Larger iMac With Around 32-Inch Display Reportedly in Early Testing

[EugW]

This is my guess for the 2024 iMac 32" 6K

iMac 32" 6K​	Mac chip​	Base RAM​	Base Storage​
$1,999​	M3​	8GB​	256GB​
$2,699​	M3 Pro​	16GB​	512GB​
$3,399​	M3 Max​	32GB​	1TB​
$5,399​	M3 Ultra​	64GB​	1TB​

I'd think an Apple 32" 6K display alone without computer would be US$1999 or more.

 

[gonzz]

I'd think a 32" 6K display alone without computer would be US$1999 or more.

Then a 30" 5.5K display. ;-)

Apple was able to offer the iMac 24" 4.5K at $1299 with reduced ports. This is the same price point as the base model 2019 iMac 21.5" 4K.

With standard ports it increases by $200.

The 2020 iMac 27" base model was $1799 while the model above that is $200 more.

A decade from now I'd think that RAM will quadruple in density. Sadly Apple Silicon does not accept SODIMMs

​

Year​	RAM Pairings​	Total RAM​	Class of RAM​	Mac​
2011​	2 x 8GB​	16GB​	DDR3​	MBP 13"​
2012​	4 x 8GB​	32GB​	DDR3​	iMac 27"​
2021​	2 x 48GB​	96GB​	DDR5​	MBP 16"​
2023​	4 x 48GB​	192GB​	DDR5​	iMac 30.5"​
2031​	2 x 192GB​	384GB​	DDR7​	MBP​
2033​	4 x 192GB​	768GB​	DDR7​	iMac​

​

 

[Jorbanead]

This is my guess for the 2024 iMac 32" 6K

iMac 32" 6K​	Mac chip​	Base RAM​	Base Storage​
$1,999​	M3​	8GB​	256GB​
$2,699​	M3 Pro​	16GB​	512GB​
$3,399​	M3 Max​	32GB​	1TB​
$5,399​	M3 Ultra​	64GB​	1TB​

It is just sad that Apple does not allow SODIMMs replacements anymore. If they did I'd likely buy

• $149 64GB for 2021 MBP 16" from 16GB in a 2011 MBP 13"
• $298 128GB for 2024 iMac 32' 6K from 32GB in a 2012 iMac 27" 2.5K

The 1st time 8GB RAM became standard on the larger iMac was in the 2012 model.

I'd love Apple to double RAM & storage sizes while keeping the chip and MSPR unchanged.

This really depends on the type of display being used here. A miniLED 120Hz 32” 6K panel is expensive. Also I doubt this iMac will include M3 - M3 Ultra. The thermal requirements between those two are very very different. My guess would be they include the Pro/Max chips but if they intend for this to be a “Pro” iMac they could include the ultra as well.

 

[gonzz]

This really depends on the type of display being used here. A miniLED 120Hz 32” 6K panel is expensive.

Tech advancements tend to push down prices. It is very likely that a 5.5K or 6K display for the iMac to come out at a better price point than the $4999 2019 Pro Display XDR 32" 6K.

By comprison 2023 Dell 32" 6K display is $3199.

iMac screen timeline:

1998 iMac 15" 0.8K CRT sold at $1299
2003 iMac 15" 1K LCD sold at $1299

2003 iMac 20" 1.7K sold at $2199
2019 iMac 21.5" 4K sold at $1299

2006 iMac 24" 2K sold at $1999
2021 iMac 24" 4.5K is $1299

2009 iMac 27" 2.5K sold at $1699
2020 iMac 27" 5K sold at $1799

@DavidSchaub

Also I doubt this iMac will include M3 - M3 Ultra. The thermal requirements between those two are very very different. My guess would be they include the Pro/Max chips but if they intend for this to be a “Pro” iMac they could include the ultra as well.

Good point.

My purpose was to provide a price point per Mac chip. Whether it be actually shipped is up in the air.

