close

If you take the 21.5" 4K Retina iMac that just got discontinued, and then take its specs relative to 2019 when it was first released, the 21.5" 4K display didn't tack all that much more onto the cost of those base components. It was also certainly more powerful than the Mac minis, as well as the MacBook Air, and 2-port 13" MacBook Pro. The 4.5K 24" monitor really can't be tacking up THAT much of the cost given how little the 21.5" 4K monitor did, especially since, in the end, you're not getting more computer. It's literally the same computer as the Mac mini, MacBook Air, and 2-port 13" MacBook Pro.

I was tempted by the new iMac, but with educational pricing, it was CAD$900 more than the similar-spec'd Mini (8/8 core, 16 GB RAM, 256 GB storage) at CAD$1950 vs $1050, . The laptops came in the middle, around $1800 for the MBP and $1750 for the MBA (which has double the storage space at 512 GB, $1400 for the lower processor and 256 GB storage which compares with the base+16GB iMac at $1750).

The display is really nice (which I think is where all the cost goes) and I like the idea of an all-in-one, but CAD$900 buys a decent monitor that I can choose more specifically to my taste and use it with other devices. The Mini is just such a crackin' little machine that it's hard to pass up.

Again, I'm not convinced that ALL the extra cost goes into the display, given how well the Intel iMacs were priced relative to (a) the cost of laptops and (b) the cost of the computing guts inside.

The Mac mini is a fantastic example given that it's the cheapest M1 Mac out there. But the cost difference is $800, which seems insane considering the computing guts are the same.

 

[nieks]

The Mac mini is a fantastic example given that it's the cheapest M1 Mac out there. But the cost difference is $800, which seems insane considering the computing guts are the same.

The basic iMac costs 1299, the basic mac Mini 699. That's a difference of 600 dollar, not 800.
But more: what you are saying is that you can use the 600 dollar and buy a 1080p webcam including mics, a 24"4.5K display, a speaker system, a mouse and a keyboard?

 

[CWallace]

With Intel, "desktop-class" CPUs out-performed "laptop-class" CPUs because they had higher TDP limits and power consumption. So it was not surprising a 65W "desktop" CPU would outperform a 45W "mobile" one.

The M1 is the Apple Silicon equivalent of the "mobile-class" SoC, though we should really refer to it as the "consumer" SoC. So not surprising the iMac has the same performance as the 13.3" MacBook Pro or Mac mini just as we would not be surprised if the iMac 4K performed the same as the 13.3" MacBook Pro if both had the same 45W CPU.

The "M1X" will be the "professional" SoC in the Apple Silicon family and the iMac and MacBook Pro that have it will likely perform similar, as well. We have yet to see what the "pro" iMac (iMac Pro?) will cost, but I would not be surprised to see it start at $2499 with 16 GPUs, 16GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD. I'm also guessing the 16" MBP with the same specs will start at the same $2399 as the current Intel model, so again, the "desktop" will cost more than the "laptop", though the delta will likely be smaller in the professional space than it is in the consumer.

 

[NotTooLate]

As a preface: This post is not to knock anyone who went out and bought either variant of 24" iMac. This is merely an observation.

With the Intel 21.5" 4K Retina iMacs, the amount of power and performance that you'd get would always be greater than that of the contemporary Mac mini, MacBook Air, and whichever 13" MacBook Pro was out at the time (let alone the 2-port Intel variants). It would have a higher starting price tag, but you'd always get substantially more computing and graphics horsepower out of it.

Now, with the M1 being mostly the same across all four Mac models that have it in terms of performance. The M1 iMac, when spec'ed similarly to the previous most expensive M1 Mac (the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro), is $200 more.

I'm not sure, in the history of Macs, let alone personal computing, that we've had a scenario where you have a laptop and a desktop with the exact same specs and, roughly, the exact same performance where the desktop was actually MORE money than the laptop. If anything, the desktop is usually cheaper, assuming that kind of equivalency. This is true of the Mac mini in relation to the MacBook Air and the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro. But the iMac seems to change this a bit.

The problem is that we were convinced to accept the fact that thin and light laptops are also weak , fan less ? Pfff weakest of the weakest ! Now Apple raised the minimum compute for all of their products , once we get the higher end CPU’s the elitists can claim their “ I am faster the those Macs at the cafe” which is currently not happening if anything those normal consumers have better machines then 3k MBP’s for a lot of applications , that doesn’t sit well with a lot of the fanatics that are looking for hierarchy wherever they go , and desktop was always the big boy while laptop were portable cut down version of the desktop , welp no longer the case , which is great for laptop owners !

