Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 24" M1 iMac is now the most expensive Apple Silicon Mac
- Thread starter Yebubbleman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you though get a 27" 5k 500nit p3 display for 500$? Nope you cannot. I suspect the updated 27" model with its display will be a nice buy.
I guess the future iMac will continue in the footsteps of other retina iMacs. The display will be nice, but it will also be way too expensive for the baseline configuration. When a manufacturer tries to sell monitors based on the same panel, they will discover that almost nobody wants to buy the monitor, because it's too expensive for what it offers.
To be honest if my home setup allowed for it I would be tempted by the iMac 24". Considering that for the price you are getting M1, an excellent display, good speakers, webcam, keyboard and mouse/trackpad it is a good buy. Color wise I think I would go Blue or Green.
No foolin'. The keyboard and mouse seem like two hundred bucks themselves. Now we're talking US$400 for the display. Maybe the webcam and mics are fifty bucks — US$350 remains to find a monitor and speakers, and then there's all the cables you'll have all over the desk.
I got the iMac M1 with a VESA mount and by the moment I'm feeling smarter and smarter. Depending on whether some better config gets announced for the 24" iMac at WWDC, this may be subject to change.
Last edited:
And even if you pick a cheaper third-party input devices option, you will still be paying around $100 for a decent quality keyboard + mouse (especially if you want to go wireless). And while it's definitely possible to find a 4k display under $300, it will be a poor-quality plastic slab with bad color accuracy, washed-out pixels, low brightness and size/weight larger than the entire iMac.
Bottomline is: you can maybe save up to $200 going the Mac Mini route and buying the cheapest peripherals, but you will end with a much crappier setup overall. Forget about matching the quality of the display for the same price.
It really is. Every time there's an iMac update this argument gets made and I truly wonder what the point is. It's just clear that people don't understand the difference between something being expensive and something being overpriced.
I think iMacs are not good values in terms of price to performance but value in terms of the overall package(If you like package great). Macbook Pros will be a better value now even more so if the 27" iMacs replacement will have the same specs as the 16"/14".
The 14"/16" MBPs and high-end AS Mac mini will be the best price to performance machines. I will claim the MacBooks are the best value because they offer the same performance as the desktops and are portable.
I guess we will see MBPs at WWDC hopefully.
Right. My firm bills my time at US$800 per hour. What a rip, right? Nope — my peers are billing at a thousand and up. I'm a bargain.
I'll be in the market for either a 32" iMac or a Mac mini plus monitor. If I go the monitor route then the monitor I am looking at would likely be the BenQ PD3220U which is $1,200 but I think the iMac display will be much nicer. I think the iMac will be better value than a quality external monitor, but of course external monitors do have the flexibility of being usable beyond a single Mac if it's not buggy like the reports I've seen on the LG monitors. In an ideal world Apple will release external monitors for us to buy to replace our Apple Thunderbolt Displays...
The base model iMac has the 7 GPU Core variant M1; all models of M1 Mac mini have 8 GPU core versions of the M1. To get the iMac to have the exact same specs, you have to spend $200 more. $200 + $600 = $800 last I checked.
None of that really negates my point. PowerPC CPUs were positioned similarly as well. The G4 processors in the PowerBooks and iBooks were always a bit slower than the G4 processors in contemporary Power Macs, iMacs, and eMacs.
My point is that this is virtually the same M1 across all four computers. Meaning that the Mac mini and 24" iMac have the same exact computing guts (something that was never true of any Intel Mac mini and any Intel 21.5" 4K iMac; it was commonly true of a Mac mini and a contemporary 13" MacBook Pro, but never also the contemporary MacBook Air as well).
The value proposition for each of these computers change when they all have the exact same (or very close to the same) performance capabilities. The idea that I pay LESS for a notebook with the same exact performance as a desktop, and solely because that desktop has a 24" 4.5K Retina display IS new as that has never been how computers have been sold up until this point. Making the 24" M1 iMac the same cost as the M1 2-port 13" MacBook Pro would make much more sense than the iMac being more expensive and with no performance gains over it.
You don't buy the iMac for the keyboard and mouse. That's a silly notion if I've ever heard one.
At an $800 premium over a desktop that offers more connectivity out of the box, I fail to see where it's a bargain. Incidentally, I could absolutely get a 5K display, a BETTER mouse than what Apple bundles in the iMacs by default, and a comparable Apple keyboard (albeit sans Touch ID until those inevitably become available separately) and I'd probably still have enough left over for a nice steak dinner at a fancy restaurant.