 

[Realityck]

This really depends on the type of display being used here. A miniLED 120Hz 32” 6K panel is expensive. Also I doubt this iMac will include M3 - M3 Ultra. The thermal requirements between those two are very very different. My guess would be they include the Pro/Max chips but if they intend for this to be a “Pro” iMac they could include the ultra as well.

I think the whole thought of a 6K panel for iMacs is far fetched. They will never provide that in the immediate future. Larger 5K edge lit , maybe OLED, but 6K in this price range is a stretch.

 

[DavidSchaub]

Tech advancements tend to push down prices. It is very likely that a 5.5K or 6K display for the iMac to come out at a better price point than the $4999 2019 Pro Display XDR 32" 6K. Dell's 32" 6K display is $3199.

Yeah, but there is no evidence of any monitor manufacturer making more affordable panels, and the 5K iMac panel could be depended on having a relatively high volume and long term of sales (heck, it is still being sold in the Studio Display). Could Apple come out with a cheaper 6K? Yeah, but it isn't going to be that much cheaper for a bit.

That Dell monitor is a good example because it is only $3200, but it is also boring technology vs modern displays.

I still think it all comes down to whether this 32" monitor is a cool HDR screen, or a boring old tech screen like that Dell or the Apple Studio Display. That difference will likely double the potential price of the iMac (big).

 

[gonzz]

Yeah, but there is no evidence of any monitor manufacturer making that, and the 5K iMac panel could be depended on having a relatively high volume and long term of sales (heck, it is still being sold in the Studio Display). Could Apple come out with a cheaper 6K? Yeah, but it isn't going to be that much cheaper for a bit.

That Dell monitor is a good example because it is only $3200, but it is also boring technology vs modern displays.

I still think it all comes down to whether this 32" monitor is a cool HDR screen, or a boring old tech screen like that Dell or the Apple Studio Display. That difference will likely double the potential price of the iMac (big).

Apple was 1st to have a

- 4.5K display
- 5K display
- 6K display
- 24GB, 48GB & 96GB RAM

I dont care if its cool HDR screen, boring tech or the like. I want the productivity to improve with better tools.

I want a 5.5K or 6K iMac around the ballpark price points within the table.

The then panel price is the likely reason why no larger iMac was released with the iMac 24".

When a lower priced panel becomes available then a larger iMac will be released.

The 2017 iMac Pro 27" 8-core CPU sold at $4999. Odds are it sold very few units.

If a 2024 iMac 32" 8-Core CPU sold at $1999 then odds are it will sell very well.

 

[DavidSchaub]

The 2017 iMac Pro 27" 8-core CPU sold at $4999. Odds are it sold very few units.

If a 2024 iMac 32" 8-Core CPU sold at $1999 then odds are it will sell very well.

Maybe... but given the volumes, modern prices, and the competition in the market, I would still be surprised by it shipping less than $3000 - $3500. Maybe Apple could make a really cut down model that is $2500?

I think the more important question will be: What is the base SKU?
- M* <null> 8GB / 512GB
- M* Pro 16GB / 512 GB
- M* Max 32GB / 512 GB

That is an arbitrary choice Apple can make, and I have serious doubts they'll pick the cheapest one.

 

[EugW]

That Dell monitor is a good example because it is only $3200, but it is also boring technology vs modern displays.

< $2200 on sale, and many people would be very happy to have that "boring technology". Most people just don't need 1600 nit FALD displays for their desktops. One big reason I personally have not already purchased this is because there are compatibility issues with macOS.

 

[Jorbanead]

I think the whole thought of a 6K panel for iMacs is far fetched. They will never provide that in the immediate future. Larger 5K edge lit , maybe OLED, but 6K in this price range is a stretch.

They’d never do a larger 5K monitor. They have a specific PPI that they adhere to with all of their displays. If it’s a 32” monitor it would be 6K as that would be the PPI needed to be a true Retina display.

 

[EugW]

They’d never do a larger 5K monitor. They have a specific PPI that they adhere to with all of their displays. If it’s a 32” monitor it would be 6K as that would be the PPI needed to be a true Retina display.

