iMac are not very eco friendly. in the past, they gave you pretty decent bang for your buck for a monitor + desktop combo, but if you find yourself needing a desktop/notebook upgrade, your value proposition suddenly drops. take a look at the 5k iMac. beautiful display from today's standards but practically dead in the water once your CPU/GPU isn't good enough. you gotta ask yourself how futureproof that M3 Pro is to you.
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.
Apple Reportedly Developing Larger iMac With Over 30-Inch Display
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple comes out with a larger iMac, like they've had before, what other kind of computer is left for them to invent? Have they reached the end of the road?
Super weird argument. I've never not been able to sell an iMac for at least 70% of what I bought it for even five years in. They hold their value throughout the lifespan of the "display", even if it might be too slow for you.
People don't just throw these computers away.
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
Check out 🖥️ 30" iMac Pro Concept.
-Illuminating Power Button
-USB-C power delivery instead of DC input
Credit: Twitter-Kyle.tod
-Illuminating Power Button
-USB-C power delivery instead of DC input
Credit: Twitter-Kyle.tod
I believe it's more likely with a ~32" display rather then an iMac in that size.
Yes, 32 inches gives the same size as the Pro Display XDR, with the same 218 ppi as all other iMacs since they first went retina.
On my desk I have a Late 2015 iMac with a 27" 5K Retina display that I'm happy with and have no real reason to upgrade given my use case and the current display offerings. Meanwhile the computer part was top of the line when new but compared to any current computer offerings it's very slow and showing its age. It's not supported by the current version of MacOS.
Why is it weird that I want to continue using my display but upgrade my computer exactly? (The super weird argument to me is claiming I can sell this for 70% the cost of a new one which is not based in fact at all)
Last edited:
Fact: I sold my A$2300 2015 iMac for A$1800 in 2020. That's 67.7% of its original cost not counting for inflation (an added 7.82%)
That what I suspected. Old 27 iMac wasn't a good money maker. A new 30 iMac "Pro" will cost a fortune to drive AAPL to new heights.
The 27" iMac was Apple's most popular desktop model over its sales life (2009-2020) based on sales numbers (when they used to release them) and anecdotal evidence one they stopped.
The new MacBook Pro was soaking up every M1 Pro and M1 Max SoC TSMC could fab so I believe Apple felt they could only offer the iMac with the base M1 and therefore chose 24" as it bridged the gap between 21.5" and 27". Apple now likely feels that M3 Pro/Max will have enough production availability to allow for a larger iMac model to be offered alongside the 24" model refresh.
The above being said, this machine will likely be quite expensive - I would expect pricing for an M3 Max model with 32GB and 1TB to be at least $3999 and possibly $4999 (after all, even at that price it would be over $3000 cheaper than a Pro Display XDR and Mac Studio with M3 Max).
30" at 5K would be non-Retina, so I would expect no.
My guess is it will be 31.5" at 6K so same size and resolution as the Pro Display XDR as there are at least three 6K 31.5" 60Hz panels Apple can select from (the LG one in the Pro Display XDR, the LG "IPS Black" panel in the Dell U3224KB and a new panel from BOE due this year).
You guys should really wait for m3, the gain will be significant compared to the m1 to m2 increase, which is meh.
Mac mini m3 pro is the sweet spot, and for those with the cash m3 max studio is also a good choice since many games now work flawlessly with mac after that converter software release, you can actually play AAA games now on mac like Diablo 4, can also integrate the converter with crossover for even better results. And it will only get better from here.
After buying a new Mac, I can throw away my vacuum gaming pc and simplify my setup. Only playing couple games nowadays and they all work very well now on mac
Mac mini m3 pro is the sweet spot, and for those with the cash m3 max studio is also a good choice since many games now work flawlessly with mac after that converter software release, you can actually play AAA games now on mac like Diablo 4, can also integrate the converter with crossover for even better results. And it will only get better from here.
After buying a new Mac, I can throw away my vacuum gaming pc and simplify my setup. Only playing couple games nowadays and they all work very well now on mac
Coming from M1 and M2, I would guess that the gain will not be all that significant. More likely close to what we saw from M1 to M2. Because, while using a smaller node at the same frequency MIGHT lead to an impressive performance jump, what Apple’s far more likely to do is realize the efficiency increase of the node and clock their processors down knowing they can hit 15 to 20% performance increases at the lower power.
The key here is whatever they produce will be the fastest Mac ever made. They don’t ever have to hit a 30-50% performance increase in one year when they can do 18 one year, 25 the next, 22 the next and so on.
Considering how good battery life is the M2 family (on the N5E process), I would expect Apple to run the M3 (on the N3E process) at similar power levels, which would provide up to an 18% performance improvement over M2.
The improved N3P process could be ready in time for the M3 Pro/Max/Ultra, which would offer up to a 23% performance boost over the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra. Or Apple could keep those on N3E (which would likely be cheaper to fab) and still offer a nice performance boost.
The improved N3P process could be ready in time for the M3 Pro/Max/Ultra, which would offer up to a 23% performance boost over the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra. Or Apple could keep those on N3E (which would likely be cheaper to fab) and still offer a nice performance boost.
Sorry for replying to an old post but does anyone know if this larger all-in-one iMac is going to be released?