 

[cardfan]

The basic iMac costs 1299, the basic mac Mini 699. That's a difference of 600 dollar, not 800.
But more: what you are saying is that you can use the 600 dollar and buy a 1080p webcam including mics, a 24"4.5K display, a speaker system, a mouse and a keyboard?

The speakers, mouse and kb are all junk though. Most likely you’ll bring your own anyways.

 

[CWallace]

The speakers, mouse and kb are all junk though. Most likely you’ll bring your own anyways.

If someone agreed with that assessment, then they would not be in the market for an iMac anyway, so what does it matter what it cost compared to the Mac mini?

 

[NewUsername]

The Mac mini is now 699 and the iMac is 1299, so a 600$ difference.
Before the switch, the prices were 799 and 1299, so 500$ difference.

Before the switch to Apple Silicon, both the Mac mini and the iMac had 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD. The Mac mini had a T2 chip, the iMac didn't; the Mac mini also had 4 TB3 ports. Both had the same processor in the base model. However, the Mac mini only had integrated graphics (UHD 630), the iMac had a Radeon Pro 555X, about three times higher score in Geekbench Metal.

You used to have a pretty good upgrade for 500$, though the Mac mini was also more modern in a few ways. Now, you pay 600$ and you get mostly the same computer. Or worse, since you miss out on the 8th GPU core and you have to pay more to get an Ethernet port and extra USB ports. Yes, the screen is better than it was in the Intel iMac, but that 21.5" screen was also excellent in its own right.

TL;DR -> yes I agree with you.

 

[Altis]

The basic iMac costs 1299, the basic mac Mini 699. That's a difference of 600 dollar, not 800.
But more: what you are saying is that you can use the 600 dollar and buy a 1080p webcam including mics, a 24"4.5K display, a speaker system, a mouse and a keyboard?

The base iMac doesn't compare with the base Mini, though... you have to go up to the mid-tier for the same processor and more similar ports.

For the CAD$900 difference, not only could you buy all that, but you could actually select it based on your needs and wants, assuming you don't already have it already.

 

[ader42]

The 24" iMac is a bargain.

Show me where you can buy a keyboard and mouse as good as Apple' and webcam plus a good and nice looking 4.5K monitor for $600.

You can't, because you can't.

 

[cmaier]

As a preface: This post is not to knock anyone who went out and bought either variant of 24" iMac. This is merely an observation.

With the Intel 21.5" 4K Retina iMacs, the amount of power and performance that you'd get would always be greater than that of the contemporary Mac mini, MacBook Air, and whichever 13" MacBook Pro was out at the time (let alone the 2-port Intel variants). It would have a higher starting price tag, but you'd always get substantially more computing and graphics horsepower out of it.

Now, with the M1 being mostly the same across all four Mac models that have it in terms of performance. The M1 iMac, when spec'ed similarly to the previous most expensive M1 Mac (the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro), is $200 more.

I'm not sure, in the history of Macs, let alone personal computing, that we've had a scenario where you have a laptop and a desktop with the exact same specs and, roughly, the exact same performance where the desktop was actually MORE money than the laptop. If anything, the desktop is usually cheaper, assuming that kind of equivalency. This is true of the Mac mini in relation to the MacBook Air and the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro. But the iMac seems to change this a bit.

Is there a 24” MacBook Pro I don’t know about? Because, if not, then this post makes no sense.

 

[justin0712]

Is there a 24” MacBook Pro I don’t know about? Because, if not, then this post makes no sense.

The OP is just trying to make the point that you are getting the same internals, well in this case base for base, less for a higher price tag. Sure you get a 24" 4.5K display, but is it really worth 600 more dollars? For some, it can be since it is an all in one. For others, a 1080P or cheap 4K monitor with mouse and keyboard will suffice in order to at least pay the Apple premium to upgrade the storage on the Mini and come out with at least $100-$300 ahead.

Where I think the iMac will shine is still in school and business settings where deployment is much easier than going out and buying hundreds of monitors, mice, keyboards and webcams.

 

[Altis]

The 24" iMac is a bargain.

Show me where you can buy a keyboard and mouse as good as Apple' and webcam plus a good and nice looking 4.5K monitor for $600.

You can't, because you can't.

