M1 vs. M3 iMac Buyer's Guide: 15+ Differences Compared

[jlnr]

But I agree with some that believe the iMac is a relatively obsolete idea, which is why I believe that this may be the last design iteration we will see with these.

One can also make the opposite argument, that now is a better time than ever for AIOs because iMacs are so thin and pretty that they don't look weird when the chip gets too old and you only use them as an external display. The M1/M3 could even be useful in "monitor mode" just like the Studio Display has an iPhone chip for face tracking with its camera and so on.

The only missing piece is the return of Target Display Mode.

It was already irresponsible (from a sustainability standpoint) not to have this feature on the last 5K iMacs.

 

[Warped9]

The market has greatly changed since 1997 when the original G3 iMac was introduced. The personal computer market was still young and relatively expensive. Most PCs people bought were much like the computers used in the workplaces: ugly chunky pieces of black or beige plastic with bulky CRT monitors. They looked like ****, but thats what people had to go with and it cemented the still prominent image that computers are largely nondescript bricks spouting numerous cables that are there just to get the job done. Early laptops weren’t really any better—chunky and heavy slabs of plastic with small screens.

Along comes the cheeky little iMac that looked like it popped out of a science fiction movie. It was frickin’ cool and like nothing else on the market. It said computers didn’t have to be eyes-sores and you wouldn’t be embarrassed having it on your desk. It wasn’t for everyone, but it drew the attention of lots of people wary of computers because it didn’t look like just a tool.

Thats not the market today and Apple is no longer a resurrected startup company. Today’s computer market is mature and most computers are still rather similar to each other and nondescript, but most of them are no longer heavy and generally ugly although they’re mostly still slabs of plastic. And most people today don’t expect to have to spend a lot of money for their computer needs. Indeed I could argue that despite personal computers still averaging hundreds of dollars they’re largely seen as generally disposable. If it lasts five or six years they’re okay with that.

Apple also evolved by going upmarket—no longer cheeky, but something more upscale. Their products have a build and finish above the average. You buy an Apple product because you expect better build quality and generally longer service life.

Today’s iMac faces a different market than 20-25 years ago. The market is now dominated by mobile devices and the laptop dominates. Desktops, for personal use, have become a niche market.

And yet in that light the iMac is still relevant. It’s a counterpoint to the same-old-same-old of the current laptop dominated market. It’s not just another nondescript slab of plastic that looks like every other slab of plastic. It’s meant for those who prefer something different. It is not purely utilitarian as it also reaches for an emotional connection. You either get it or you don’t. It reaches you or it doesn’t. Much like a Mazda Miata, VW Beetle or Kia Soul.

In the eyes of many with a set (entrenched?) idea of what a computer looks like the iMac doesn’t look serious. And yet it is a serious and very capable bit of hardware and not just for casual family use. The key distinction is it’s also pleasing to the eye if you’re able to see it that way.

Those disdainful and dismissive of the iMac don’t get it, not on an emotional level. To them a computer is just a tool and pretensions to being anything more are a waste. Much of the criticism seems to come from those who likely wouldn’t seriously consider buying one anyway.

Nothing is perfect. Most things in life demand compromise and you rarely get exactly everything you want. The iMac is no exception. I like it, but it’s not perfect. There are things I would prefer with the iMac that we didn’t get, but such is life and none of them are deal breakers (for me).

For its price its base configuration should be 12-16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. But it’s not even though it’s base configuration is still quite capable for most needs. Not a deal breaker, though, because I intend to go for higher specs anyway. So I’ll have to pay a bit more for what I want, but it’s no cheaper and indeed possibly would cost more to buy a higher spec desktop with a comparable display to match the iMac. And none of those alternatives would look as good or as appealing as the iMac.

24 inches? I’m coming from a twelve year old 21.5 so it’s a distinct 20 percent upgrade in screen size. Thats a win.

No problem with the off-white bezels, but I would prefer tweaked colour options and finish. I would prefer the iMac be all one tone—the metallic finish—and dispense with the pastel colour on the chin, but I don’t find it revolting. The orange, purple and pink don’t do it for me, but thats me. I can imagine options like Space Grey, Midnight, Starlight, iPad Air blue or green. But I’m fine with the current Blue, Green or Silver options.

The iMac offers me far more that I like than what I don’t care for.

 

[beerglass007]

A nice machine let down by white bezels, older connectivity (lightning), screen size…

I think they could have made improvements in these other places other than the CPU and had a machine that would make a great proposition for many to upgrade.

For the target user of this device, M3 doesn’t really bring much to the table.

IMac used to be about exciting design for those wanting a first Mac, someone just wanting a nice PC for family use etc.

The price is way too high. You’d be better off getting base Mac mini and spending the saved money on a really great monitor, keyboard and trackpad/mouse… and still have money left over.

Would you really ?

Spec out a Mac mini M2, keyboard, mouse, and 4K monitor for the same price please ?

 

[picpicmac]

you've got very little to say.

You don't understand why the Scary Fast event did what it did.

 

[OrenLindsey]

The market has greatly changed since 1997 when the original G3 iMac was introduced. The personal computer market was still young and relatively expensive. Most PCs people bought were much like the computers used in the workplaces: ugly chunky pieces of black or beige plastic with bulky CRT monitors. They looked like ****, but thats what people had to go with and it cemented the still prominent image that computers are largely nondescript bricks spouting numerous cables that are there just to get the job done. Early laptops weren’t really any better—chunky and heavy slabs of plastic with small screens.

