New 24 inch iMacs with M1 chip

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Messages
6,948
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Apple have released details of their new iMacs with M1 chips. I’ve only scanned through their website to pick up the basic details. Firstly glad to see the back of the fusion drives and SSD only (about time!). Cost wise it’s where I thought it would be. If I’m honest it’s probably better than I thought considering the cost against the Mac mini and the fact you’re getting a screen too.

I’m a iMac 21.5 inch 2012 user so its getting around to the time of thinking about an update. Recently I was thinking of an iPad Pro and waiting for the event to see what happened with a potential 2021 model, but I think I’d be better better off thinking of updating the iMac as it’s now 9 years old.

What’s everyone’s thoughts on the new iMac 24 inch models?
 
They look nice like most Apple products do. But having owned an iMac before you can't use it just as monitor and you end having to replace both. Not keen on iMacs anymore and 24" is bit small for me.

I am going to continue waiting for an updated mini.

But if you are coming from a 2012 iMac this will be an amazing upgrade. But I didn't find the option to update the RAM to 16GB and I'd advise 16GB as the minimum to get for longevity.
 
Watched the event and to be quite honest I was disappointed at the iMac release. 24" in this day and age for any production work is just not an option, well at least not for me.
Should have been a 27" replacement, and I see they still have those god damn awful bezels.

I will stick with my dual 27" screens and wait till the end of the year to see what comes along at the next major event.
 
After the talk of a 32in iMac with an M1X possibility, it doesn't get my vote; especially without bigger memory options. I'll be waiting for a preferably 32Gb memory and M1X or M2 with at least 27in screen, but tbh now that I'm using a M1 Mini (16Gb) for other purposes, I might just stick to the next version of the mini and pay for a s**t-hot screen to go with it.
 
nandbytes said:
They look nice like most Apple products do. But having owned an iMac before you can't use it just as monitor and you end having to replace both. Not keen on iMacs anymore and 24" is bit small for me.

I am going to continue waiting for an updated mini.

But if you are coming from a 2012 iMac this will be an amazing upgrade. But I didn't find the option to update the RAM to 16GB and I'd advise 16GB as the minimum to get for longevity.
Click to expand...
It looks like ordering isn’t open until 30th April so the upgrade options aren’t there. I’m guessing as it’s similar spec to the Mac mini’s the 16GB upgrade price will be the similiar.


Nikon f1.8 said:
Watched the event and to be quite honest I was disappointed at the iMac release. 24" in this day and age for any production work is just not an option, well at least not for me.
Should have been a 27" replacement, and I see they still have those god damn awful bezels.

I will stick with my dual 27" screens and wait till the end of the year to see what comes along at the next major event.
Click to expand...
Lindsay56 said:
After the talk of a 32in iMac with an M1X possibility, it doesn't get my vote; especially without bigger memory options. I'll be waiting for a preferably 32Gb memory and M1X or M2 with at least 27in screen, but tbh now that I'm using a M1 Mini (16Gb) for other purposes, I might just stick to the next version of the mini and pay for a s**t-hot screen to go with it.
Click to expand...
I use a 27 inch screen for home working so get the reason why people want a bigger screen, and I’m sure one will be coming. For me I’m going to put the Mac in the dining room/ kitchen so 24 inch is probably a good size as I not really want this huge computer screen in the corner.

faster chips will likely be on the way. it’s a case of waiting to see what happens as thsee initial models are replacements for the 21.5 models and aren’t going to be of any use to the 27 inch users. The one thing that worries me with the larger screen or faster chips is the cost rising even further than this. A 16GB, 1TB model is likely to be around £2049 if each upgrade is £200. That’s at the very top end of what I’d like to spend. I can see a 32 inch with 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD model with a faster chip being over £3k.
 
rob-nikon said:
It looks like ordering isn’t open until 30th April so the upgrade options aren’t there. I’m guessing as it’s similar spec to the Mac mini’s the 16GB upgrade price will be the similiar.




I use a 27 inch screen for home working so get the reason why people want a bigger screen, and I’m sure one will be coming. For me I’m going to put the Mac in the dining room/ kitchen so 24 inch is probably a good size as I not really want this huge computer screen in the corner.

faster chips will likely be on the way. it’s a case of waiting to see what happens as thsee initial models are replacements for the 21.5 models and aren’t going to be of any use to the 27 inch users. The one thing that worries me with the larger screen or faster chips is the cost rising even further than this. A 16GB, 1TB model is likely to be around £2049 if each upgrade is £200. That’s at the very top end of what I’d like to spend. I can see a 32 inch with 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD model with a faster chip being over £3k.
Click to expand...

Yep the next model up you are looking at 2.5k and upwards for an upgrade.

