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.
M1 iMac is Up to 56% Faster Than Prior-Generation High-End 21.5-Inch iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Clock speed is not a true indicator of performance, especially when like current Apple Silicon Firestorm core architecture you are processing at least twice the number of instructions per clock cycle as Intel or AMD. And you're doing this at ridiculously TDPs like 15-20W.
We will likely see the next iteration of the SOC in a few weeks, probably with at least 4 more Performance Cores, more GPU cores, more cache, controllers and more RAM to boot. And probably when the iPhone 13 rolls out the successor to Firestorm is there, which then goes into the next M Series SOCs.
We will likely see the next iteration of the SOC in a few weeks, probably with at least 4 more Performance Cores, more GPU cores, more cache, controllers and more RAM to boot. And probably when the iPhone 13 rolls out the successor to Firestorm is there, which then goes into the next M Series SOCs.
Me too, if Apple removed the white bezel, the iMac would be Cool. I hope Apple will listen and improve for the next versions of the iMac in the future.
Why is this news? Isn't the M1 in iMacs the same as MBA and Mac Mini? So we already know that MBA and Mac Mini were 56% faster than previous generation iMacs?
Well, the main reason this M1 iMac can't replace the 27" iMac is the most obvious one--it doesn't have the real estate.
Why is the M1 sipping power on an iMac? I understand for iPad and MBA, but on an iMac why not unleash the beast?
Or is it just the nature of how the product works, by design it can not consume more electricity?
I wouldn't say so, I think Intel is behind due to its support of the x86 architecture which seems has hit its top potential(maybe?) . Apple's superior performance is because they switched architecture to RISC , if Intel did the same they might achieve just as much or better...I think...
if keep the 2015-2019 iMac 21.5" case and expand it to 24" and keep the similar coolers directly coupled to exhaust vent the iMac had then it is workable to get a competitive system with just as good (if not better) performance. But for an immobile , wall-plug-powered system wattage isn't a top issue.
[ Don't needs massive heat sink if have a more coordinated system that isn't playing "hand off" to decoupled designed fans to blast the turbulent, hot air out of the system. ]
If the primary objective is a thinner iMac, then yeah the wattage is a difference. If the primary objective is to make a thinner set of laptop systems then it is an even bigger difference.
The Apple hyperbole is that they have conquered almost the whole desktop performance range with just the M1. the top end of where the Mini and iMac 21.5 were in terms of I/O capacity , max RAM capacity , and dGPU abilities is deeply missing. For mainstream users that probably doesn't matter.
The bigger picture is not to crawl down into a hole with largely 'self imposed" constraints that are of Apple's (not customers ) primary origin. Comparing only to old ( somewhat abandoned) previous systems is the myopia that Apple will tend to throw at these. What large group of iMac customers had lower wattage iMac as #1 requested feature on their wish list? The competitors not being able to follow Apple into the same case dimensions won't mean they can't deploy competitive systems in the same general class.
They won't be able to make great "new M-series era iMac clones " , but they don't need to make near exact mimics to be competitive.
Pragmatically, AMD can barely keep up with the Ryzen 5000 demand for regular "box with slots" tower systems so there probably won't be a system from the major vendors soon . But it is workable. the AMD stuff runs cooler than the Intel solutions they have had to deal (when trying to squeeze in mid-upper range desktop options ) with and delivery better performance.
For the same reason it's sipping power on a Mini: It's designed to operate within a certain power range, which means its power-performance curve likely wasn't optimized for higher power—i.e., it can probably be pushed higher, but with significantly diminishing returns.
Also, the available power isn't the only consideration. A frequent complaint about the current iMac (at least the 27") is fan noise. That's why many really appreciate the iMac Pro, which has much better cooling. The lower power requirements of the M1 iMac enable a very quiet machine.
Apple also decided to make the M1 iMac relatively thin, a design that's made feasible by a low power requirement.
These 24 inch iMacs are basically a new tier in the iMac family, aimed at casual users who will value the small form factor and silent operation combined with excellent performance that the M1 allows. Add in the high end display and the price value is quite good.
I would expect when the next higher end SOC in the family drops so will the next tier of iMacs as well as the next higher end tier of MacBook Pro.
I would expect when the next higher end SOC in the family drops so will the next tier of iMacs as well as the next higher end tier of MacBook Pro.
Tiger lake is still slower than the M1 in benchmarks, plus in notebooks you have to handle the drop in performance when running from battery (even in high performance mode) that affects intel and AMD alike. It’s going to be interesting to see higher TDP chips from Apple, will they just be 2 M1 chips packaged together or do they have an 8+ core design that is built on all cores being high performance? Hopefully we will see sooner than later.
Why try to categorise the new iMac? What is a casual user? I am using my Macs for fun and work, and I am sure the new iMac would perform great in all tasks I throw at it. Higher end computers are great for specific workloads.
What @theorist9 said, and Apple wants their products to use as little electricity as possible. That's good for batteries, good for your wallet and in larger scales good for the environment as well.
“Most” is probably a bit overblown at this point. I actually have very few apps that are not native anymore.
also egpu is actually slower in my experience. Thundbolt 3 just wasn’t fast enough.
My egpu enclosure is now collecting dust because I have M1. The actual GPU now in a gaming PC and getting amazing full performance.
If by casual you mean spending 8 hours per day doing cloud based development, then yes I’m a casual
Exactly. M1 was great when it was released a few months ago in Nov, but it is just pathetic by now. I expect Apple Silicon to improve by leaps and bounds every few months, not for them to reuse a 6-month old M1 chip. These 24" iMac should be on M2 with significantly improved GHz performance AND more cores at the same time, not to mention the usual tighter integration and multi-threading performance.
Yes, I know M1 is much better than Intel, but people really need to stop saying that M1 is great. I expect much higher standards from Apple. It is simply not good enough to be much better than Intel. Apple needs to have moved on to M2 and beyond that obliviates the highest end Intel by much further than just "much better".
Basically I expect Apple to blow wayyyyyyyy past the competition, not just by a large margin, but by beyond huge margin.
M1 is so pathetic by my standards of Apple.
Basically I expect Apple to blow wayyyyyyyy past the competition, not just by a large margin, but by beyond huge margin.
M1 is so pathetic by my standards of Apple.