I am still using my 2013 27inch iMac but need to upgrade. Prefer large all-in-one instead of buying Mac Studio and Studio Display...or should I just bite the bullet and get the Studio instead of waiting for a larger all-in-one??
I am still using my 2013 27inch iMac but need to upgrade. Prefer large all-in-one instead of buying Mac Studio and Studio Display...or should I just bite the bullet and get the Studio instead of waiting for a larger all-in-one??
I’m in a similar boat; I prefer an all-in-one and my 2017 iMac is beginning to show signs of aging, not to mention the macOS only supports Ventura on this thing. As it doesn't seem Apple will release a larger iMac anytime soon, I’m seriously considering upgrading with a Mac Mini (especially in light of the M4 series that’s coming) and Studio Display, later this year.
Does your needs require the Mac Studio or can you do just fine with a Mini? I’m just curious to know if you've considered that route, as I imagine you could save considerably if you don't need a professional-leaning machine.
Like many my 2015 iMac can’t be upgraded. I looked at prices for the studio Mac and display and it was really expensive with good specs. Plus I like my iMac. I wish they get on with this……….
I have considered the Mac Mini and could probably get away with it but I would need to make some RAM / SSD upgrades which would make it about half the price of the lower end Studio. The thing for me is that, based on my first Mac computer (which was my current 2013 iMac), I expect any Apple desktop machine to last at least 10 years - so I want to buy something that is decent. If I get the Mac Mini, I don't want to regret not getting the Studio, and have to upgrade to a Studio, leaving me with a Mac Mini I have no use for! It's just because these machines should have such a long lifespan that I want to get it right first time...and that basically means waiting for the product I want to come out...but Apple are taking so damn long with a bigger all-in-one!
I also have concerns about buying a separate monitor - if this is the route Apple desktops are going (ie. non-all-in-ones) then I can justify it as I can use it on the next computer I buy (hopefully). But it is a damn expensive monitor. How can a monitor cost more than a Mac Mini?!
I don't know. I am just getting frustrated and impatient now. These products are so expensive, it just results in me taking too much time to think it through, and it leaves me stuck with this 2013 iMac...which works but is now limited.
Any advice to help me think / decide is welcome!
As for your 2017 iMac, does it have an SSD or mechanical hard drive? My 2013 iMac has a mechanical one inside, but I now boot from an external SSD which made a big difference! So if your HDD is mechanical, booting from an SSD may improve it.
EDIT:
On an unrelated note, does anyone know how I can get email notifications about replies to my posts here? Or do I just have to come back and check manually?
Last edited:
The pricing for the Studio monitor is just comical in my view. They are absolutely fleecing their customers. I looked into alternative third party monitors and having read reviews about them not playing nicely with Macs, it just wasn't worth the risk. It's the Studio Display or nothing as far as I am concerned. But the price is just insulting (unless it remains the standard for 15+ years, which I doubt).
Yeah, my college's TV studio has ultimately decided that for their video editing lab, they're going to go with M3 iMacs, with 512 GB SSDs and the RAM maxed out to 24 GB, as that should be suffice for 4K video work. They said it'll be cheaper than getting headless Mac desktops alongside separate UHD monitors; plus they'll be replacing these mid-2017 Retina 21.5" iMacs...
These are spec'ed with 3.4 GHz quad-core i5 processors, 16 GB of RAM, 256 GB SSDs, and AMD Radeon Pro 560 graphics cards with 4 GB dedicated VRAM. (I still remember they were initially planning to get 27" Retina iMacs for the lab, until the college learned Apple started making 21.5" Retina iMacs with discrete graphics cards as part of the 2017 iMac revision and went with those. Our director sure was surprised!) These were pretty beefy machines when we first got them, but M3 iMacs with 24 GB of RAM will still be a big boost in performance (knowing how big a boost it was going from my mid-2012 quad-core i7 Mac Mini to an M1 MacBook Air, both with 16 GB of RAM). Our director is already really impressed with video work on Apple Silicon Macs, since he uses a 16" MacBook Pro with M3 Max chip and the studio also got an M2 Ultra-equipped Mac Studio desktop. They even plan to order half of the iMacs in blue and the other half in yellow, as those are the school colors!
These are spec'ed with 3.4 GHz quad-core i5 processors, 16 GB of RAM, 256 GB SSDs, and AMD Radeon Pro 560 graphics cards with 4 GB dedicated VRAM. (I still remember they were initially planning to get 27" Retina iMacs for the lab, until the college learned Apple started making 21.5" Retina iMacs with discrete graphics cards as part of the 2017 iMac revision and went with those. Our director sure was surprised!) These were pretty beefy machines when we first got them, but M3 iMacs with 24 GB of RAM will still be a big boost in performance (knowing how big a boost it was going from my mid-2012 quad-core i7 Mac Mini to an M1 MacBook Air, both with 16 GB of RAM). Our director is already really impressed with video work on Apple Silicon Macs, since he uses a 16" MacBook Pro with M3 Max chip and the studio also got an M2 Ultra-equipped Mac Studio desktop. They even plan to order half of the iMacs in blue and the other half in yellow, as those are the school colors!
The 24 GB of RAM plus M3 SoC is enough for light to medium duty 4K video processing. But serious 4K video processing needs something like a M3 Max with 64 GB of RAM, in my opinion.