It's weird though. Their flagship pre-Retina monitor for macOS was 101 ppi, but their 2X scaled flagship monitor is 218 ppi? Also, mathematically 200 ppi would still easily be considered Retina at normal recommended seating distances. Even 180 ppi could be considered Retina at normal seating distances. So, there is arguably a certain level of arbitrariness to that 218 ppi choice.

 

[ignatius345]

It's weird though. Their flagship pre-Retina monitor for macOS was 101 ppi, but their 2X scaled flagship monitor is 218 ppi? Also, mathematically 200 ppi would still easily be considered Retina at normal recommended seating distances. Even 180 ppi could be considered Retina at normal seating distances. So, there is arguably a certain level of arbitrariness to that 218 ppi choice.

It's not really arbitrary, and it seems quite carefully thought out. What they consider "retina" varies by device type and the most likely viewing distance. These days, desktop monitors land around 220 ppi, laptops a bit higher (up to 254 ppi on the lastest Pro MacBooks), iPads around 260 ppi (except iPad Mini which goes up to 326) and then at the top you have iPhones which are up to 460 ppi. You hold a phone a lot closer than a laptop or desktop, so it's calibrated accordingly.

All the display densities are laid out nicely here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display which gets way into detail on the logic. The basic principal is pretty straightforward: you increase the pixel density as the expected viewing distance from the display decreases, so you theoretically never see individual pixels.

When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye.[1] One way of expressing this as a unit is pixels-per-degree (PPD) which takes into account both the screen resolution and the distance from which the device is viewed. Based on Jobs' predicted number of 300, the threshold for a Retina display starts at the PPD value of 57 PPD. 57 PPD means that a tall skinny triangle with a height equal to the viewing distance and a top angle of one degree will have a base on the device's screen that covers 57 pixels. Note that the PPD parameter is not an intrinsic parameter of the display itself, unlike absolute pixel resolution (e.g. 1920×1080 pixels) or relative pixel density (e.g. 401 PPI), but is dependent on the distance between the display and the eye of the person (or lens of the device) viewing the display; moving the eye closer to the display reduces the PPD, and moving away from it increases the PPD in proportion to the distance.

 

[EugW]

It's not really arbitrary, and it seems quite carefully thought out. What they consider "retina" varies by device type and the most likely viewing distance. These days, desktop monitors land around 220 ppi, laptops a bit higher (up to 254 ppi on the lastest Pro MacBooks), iPads around 260 ppi (except iPad Mini which goes up to 326) and then at the top you have iPhones which are up to 460 ppi.

All the display densities are laid out nicely here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

Yes I understand but the point is 218 is not necessary for Retina at normal seating distances and 200 would have worked perfectly at a 2X scale, since it would have doubled the prior 101 ppi flagship screen. IMO, 218 is actually worse than 200 ppi because although both 200 and 218 are Retina, 200 would have kept default macOS text sizing constant compared to that flagship Cinema HD Display. Instead, going to 218 ppi has meant that default text sizing has decreased across the board, making some things harder to read.

To put it another way, Apple chose to 2X scale their 109 ppi iMacs instead of their 101 ppi flagship Cinema HD Display, which actually were being sold at the same time. I would have much preferred they based their 2X scale on the Cinema HD Display instead.

 

[ignatius345]

Yes I understand but the point is 218 is not necessary for Retina at normal seating distances and 200 would have worked perfectly at a 2X scale, since it would have doubled the prior 101 ppi screens. IMO, 218 is actually worse than 200 ppi because although both 200 and 218 are Retina, 200 would have kept default macOS text sizing constant. Instead, going to 218 ppi has meant that default text sizing has decreased across the board, making some things harder to read.

OK man. Take it up with Apple, I guess?

 

[CWallace]

To put it another way, Apple chose to 2X scale their 109 ppi iMacs instead of their 101 ppi flagship Cinema HD Display, which actually were being sold at the same time. I would have much preferred they based their 2X scale on the Cinema HD Display instead.