Again, the base iMac is underspec'd compared with the base Mini -- you have to go to the mid-tier model. So the difference is USD $800 when similarly spec'd.

You can get all kinds of decent 4k IPS displays, ranging in sizes, often with fully-adjustable stands, in the $400-$600 range -- and you can even use it with other devices, and after the computer is replaced.

If you happen to not have a keyboard, mouse, and webcam (and want one), you can get all those pretty inexpensively as well, and you'll have your choice of what you actually get.

 

[ChairSpud]

I agree with the OP which is why instead of upgrading my 2017 iMac I chose instead to upgrade the 2011 Mini. I thought for sure the new iMac would have a better M1 chip and more ports than it does.

 

[cmaier]

The OP is just trying to make the point that you are getting the same internals, well in this case base for base, less for a higher price tag. Sure you get a 24" 4.5K display, but is it really worth 600 more dollars? For some, it can be since it is an all in one. For others, a 1080P or cheap 4K monitor with mouse and keyboard will suffice in order to at least pay the Apple premium to upgrade the storage on the Mini and come out with at least $100-$300 ahead.

Where I think the iMac will shine is still in school and business settings where deployment is much easier than going out and buying hundreds of monitors, mice, keyboards and webcams.

What? Why even bring 1080p or 4k monitors into it? If you want to fairly compare the price to a mini you need to factor in the cost of a 4.5k 24” display. The OP is talking about the price/value of these machines, not whether one could get by with a worse-spec‘d setup for less money.

 

[thenewperson]

but is it really worth 600 more dollars?

Uh, yes? It's also definitely worth the $800 difference it actually is anyway. The decision between the iMac 24 and the Mac mini is so easy - if you don't want a 4.5K 24" display, built in speakers, input devices, get the mini ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[cmaier]

Uh, yes? It's also definitely worth the $800 difference it actually is anyway. The decision between the iMac 24 and the Mac mini is so easy - if you don't want a 4.5K 24" display, built in speakers, input devices, get the mini ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, this whole thread is so bizarre. “This Goodyear tire costs $200, and the Porsche Boxster costs $65,000. Is it really worth $64,800 more? I mean, what if you don’t need the entire car?”

 

[thadoggfather]

its also the AS Mac with the largest screen

 

[mj_]

This entire thread makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying one shouldn't buy the M1 MacBook Pro over the M1 Mac Mini because the Mini is cheaper and doesn't come with all that unnecessary clutter like display, keyboard, mouse, speakers, webcam, battery, etc. Therefore, the Mini is clearly the better deal.

The iMac is an all-in-one computer and serves a completely different purpose and market than the Mac Mini, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro. They all exist for a reason.

 

[justin0712]

What? Why even bring 1080p or 4k monitors into it? If you want to fairly compare the price to a mini you need to factor in the cost of a 4.5k 24” display. The OP is talking about the price/value of these machines, not whether one could get by with a worse-spec‘d setup for less money.

Fine. Baring the display out of the equation...

People are just saying that the Mini exists at $600 dollars less than the base iMac with more ports and the 8th GPU core enabled. For an additional $200 over the base iMac or $800 more than the mini, you can bring the iMac up to par with Mini's performance. No one is snubbing those who buy the iMac 24". More power to you and I'm glad someone is buying it. Keeps the marketshare going strong for MacOS.

 

[JMacHack]

The 24" iMac is a bargain.

Show me where you can buy a keyboard and mouse as good as Apple' and webcam plus a good and nice looking 4.5K monitor for $600.

You can't, because you can't.

If you count the touch id keyboard I might agree, but Apple has never made a mouse worth a damn. I use a Magic Mouse every day and it’s a pain about 30% of the time.

 

[JouniS]

What? Why even bring 1080p or 4k monitors into it? If you want to fairly compare the price to a mini you need to factor in the cost of a 4.5k 24” display. The OP is talking about the price/value of these machines, not whether one could get by with a worse-spec‘d setup for less money.

Value is always subjective. For example, I would choose a 27" 4k monitor over a 24" 4.5k one. Because I can get a good 27" 4k monitor for ~$400, the new iMac display is worth less than $400 to me.

All-in-ones can be good value for money if you agree with the component choices. If you would prefer something else, they are not always very cost-effective.

 

[Nermal]

If you count the touch id keyboard I might agree, but Apple has never made a mouse worth a damn. I use a Magic Mouse every day and it’s a pain about 30% of the time.

You're more patient than I am; the mouse that came with my iMac went back into the box on day 1.