I am hoping the Mac mini with next processor plus 32GB RAM will come under £2k.
I already have a monitor now.
Then I can keep my base model Mac air for travels only.
 
The design is truly ghastly. This could be the reason alone to avoid it.

rob-nikon said:
Firstly glad to see the back of the fusion drives and SSD only (about time!).
Click to expand...

256gb firmly belongs in the history books. Charging £200 for also historic 512gb version is greedy and nasty. It should start at 1tb plain and simple.
 
True. a top-end iMac is likely to push £3k. But then if you think about who might use it, that's not out of the ballpark. I imagine, when it comes, the new M2 Mac Pro will be £4-5k, but that is a very niche market where you tend to get what you pay for.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
The design is truly ghastly. This could be the reason alone to avoid it.

256gb firmly belongs in the history books. Charging £200 for also historic 512gb version is greedy and nasty. It should start at 1tb plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I like the design but the upgrades and extortionate. But that's always been the apple way. Lockdown things as much as possible and charge crazy prices.
 
Lindsay56 said:
After the talk of a 32in iMac with an M1X possibility, it doesn't get my vote; especially without bigger memory options. I'll be waiting for a preferably 32Gb memory and M1X or M2 with at least 27in screen, but tbh now that I'm using a M1 Mini (16Gb) for other purposes, I might just stick to the next version of the mini and pay for a s**t-hot screen to go with it.
Click to expand...

I think for photography you are better with this lay out. iMacs have very glossy screens and you're better with an IPS mat screen with the 99% aRGB and 100% sRGB coverage.
 
nandbytes said:
I like the design but the upgrades and extortionate. But that's always been the apple way. Lockdown things as much as possible and charge crazy prices.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed the white bezel around the screens? It is in all colour versions even silver. The other ones are like insane. But no black or white.

I just wonder what happened to a company that used to innovate and lead? Those SSD and ram specs are good few years behind pretty much everything in this price range.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Have you noticed the white bezel around the screens? It is in all colour versions even silver. The other ones are like insane. But no black or white.

I just wonder what happened to a company that used to innovate and lead? Those SSD and ram specs are good few years behind pretty much everything in this price range.
Click to expand...

The RAM is more efficient I wouldn't compare 8GB on the M1 with 8GB on intel
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Besides it looks like you are paying £749 for the 24" 4k screen. I bet you can find something equally amazing and get mini if you must
Click to expand...

you can get a decent larger hardware calibrated screen for another £50-100 more I think.
This is why I decide to get rid of my iMac while it was still worth something and not buy another.
 
So a smaller screen
Less maximum ram
1gbe instead of 10gbe

But whoppe it a couple of mm thinner, a backward move in most departments, why not just sell a stand for a MacBook, because that all it really is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nandbytes said:
The RAM is more efficient I wouldn't compare 8GB on the M1 with 8GB on intel
Click to expand...
I think this is a key point. The RAM-onna-M-chip is more efficient that separate RAM.

I imagine that thee will be more RAM, but it isn't needed now. It'll be seen down the line.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
256gb firmly belongs in the history books. Charging £200 for also historic 512gb version is greedy and nasty. It should start at 1tb plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I don't totally agree with that, my on my current imac I have used 158Gb of storage. With the move by many to either NAS or cloud storgae, I don't think a huge amont on the actually device is as important, but it needs a 10gbe Lan port or it's just out of date at launch.
 
whiteflyer said:
So a smaller screen
Less maximum ram
1gbe instead of 10gbe

But whoppe it a couple of mm thinner, a backward move in most departments, why not just sell a stand for a MacBook, because that all it really is.
Click to expand...

you thinking is too logical, you probably aren't apples target market.
I know a couple apple devout and they think its beauty is unsurpassed and they could care less about 1gbe or 10gbe (not sure they would know or care what that means)
 
nandbytes said:
The RAM is more efficient I wouldn't compare 8GB on the M1 with 8GB on intel
Click to expand...

You could argue about that either way. I suspect the answer has more to do with SSD acting in place of RAM when it needs more. SSDs are very fast these days so in many cases you won't notice a massive reduction in speed particularly when data can be correctly prioritised between the two. This however means the SSD will wear out much quicker and this is particularly true for smaller models, and also that you will lose another 20-40GB of usable space of this already tiny drive. You can have your basic apps and essentially no large data, no games (if there will be any), no virtual machines (again if there will be any), and so on. That is pretty much DOA and only 1GBE network doesn't help.

nandbytes said:
you thinking is too logical, you probably aren't apples target market.
Click to expand...

LOL. I think it used to be the other way round while Jobs was still alive.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
P.S. This may be interesting to watch https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/replace-m1-mac-ram-storage-3803524/

Can't wait for some cheap chinese upgrade kits
Click to expand...