My guess is because by 2014, 2560x1440 QHD was a common resolution for 27" displays (at 109dpi) so when LG developed their 5K panel, they doubled that resolution (and dpi) so that when run at 200% scaling, text and UI elements would look the same when compared side-by-side to a 27" QHD display.

As Apple had moved to 109dpi 27" QHD displays for the 2009-2013 iMac and the Apple Cinema Display / Apple Thunderbolt Display, it made sense for them to adopt the LG 5K panel for the iMac 5K, as well, for the same reason.

And I am not sure Apple was still selling the 101dpi 30" Apple Cinema Display HD in 2014.

 

[DavidSchaub]

To put it another way, Apple chose to 2X scale their 109 ppi iMacs instead of their 101 ppi flagship Cinema HD Display, which actually were being sold at the same time. I would have much preferred they based their 2X scale on the Cinema HD Display instead.

Optionally, you could get one of the many many 4K 27" screens, running at 164 DPI... and run them at 4x pixel density (i.e. 1080p Point Size) and get a really crisp 82 DPI experience.

 

[EugW]

Optionally, you could get one of the many many 4K 27" screens, running at 164 DPI... and run them at 4x pixel density (i.e. 1080p Point Size) and get a really crisp 82 DPI experience.

Too low. Text is huge. No screen real estate.

 

[DavidSchaub]

Too low. Text is huge. No screen real estate.

Then get 3 of them!

 

[EugW]

And I am not sure Apple was still selling the 101dpi 30" Apple Cinema Display HD in 2014.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the 30" ACD was sold for a couple of years overlapping with the 109 ppi iMac.

Then get 3 of them!

Actually, I ran two 27" iMacs side by side for years, a 5K and a 2.5K as a secondary monitor. Now I'm running a single 4K+ 3840x2560 163 ppi monitor at 2304x1536. I had considered getting a second one, but my desire is to get a 200+ ppi 29-32" monitor and I'd run it at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 or around there.

 

[multipasser]

You must do very light work in After Effects, as sometimes I still struggle with my M1 Ultra and 128GB of ram.

lol.. what are doing in AE? I'm a professional for TV doing mograph and 3D for 15 years.. Use everything from Element 3D to RG plugins.. It's not the 'fastest' but 64gb is way enough! Unless you are working in 32bit which almost is never needed tbh.

 

[ggoldstein66]

Yes, for more than two years now.

 

[SFjohn]

Yeah it depends on where this sits in the lineup.

32" iMac 6K LED Retina display with M3 chip - $$

32" iMac 6K miniLED ProMotion XDR Display with M3 Ultra - $$$$$

Those are two VERY different computers.

32” iMac Pro 6K OLED - $$$ 😉

 

[JippaLippa]

lol.. what are doing in AE? I'm a professional for TV doing mograph and 3D for 15 years.. Use everything from Element 3D to RG plugins.. It's not the 'fastest' but 64gb is way enough! Unless you are working in 32bit which almost is never needed tbh.

Red Giant is especially slow in my case...

 

[Mimiron]

It's taking so long for Apple to come up with a 27-inch iMac with Apple Silicon. I think I'll have grandchildren by the time we get a 5K display with Apple Silicon without having to buy a PC and display separately.

 

[pdoherty]

All joking aside, I've found that size to be too big for my comfort. The 32" Monitor I had frustrated me. The distance I needed it away from my face so that I didn't feel I was constantly moving my eyes or head too much made me had to decrease the resolution (make everything bigger) that I lost any benefit of having it over a 27" that I could have closer but higher resolution.

Yep - it's the same issue with sitting too close at the movie theater. You only have good acuity near the center of your retina, so when you're sitting close (or looking at a larger monitor) you have too small a percentage of the screen in that area, so you can have to work a lot more, scanning to see what you need to. Immersive, sure, but less functional and more work and stress.