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

[Realityck]

Aren't we also getting a bit into there really aren't much future options to choose from with this model? What you get is pretty much what you are stuck with until traded in.

I recognized its perfectly adequate for some percentage of buyers, but coming from a 27", it doesn't fit the bill.

 

[CygnusTC]

This will all flush out in time. The higher end products are on the way I am sure but the "entry level" iMacs and MacBooks make sense to start with as they sell much better than the high end products. I don't know the number but you would have to guess they sell several "Low end" iMacs for every iMac Pro they sold. Or for the matter the maxed out 27" iMac too. And obviously with the shortages globally they would have loved to have alot more iMac M1s available but the ship dates pushing out so quickly show the current state. Still excited to see the higher end iMac with M2 or multiple M1s possibly.

 

[danny1305]

I'll stick with the 10 core i9 and 16GB vram 5700xt, thanks. And it runs 10.15.7 so bootcamp and egpu's are still supported, external display support isn't nerfed, and it doesn't need a translation layer to run most apps.

Cool…nobody cares though

 

[nate001]

This is about the cpu....i want to know about the gpu power
They said this is up to 50% better than the vega 20...is this true or not

Barefeat ran some benchmarks comparing Intel vs M1 13'' MBP.

M1 MacBook Pro versus Intel MacBook Pro

real world speed test results for performance minded Macintosh users

barefeats.com

Also, here are some GeekBench results:
Metal:
Vega 20: 26510
Vega 16: 22329
M1: 20550
(GTX 1070: 19534)

OpenCL:
Vega 20: 27523
M1: 18261
(GTX 1050: 18227)

Not too shabby for the M1.

 

[Casfin]

If they announce a 32 inch version I'd order in a heart beat. Not interested in anything smaller.

 

[falkon-engine]

The M1 chip seems to be great for what it is, but Apple really needs to demonstrate that they have more than one chip in their repertoire. As it is, Apple is starting to simply make copies of the same computer in different-looking cases. The MBA, 13" MBP, Mac Mini, iPad Pro, and now M1 iMac are almost identical apart from their form factor.

A real chip manufacturer has multiple products that explore the price/clock speed/cores/feature set/power consumption landscape and can be matched to use case. The M1 kills it for an ultrabook, but is only okay for a business desktop and fails for anything that needs significant graphical power.

I was really hoping that the new iMac would have started expanding the landscape that Apple covers, but no such luck. Because of this, I see no reason to get one over a Mac Mini, because it literally offers nothing else of value -- same performance, same IO, same memory and SSD limitations. At least with a Mac Mini you're not required to throw away a pricey monitor when you want to upgrade the computer, which will become obsolete much more quickly than the monitor will.

The pessimistic side of me says that this one-size-fits-all approach is typical for the Apple of the last decade. But I still want to hope that the higher end MBPs and iMacs will start to change this.

But if Apple's strategy makes billions of dollars in profit, what's the reason for having multiple chips for different products?

I can't knock a company for doing more with less. Apple is making billions with just one m1 chip... think about that. What other company can do that?

My hope is they continue the annual cadence of releasing new cpus, and that the annual percent increase in performance continues.

 

[citysnaps]

The M1 chip seems to be great for what it is, but Apple really needs to demonstrate that they have more than one chip in their repertoire. As it is, Apple is starting to simply make copies of the same computer in different-looking cases. The MBA, 13" MBP, Mac Mini, iPad Pro, and now M1 iMac are almost identical apart from their form factor.

A real chip manufacturer has multiple products that explore the price/clock speed/cores/feature set/power consumption landscape and can be matched to use case. The M1 kills it for an ultrabook, but is only okay for a business desktop and fails for anything that needs significant graphical power.

I was really hoping that the new iMac would have started expanding the landscape that Apple covers, but no such luck. Because of this, I see no reason to get one over a Mac Mini, because it literally offers nothing else of value -- same performance, same IO, same memory and SSD limitations. At least with a Mac Mini you're not required to throw away a pricey monitor when you want to upgrade the computer, which will become obsolete much more quickly than the monitor will.

The pessimistic side of me says that this one-size-fits-all approach is typical for the Apple of the last decade. But I still want to hope that the higher end MBPs and iMacs will start to change this.

No, they don't. Apple just needs to continue to release new products with great improvements in performance over previous products, as they've been doing for the last six months, and will continue to do in the future. TC said the transition will take two years. At the moment we're just six months into it. And so far it's been a great ride.

 

[Maconplasma]

That's just unreal. These are perfect for almost anyone that wants a Mac and doesn't consider themself a Pro.

And what exactly do you consider to be a Pro and what's not satisfactory enough about this M1 iMac in terms of your definition of a "Pro" ?

 

[Maconplasma]

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.

If you're staring at the "big aluminum panel" and not the screen then you've got bigger issues.

 

[Maconplasma]

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

It wasn't done as a favor to Apple or it's customers. Apple paid Intel. Then after many years Apple decided to move on which they are in their perfect rights to do but Intel trashes Apple all over the internet, so don't be so quick to give Intel so much credit.

 

[turbineseaplane]

This 24" iMac is a MacBook in a different form factor and offers no performance gains that a desktop typically offers over a laptop.

That is the disappointment to me also

I'm hoping for much more out of a future larger iMac/iMac Pro

 

[turbineseaplane]

But if Apple's strategy makes billions of dollars in profit, what's the reason for having multiple chips for different products?

Different (higher end) use cases - he said it right in his post that you quoted

 

[bousozoku]

It's just too bad Apple didn't create a 12 inch MacBook with M1 to show how pitiful the m3 processors were. I remember Apple mentioning that the iPhone 7 was more powerful.