I've seen that and couple others but I am not going to do that lol (despite being quite competent at doing that sort of thing)

LongLensPhotography said:
You could argue about that either way. I suspect the answer has more to do with SSD acting in place of RAM when it needs more. SSDs are very fast these days so in many cases you won't notice a massive reduction in speed particularly when data can be correctly prioritised between the two. This however means the SSD will wear out much quicker and this is particularly true for smaller models, and also that you will lose another 20-40GB of usable space of this already tiny drive. You can have your basic apps and essentially no large data, no games (if there will be any), no virtual machines (again if there will be any), and so on. That is pretty much DOA and only 1GBE network doesn't help.

LOL. I think it used to be the other way round while Jobs was still alive.
Click to expand...

It does swap space quite a bit but RAM is still a fair bit faster than SSDs in the Mac. in fact another pet annoyance of mine is for all the money they charge for the SSD upgrades you don't seem to get the fastest more efficient SSD available.

Just projecting/forecasting based on my usage so far with a base model MacBook air the SSD will last 8-10 years. That's more than long enough IMO.
Also with just 8GB RAM it gives my iMac (4GHz quad core i7, 16GB RAM, 4GB dedicated graphics) a run for its money. comes very close matching it on performance while running through Rosetta layer. The new M1 hardware inc. memory efficiency is very impressive. I do not think you will need the same amount of RAM. Of course some software like LR are crap inherently in the way they work and insist on using a certain amount of RAM. I am not going to argue 8GB is enough because it's not, 16GB would be but doesn't give me enough confidence for longevity beyond 2-3-ish year, but I'd be more than happy with 32GB RAM on apple silicon. If I was going with intel machine now (nearly did), I'd be looking at getting at least 64GB.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Of course some software like LR are crap inherently in the way they work and insist on using a certain amount of RAM. I am not going to argue 8GB is enough because it's not, 16GB would be but doesn't give me enough confidence for longevity beyond 2-3-ish year, but I'd be more than happy with 32GB RAM on apple silicon. If I was going with intel machine now (nearly did), I'd be looking at getting at least 64GB.
Click to expand...

The image data needs to be stored somewhere. 10x 50MP layers in PS + LR and sharpne AI running will easily fill close to 32GB,.No magic RAM can fit that within 8GB. I got really close to 32GB a few times, but normally I'm just between 8-16GB. That's on the PC now but again we are talking about images and layers. In 3 years time I'd like to have at least 64GB but then I'd probably like to have something that will have all the latest tech in it too.
 
I like the look of it but as others have said, 24" screen is not enough real estate and 512gb is sooo yesterday.
Hopefully there will be a more powerful 27" version in the near future.
 
whiteflyer said:
So a smaller screen
Less maximum ram
1gbe instead of 10gbe

But whoppe it a couple of mm thinner, a backward move in most departments, why not just sell a stand for a MacBook, because that all it really is.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with too much of this but the screen is bigger than the 21.5" it's replaced. That model has disappeared from the Apple site. Just 24 and 27 listed now. I'd guess the 27" will get a bigger screen too when that is upgraded.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
The image data needs to be stored somewhere. 10x 50MP layers in PS + LR and sharpne AI running will easily fill close to 32GB,.No magic RAM can fit that within 8GB. I got really close to 32GB a few times, but normally I'm just between 8-16GB. That's on the PC now but again we are talking about images and layers. In 3 years time I'd like to have at least 64GB but then I'd probably like to have something that will have all the latest tech in it too.
Click to expand...

I mostly use LR and topaz ai stuff (inc. sharpen ai) and sometimes affinity for stacking and stitching. LR is the worst offender of the lot.

Also I don't do or have the need to HDR merge and bracket lots thanks to the dynamic range on Sony sensors. So I mostly just have to deal with single 60mp files.
The times where that goes over is for panos and focus stacking shots but those are only like 5% of everything I process so a bit of lag is bearable.
But even if I am trying to work with 10x 60mp filters that only 600MB of data. that's not a huge lot. Affinity for example handles things much better and is native unlike LR which isn't as memory efficient in its operation.

May be PS requires a lots of RAM but I use Photoshop like 3-4 times in a year.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
10x 60mp filters that only 600MB of data
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. 60MB may be your compressed RAW file, but as soon as it is opened it is essentially uncompressed 16BIT TIFF file worth some 290MB according to PS. That's on top of all caches, LR and all the rest.
Again not a mac in this case, but freshly booted PC with 10X 5Ds images in PS and LR open is already over 19GB; that's before I did anything with them. Imagine doing serious video edit.

nandbytes said:
Also I don't do or have the need to HDR merge and bracket lots thanks to the dynamic range on Sony sensors.
Click to expand...

