M1 iMac is Up to 56% Faster Than Prior-Generation High-End 21.5-Inch iMac

[adamjackson]

Looks like my Core i9 iMac from 2019 with 64GB of RAM is safe. I'll wait for the "pro" iMac with more RAM. I have one more year of AppleCare on this thing.

 

[vagos]

This isn’t to say the M1 isn’t competitive because it is, especially when you consider M1 is entry level and sips power. But comparisons like the article aren’t great when the previous model wasn’t refreshed for ages.

On the contrary. Your comparison in not fair. You are comparing Apple's entry level chip with the best Intel has to offer. Either compare M1 with the entry level Intel chips or compare the top Intel chips with M1X or whatever it's called when it's released.

 

[andrewxgx]

The fact that the M1 iMac is still 3.2GHz despite opportunity for better cooling is disappointing. I was expecting 3.5 at least.

It’s disappointing on many levels. It demonstrates the lack of headroom, the lack of progress in 6 months. It shows the difficulty they may have with the M2.

Or maybe it shows they are more interested in developing the replacement rather than tuning original design? if you are talking about company releasing a new chip every 12 months for years now and calling them for lack of progress, boy, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[rpmurray]

I hope iFixit has someone in Oz to buy one and hop on a plane to the US so we can get the teardown early.

 

[LiE_]

On the contrary. Your comparison in not fair. You are comparing Apple's entry level chip with the best Intel has to offer. Either compare M1 with the entry level Intel chips or compare the top Intel chips with M1X or whatever it's called when it's released.

The i7 chips are not top end. I’m comparing against current i7, the chip that would have been in the 21” top end model had Apple kept up with refreshes. What’s not fair is comparing the M1 against a chip from 2017.

 

[Scotticus]

*Excitement for 14-inch Macbook Pro intensifies*

 

[apparatchik]

The fact that the M1 iMac is still 3.2GHz despite opportunity for better cooling is disappointing. I was expecting 3.5 at least.

It’s disappointing on many levels. It demonstrates the lack of headroom, the lack of progress in 6 months. It shows the difficulty they may have with the M2.

During the PPC transition higher clocks and dot revisions came within a few months.

This means the M2 will need a significantly more powerful core design to make sense, not just more cores.

Apple seems to be following a very compact chip structure, with very little variance from M1 iPad to 24" iMac, it doesn't mean a thing about lack of progress, they don't seem to play the frequency/ghz game, the next step is not a higher-frequency M1 but an M2, M2X, etc...

 

[nvmls]

Let’s not bash Intel. They did a good job slowing the Mac for many years while boiling some eggs. Quantum leaps like this happen every so often in computing. ARM have done a fantastic job.

There, fixed it for ya.

 

[svish]

Impressive!!

 

[dugbug]

The fact that the M1 iMac is still 3.2GHz despite opportunity for better cooling is disappointing. I was expecting 3.5 at least.

It’s disappointing on many levels. It demonstrates the lack of headroom, the lack of progress in 6 months. It shows the difficulty they may have with the M2.

During the PPC transition higher clocks and dot revisions came within a few months.

This means the M2 will need a significantly more powerful core design to make sense, not just more cores.

why are you disappointment in the single core #?

 

[Macintosh IIvx]

Really not surprising, given the previous M1 benchmarks. The previous gen iMac hadn't seen a decent processor update in quite some time.

 

[guzhogi]

The fact that the M1 iMac is still 3.2GHz despite opportunity for better cooling is disappointing. I was expecting 3.5 at least.

It’s disappointing on many levels. It demonstrates the lack of headroom, the lack of progress in 6 months. It shows the difficulty they may have with the M2.

During the PPC transition higher clocks and dot revisions came within a few months.

This means the M2 will need a significantly more powerful core design to make sense, not just more cores.

Considering that this is Apple's first computer-level chip (as compared to a phone/tablet chip), I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's trying to be more conservative the first go around. However, I would like to see more options in speeds.

 

[svish]

I never minded the the chin before, and I don't now, but the missing apple logo means all my attention is just staring at that big aluminum panel. Without it supporting some other visual element, such as speaker perforations or a logo, it becomes its own visual element, & it's not apparent why the design team thought it should be. Strange.

Logo is sorely missed. Wonder why Apple did that ?

 

[symphony]

If I didn’t need a MBP for school I would’ve just gotten this.

 

[Grohowiak]

I never minded the the chin before, and I don't now, but the missing apple logo means all my attention is just staring at that big aluminum panel. Without it supporting some other visual element, such as speaker perforations or a logo, it becomes its own visual element, & it's not apparent why the design team thought it should be. Strange.

Apple realized that the sticker they send with every mac is finally going to be used.

 

[dugbug]

The i7 chips are not top end. I’m comparing against current i7, the chip that would have been in the 21” top end model had Apple kept up with refreshes. What’s not fair is comparing the M1 against a chip from 2017.

so... that comparison (2017) is completely fair as it pertains to the article: new imac vs old imac. folks want to know how fast the upgrade will feel.

 

[Macintosh IIvx]

The fact that the M1 iMac is still 3.2GHz despite opportunity for better cooling is disappointing. I was expecting 3.5 at least.

It’s disappointing on many levels. It demonstrates the lack of headroom, the lack of progress in 6 months. It shows the difficulty they may have with the M2.

During the PPC transition higher clocks and dot revisions came within a few months.

This means the M2 will need a significantly more powerful core design to make sense, not just more cores.

Are you saying that development of their first round of their own processors may be a bit slower than going with a nearly off-the-shelf solution already sourced from the largest processor manufacturer in the world? I'm SHOCKED.

It's almost as if I could have an electric car quicker if I bought one from Ford than if I made one from scratch myself.

 

[jonnysods]

Looking forward to the new 27" update, as well as the 16" MBP update. I'm guessing we are 5 months out at least though.

 

[trifid]

If only it didn't look so ugly...

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I never minded the the chin before, and I don't now, but the missing apple logo means all my attention is just staring at that big aluminum panel. Without it supporting some other visual element, such as speaker perforations or a logo, it becomes its own visual element, & it's not apparent why the design team thought it should be. Strange.

Why aren't you looking at the screen, instead?

 

[lee27]

Ditch the white border and chin and I will be first in line to order one.

Me too

 

[ukguy]

I don’t mind the colours on the back but I couldn’t stand looking at the the white border and chin all day. I would rather buy a Mac Mini and external display.

Which external display though?

I'm trying to find one now. I have the 2018 mac mini running with a 30" cinema display.

32" apple XDR too expensive!
32" benq 4k only has 140ppi
No 30" available
27" too small and only the boring LG has 200ppi

I was going to buy benq but at 140ppi it doesn;t work well with apples 100 v 200 OS hiDPI ppi
Most 4k are 140-160ppi and results in blurry fonts so I'm told.

Hard to know... I'm hoping for a 30" IMAC at 5.5k res and the maybe the same display will be available separately too at some point.

We are in a hard place with macOS and displays!

 

[turbineseaplane]

We are in a hard place with macOS and displays!

That's an understatement.
The HiDPi external display market is a disaster.

Nearly everything tops out at 4k as they cater to gamers mostly (and they barely even want 4k as it is -- vastly preferring higher refresh rates at 1440p up to 4k max)

 

[LiE_]

so... that comparison (2017) is completely fair as it pertains to the article: new imac vs old imac. folks want to know how fast the upgrade will feel.

In the context of upgrading from this specific iMac, sure. But as a CPU comparison…

 

[vegetassj4]

M1 iPhone 13 pro with USB C to connect to, and be powered by, a monitor