Was this thread solely about MacBook Pros? Since it's not, then this comment makes no sense.
Right, but if we're talking about a 4K display that costs a fraction of the $800 premium commanded by that 4.5K display, then that still speaks to how overpriced the 4.5K display is.
That interpretation of this thread is more bizarre than the thread itself.
The 21.5" 4K iMac WAS more powerful than the Intel Air, the Intel 2-port 13" MacBook Pro, and the Intel Mac mini. In fact, all of those Macs had their pricepoint justified by the differences in computing power under their respective hoods.
Now, all four computers have the same computing guts under the hood (varying only in how the same SoC is cooled).
Put it this way, we are paying substantially more for the 4.5K display on the 24" M1 iMac than we have ever paid for the 4K display on the 21.5" Retina iMac, and certainly more than we have paid for the 5K display on the 27" Intel iMac.
The thread might make more sense if you bother to read the original post. I never said one should or shouldn't buy any M1 Mac over any other M1 Mac. In fact, I prefaced with a statement expressly countering such a notion.
The whole point is that in the Intel era, the $800 price difference between the mid-range 21.5" 4K iMac and the Mac mini was much more than included keyboards and mice and the display. The fact that people are in here arguing that the iMac is still a bargain when we're getting so much less computer than we did for the same price before is nuts.
I don't care what Mac you or anyone else buys and how they justify it.
The Mac mini is a desktop. The iMac is also a desktop. They may serve different desks, but to say that the two machines serve two different use cases or different users is not true WHEN IT'S THE SAME COMPUTER UNDER THE HOOD!
You could've made that claim in the Intel era as the Mac mini was always a step below the 21.5" iMac in most areas (graphics performance especially). However, the iMac features a marginally weaker SoC at its $600 higher base price and the same SoC at its mid-range cost, which is $800 more. So, this notion of "they all exist for a reason" is nonsense. When I shop for an M1 based desktop later this year for my mother, the criteria is basically going to be "do I have a monitor and/or do I want to have to go shopping for a monitor" and not "does she really need the performance of an iMac versus a Mac mini".
No, but it's not totally irrelevant especially since we're basically saying that the only reason to spend $800 extra is to get a pricey display and Apple branded input devices most of us agree kinda suck anyway.
I'm honestly not sure you understand the difference between something being expensive and something being overpriced, especially as it pertains to M1 Macs.
Furthermore, the cost of the 4K display in the 21.5" Retina iMacs was FAR less than the cost of the 4.5K display in the 24" iMac. Similarly, the 5K display in the still-sold Intel 27" iMacs costs FAR less than the cost of the 4.5K display in the 24" iMac.
You also can't say that this is the same "iMacs are a expensive, not overpriced" argument that might've existed during the Intel Mac era WHEN THE COMPUTING GUTS ARE OTHERWISE IDENTICAL (something that was never true between the Mac mini and the iMac during the Intel era). This is the element that has changed with the M1. It's the same computer in four different Mac form factors. You cannot deny that there's a whole lot less separating an M1 Mac mini from an M1 iMac, let alone enough to justify an $800 price difference.
Which display do you have in mind? Because the cheapest 5K display I can find is over $1000. And good quality 4K displays (decent brightness/color accuracy) are not much cheaper either.
I just went to look. For some reason I thought they were cheaper. I did see one for exactly $1000. It's 4K displays that have come way down. Either way, it's clear that with this iMac, there's much less of the whole "you're buying a 4K/5K display and it comes with a free computer" element than there was with either Intel Retina iMac.
My apologies; I totally read your argument as being in disagreement. Kind of interesting that what you wrote could work for either argument though.
Still, even for 4K, if you want something even remotely comparable (30-bit dithered color, 400nits or higher brightness, good color accuracy), you will have to spend at least $600-700. Even more, the iMac display is probably very similar to the LG UltraFine 24" which retails for close to $1000 and still has lower pixel density. So I think the iMac is still a reasonably good deal. Unless of course you are perfectly fine with downgrading the display or already own a preferred monitor setup.
You can get a decent 24” 4K display for about $300. I have an LG 24” 4K that is plenty good enough for the low-end/mid market that the M1 iMac is aimed at. Not as good as the 4.5K on the iMac but most people probably couldn’t tell the difference. It is only about 185 dpi for one thing.
The problem is that this inexpensive 4K has no amenities. It has 1 DP and 2 HDMI and an analog headphone jack. That’s everything. To match the iMac you need to add keyboard, mouse, speakers, and a 1080p webcam. And I replaced the included stand with an inexpensive VESA mount because the stand was truly awful.