There are many more reasons like blending flash layers, creating digital art, and so on. 10 is a bit extreme example but it does happen.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
That is incorrect. 60MB may be your compressed RAW file, but as soon as it is opened it is essentially uncompressed 16BIT TIFF file worth some 290MB according to PS. That's on top of all caches, LR and all the rest.
Again not a mac in this case, but freshly booted PC with 10X 5Ds images in PS and LR open is already over 19GB; that's before I did anything with them. Imagine doing serious video edit.
Click to expand...

an uncompressed Sony RAW out of the camera is 120MB. I wonder if TIFFs are larger... I haven't actually checked to be honest.

My LR is constantly around 11GB on average with peaks of around 14-15 GB which is rare. with PS is even bigger, you are looking at 20GB like you said.
I am not sure if native versions of these software will be any different (probably not I imagine).
Like I said I am not going to argue 8GB is enough but I think 32GB will be sufficient for 5-6 years at least if not longer (I personally don't plan to keep computer much longer than that).
On a windows machine you need more because the OS and the hardware arch isn't as efficient in handling the memory and data movement as well as apple can do.

I don't do video edits on the scale that requires really serious specs. its mostly family clips. but from the reviews and benchmarks one of the main considerations was Final Cut Pro which seems to run amazingly well on M1 and I have seen comparisons against Mac Pro which is a beast!
May be all yes internet/YouTube hype but I am sold on the apple silicon architecture and ideology in general for my use case. I am just waiting for a 32GB RAM Mac mini.
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
Storage is cheap though. Not bothered about that at all. Heck, if you join Amazon prime you get unlimited online storage :D
Click to expand...

yeah I use prime for cloud backup.
that's the main reason for me having amazon prime subscription. the deliveries is just cherry on top. missus does use prime video and prime music a fair amount so all in all its a good deal for me :D
 
gremlin16 said:
More than happy with my recent purchase of 16gb M1 mini, especially at those prices!
Click to expand...
The Mac mini M1 does seem a more cost effective solution for me as I already have a 27 inch 4K dell monitor I bought last year and a spare magic mouse/keyboard that I could use too. I was hoping the updated iMac would still have 4 USB3 ports along with the 2 thunderbolt ports as that would be a plus over the Mac mini but it doesn’t and it’s lost the SD card slot too so there probably isn’t much point not considering the Mac mini.

I’d guess the upgrades will be the same cost as the Mac mini being roughly the same. That means a difference of £750 whatever upgraded parts I go for.

currently I think I need to decide what I’m doing with working from home long term. if I can combine a single screen for both work and home use the mac mini makes more sense.
 
I was looking forward to these, but I think I’m going to go for a Mini in a few months time. I do hope the touchID keyboards can work on other M1 machines.
 
Having seen the upgrade prices for the M1 24 inch iMac are exactly the same as the Mac mini I’ve started to think the Mac mini would be the more sensible option for me.l considering I have a screen I could potentially use. I’ve decided I’d need to spec it with 16GB RAM but the cost of storage upgrades feels excessive. It’s annoying you’re effectively paying £200 for just 256GB storage as it replaced the base 256GB SSD rather than provide an extra drive.

After discussing the 2TB upgrade with a friend who would like do it to match his current 2011 iMac spec he found this external caddy.

UGREEN M.2 NVMe Enclosure USB C External PCIe M-Key SSD Caddy 10Gbp UASP USB 3.1 Gen 2 M2 Reader Aluminum Thunderbolt 3 Case Compatible with 970 EVO Plus, Crucial P1, WD Black, Kingston NVMe Tool-Free: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

Free delivery and returns on eligible orders. Buy UGREEN M.2 NVMe Enclosure USB C External PCIe M-Key SSD Caddy 10Gbp UASP USB 3.1 Gen 2 M2 Reader Aluminum Thunderbolt 3 Case Compatible with 970 EVO Plus, Crucial P1, WD Black, Kingston NVMe Tool-Free at Amazon UK.
www.amazon.co.uk

If I coupled that with a 500GB NVMe SSD for £47 it would be a bargain compared to the apple price. I’d even think of upgrading that to a 1TB SSD for just £4


The 256GB internal SSD would probably be do for just the OS and apps. An external caddy SSD for Lightroom and general document storage, and my existing 6TB thunderbolt 3 drive for RAWS. I’m wondering if the caddy could be daisy chained off my existing thunderbolt 3 drive.

All in all that would be a Mac mini with 16GB RAM and 256GB internal SSD, and additional 1TB external SSD for just over £1K. That seems my most cost effective solution to stay with a Mac.

Anyone else considering doing similar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top