 

[azentropy]

If they announce a 32 inch version I'd order in a heart beat. Not interested in anything smaller.

I think we are going to see a 30" 5.5K iMac.

 

[deconstruct60]

Except the M1 is Apple’s entry level chip and the i7 11700 is Intel’s high-end chip. That’s what makes this impressive.

Except that the M1 is Apple's only level chip. Apple is not providing any substantive variety at all. iPad Pro .. you get a M1. MBA .. get a M1. Mini .. get a M1. iMac 21-24" .. get a M1. It isn't just the "entry" option.... it is the only option ( so far). When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Backslide on max memory support ... because only have this one hammer. Backslode on muultiple monitor support ... because only have this one hammer.


Apple is likely going to come out with some like a "M1X" ( some core/gpu tech on an incrementally bigger die. ) . So it could get to be two hammers and there are two sets of nails.

With Apple it is likely going to be have to buy more CPU cores if want more GPU cores and vice versa.

The M-series appears to on track to a be a highly laptop-mobile focused series of SoCs. That is most of what Apple sells in the Mac space ( large majority laptops ). The top end iMac (and eventual Mac Pro) are all likely going to have an Apple iGPU embedded in the SoC. That may get a SoC with more I/O options than a MBA or iPad Pro but the baseline is likely to be centered about mobile because that is what Apple mostly wants to do. ( that's why even thinner iMacs are an issue. )

 

[petvas]

That is the disappointment to me also

I'm hoping for much more out of a future larger iMac/iMac Pro

Why is it a disappointment? We are used to having different chips from Intel for different kind of computers. Apple is changing this paradigm in ways that Intel couldn't dream of. The M1 is so great on a MacBook Pro that I prefer to use it to my 27" Intel iMac..Having the same performance only goes to show how great the M1 is. It's power efficient which is really important on laptops. On an iMac power efficiency is not as important, but I think most users will appreciate the silence and how cool their Mac will run, no matter what you throw at it. We will soon see the next step in Apple Silicon CPUs and I am sure that performance will be even better. If you are not happy with the current performance level of the M1 based Macs, then I suggest you wait.

 

[xraydoc]

I think we are going to see a 30" 5.5K iMac.

I hope so

 

[chucker23n1]

I mean let’s have some perspective here. This is an Intel 8th gen, the 8700. Desktop chips are on 10th/11th gen now which would be a better comparison.

i7 10700

1262
Single-Core Score
7759
Multi-Core Score

i7 11700

1562
Single-Core Score
9219
Multi-Core Score


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.

Sort of.

First: what the article is saying is absolutely true. If you were in the market for a small iMac a few months ago vs. you are now, you get a machine whose CPU is 56% faster in single-threaded tasks.

Now, part of that is indeed because they hadn't updated the 21-inch model beyond Coffee Lake, and they could've brought it to Comet Lake last year. I imagine part of the reason they didn't bother is that Comet Lake really pushed its supposed thermal envelope, so in the iMac's existing casing, it probably wouldn't actually have been able to run much faster.

But also, keep in mind the M1 achieves this with a much thinner, simpler enclosure. You'd really have to compare it against a Tiger Lake-UP3 chip instead, so something more like a single-core score of 1417 (not too shabby!), but multi of only 4857. Or, realistically, if they had done this last year, an Ice Lake-U chip like in the last Intel 13-inch MacBook Pro: 1235/4501.

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.

I dunno about that. The question for almost anyone who buys a Mac isn't "who, hypothetically, could produce a better CPU than this?", but rather: "what computer can I get right now?" And the answer is: if you buy an AIO from a different vendor, it's probably a worse computer than the M1 iMac.

 

[uller6]

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.

They likely developed the CPU to operate at one specific (set of) optimal frequency(s) to take advantage of resonance & predictable timing in the circuit, and heavily tuned the design for low power use.

 

[mansplains]

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

Next sticker we need is the preinstalled one with 'Apple Silicon Inside' like the tacky Intel/Win stickers on PCs.

 

[mannyvel]

The fact is, Apple doesn't care about worthless metrics. Apple cares about the user. Nobody cares about ghz except for a very vocal minority. Is it going to show an end-user benefit? If not it's not a useful metric, period.

Comparing Apple's chip lineup to Intel's is futile. Apple has one customer. Using industry metrics for a bespoke manufacturer is entertaining, but tells you nothing useful.

The M1 is great for Apple and it's users. The M2 will be even better. Whatever Intel or AMD does is now irrelevant to Apple and it's future.

 

[SuperMatt]

Aren't we also getting a bit into there really aren't much future options to choose from with this model? What you get is pretty much what you are stuck with until traded in.

I recognized its perfectly adequate for some percentage of buyers, but coming from a 27", it doesn't fit the bill.

This was never, ever advertised as a replacement for the 27”. Apple made it clear more than once during the intro video that this is the 21.5” replacement.

 

[minik]

This it the current 2020 iMac geekbench that I ran last August under macOS Catalina.
Geekbench 5 score

1273 Single-Core Score
8932 Multi-Core Score

With these scores for the 24-inch iMac, it should set a pretty good baseline for the up-coming larger screen iMac.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

This it the current 2020 iMac geekbench that I ran last August under macOS Catalina.
Geekbench 5 score

1273 Single-Core Score
8932 Multi-Core Score

With these scores for the 24-inch iMac, it should set a pretty good baseline for the up-coming larger screen iMac.

I want to see how they compete against the 5700XT 16GB GPU from the 2020 iMac.

 

[Freida]

I did, especially about the Mac Pro!

Did you bash Apple when they stopped innovating? The Mac line hardly changed for 10 years. Some Macs where not updated at all for 3 or 4 years.