So to save about $200-$300 (going with the $800 price difference) you get a worse display and a clutter of cables on your desk. It’s a trade off.
There is also color accuracy, brightness, contrast, color depth.... but of course, it's something one can live with. I have a fairly expensive 4K Dell monitor in the office and the panel is clearly inferior to one on my 16". Apple is very serious about their displays
I’m guessing that most people buying a 24” M1 iMac know very little about those details. They just care that the display looks good and the one I have is quite good. The only thing most would notice is that the display is only about 250 nits. I almost didn’t buy it because of that but in my office it is fine. Color gamut is 72% NTSC.There is also color accuracy, brightness, contrast, color depth.... but of course, it's something one can live with. I have a fairly expensive 4K Dell monitor in the office and the panel is clearly inferior to one on my 16". Apple is very serious about their displays
It is an LG 24UD58-B. Amazon price $299.
Stop saying the difference is 600$. It is definitely 800$. The base model iMac has inferior cooling system and SoC than the base Mac Mini. Yes, again and again, Apple managed to thermally throttle 15w SoC now. So, congrats them! This is complete b*llsh*t.
Mid-tier iMac has the comparable SoC with the same amount of RAM and SSD to the base model Mac Mini. I bought a base model M1 Mac Mini while waiting for Apple Silicon iMacs but this one frustrates actually to pay the difference.
Mid-tier iMac has the comparable SoC with the same amount of RAM and SSD to the base model Mac Mini. I bought a base model M1 Mac Mini while waiting for Apple Silicon iMacs but this one frustrates actually to pay the difference.
I would think that people you refer to would just walk into an Apple Store, look at the iMac, say "wow, this looks amazing" and just buy it. I doubt they will go though the trouble of getting the mini and hunting for an acceptable monitor and then putting it all together.
Sure. But we were speculating about a theoretical group of people who could save money by buying a Mac mini instead of the iMac. It is unlikely that anyone trying to save a few hundred dollars is that concerned about color gamuts. I see posts here all the time were someone claims that their display is better because it is 32” or 48”. I don’t know how common such people are but they definitely exist.
For the people who buy iMacs, in the main they are happy to spend an extra couple of hundred dollars for an all in one for a nicer looking setup and to avoid the cables etc.
Yes you can save money and buy a Mini - but you get a much worse experience and no nicely designed all in one with matching keyboard and mouse. When I buy the larger iMac or a Mini, the external monitor if I buy a Mini will cost me at least £1100.
Just because you could buy something inferior (inferior on multiple fronts) for less money doesn't make the iMac less value.
People who think the iMac is overpriced remind me of the PC users I know that have no taste and care only about spending as little as possible. You get what you pay for. The 4.5K display would be worth all of an $800 difference on it's own to people like me, let alone getting the new design and kybd & mouse.
I don't waste money, heck I'm still wearing my Series 0 Apple Watch and my daily iMac is a 2014. I tend to buy the best I can, Apple monitors are not cheap garbage and not really comparable to low-end alternatives.
Yes you can save money and buy a Mini - but you get a much worse experience and no nicely designed all in one with matching keyboard and mouse. When I buy the larger iMac or a Mini, the external monitor if I buy a Mini will cost me at least £1100.
Just because you could buy something inferior (inferior on multiple fronts) for less money doesn't make the iMac less value.
People who think the iMac is overpriced remind me of the PC users I know that have no taste and care only about spending as little as possible. You get what you pay for. The 4.5K display would be worth all of an $800 difference on it's own to people like me, let alone getting the new design and kybd & mouse.
I don't waste money, heck I'm still wearing my Series 0 Apple Watch and my daily iMac is a 2014. I tend to buy the best I can, Apple monitors are not cheap garbage and not really comparable to low-end alternatives.
No worries, and yeah it would. I had to re-read my comment a few times to even notice ?
The Mac Mini is a desktop. The iMac 24 is a desktop. The iMac 27 is a desktop. The Mac Pro is a desktop. How dare Apple offer four different desktops if clearly a single Mac Mini would have served everybody on this planet?
I think you're missing the point. All these desktops exist for a reason, and it doesn't matter that two of them offer near identical performance. There is a market for the all-in-one iMac and a market for the Mac Mini. I, for example, would never get a Mac Mini as it would clutter my desk. You would never get an iMac because you already have existing peripherals. I don't see what's wrong with either of these choices.