Along comes the cheeky little iMac that looked like it popped out of a science fiction movie. It was frickin’ cool and like nothing else on the market. It said computers didn’t have be eyes-sores and you wouldn’t be embarrassed having it on your desk. It wasn’t for everyone, but it drew the attention of lots of people wary of computers because it didn’t look lot just a tool.

Thats not the market today and Apple is no longer a resurrected startup company. Today’s computer market is mature and most computers are still rather similar to each other and nondescript, but most of them are no longer heavy and generally ugly although they’re mostly still slabs of plastic. And most people today don’t expect to have to spend a lot of money for their computer needs. Indeed I could argue that despite computers still averaging hundreds of dollars per computer they’re largely seen as generally disposable. If it lasts five years they’re okay with that.

Apple also evolved by going upmarket—no longer cheeky, but something more upscale. Their products have a build and finish above the average. You buy an Apple product because you expect better build quality and generally longer service life.

Today’s iMac faces a different market than 20-25 years ago. The market is now dominated by mobile devices and with computers the laptop dominates. Desktops, for personal use, have become a niche market.

And yet in that light the iMac is still relevant. It’s a counterpoint to the same-old-same-old of the current laptop dominated market. It’s not just another nondescript slab of plastic that looks like every other slab of plastic. It’s meant for those who prefer something different. It is not purely utilitarian as it also reaches for an emotional connection. You either get it or you don’t. It reaches you or it doesn’t. Much like a Mazda Miata, VW Beetle or Kia Soul.

In the eyes of many with a set (entrenched?) idea of what a computer looks like the iMac doesn’t look serious. And yet it is a serious and very capable bit of hardware and not just for casual family use. The key distinction is it’s also pleasing to the eye if you’re able to see it that way.

Those disdainful and dismissive of the iMac don’t get it, not on an emotional level. To them a computer is just a tool and pretensions to being anything more are a waste. Much of the criticism seems to come from those who wouldn’t likely seriously consider buying one.

Nothing is perfect. Most things in life demand compromise and you rarely get exactly everything you want. The iMac is no exception. I like it, but it’s not perfect. There are things I would prefer with the iMac that we didn’t get, but such is life and none of them are deal breakers (for me).

Exactly. People writing this computer off as an option are just simply wrong. As Apple said in their keynote, the iMac is the most popular All-in-one computer. (To be fair though, that is a small and likely shrinking market.)
But overall, this is a very nice machine. It has almost identical Geekbench results to the i9-13900KS in single-core performance, and beats chips like the i9-11900K in multi-core benchmarks. It has a great screen (very high PPI for its size). It is well-built, unlike windows AIOs, which are usually plastic. It has a good webcam, great speakers, good mics, etc. Stop complaining about it.

 

[picpicmac]

24 inches? I’m coming from a twelve year old 21.5 so it’s a distinct 20 percent upgrade in screen size. Thats a win.

I don't want anything larger than 24". Those of us sitting (or reclining) close to the screen have different requirements than those using stand-up desks or multi-display arrays.

If I used stand-up desks, and thus normally stood 36"-40" away from the screen, I'd get for a 32" display. But right now I am just 20" from my screen, and at that distance I find even a 27" display too large.

 

[Aston441]

Possibly because there was no differentiation between the M1 and M3?That it is the same SSD options for both.

Ah, OK, I see that now.

 

[picpicmac]

and you quickly get to over $1000 in total

I too am in the market and have spent a lot of time pricing out a Mini system alternative to a new iMac.

Lots of pros and cons.

One can put together a Mac Mini M2 system for less than the price of the M3 iMac. However, the big problem is the display. Sure, there are many 4K 27" monitors out there but the quality is quite erratic across the market. And the build quality is often poor. That 23.5" iMac screen is gorgeous, and the build quality is better than low cost monitors.

The only thing that concerns me about the iMac is the SSD NAND. I presume Apple is buying high quality parts.

The generative "AI" that Google uses throws this at me for SSDs in general:

• In the fourth year of use, 1% of all SSDs fail.
• In the fifth year of use, the failure rate for SSDs is 0.92%.

I'm wondering if/when the internal SSD in the new iMac fails that the security design of the system will force the entire machine to be sent in for repair. That is, and external SSD will be irrelevant because the SW/HW security of the Macs require the internal SSD?

 

[picpicmac]

The “ haters “ seem to be 90% of the target demographic for this machine. When the haters outnumber the fan boys there is a serious issue.

Maybe there's more to the world than the small enclaves of forums of aging hobbyists pining for the good ol' days of 27"ers.

 

[OrenLindsey]

However, the big problem is the display. Sure, there are many 4K 27" monitors out there but the quality is quite erratic across the market. And the build quality is often poor. That 23.5" iMac screen is gorgeous, and the build quality is better than low cost monitors.

This is true. There really isn't a monitor with the same PPI, same build quality, etc, in the price range.

I'm wondering if/when the internal SSD in the new iMac fails that the security design of the system will force the entire machine to be sent in for repair. That is, and external SSD will be irrelevant because the SW/HW security of the Macs require the internal SSD?

This is also true. However, the SSD failing will cause any Mac to fail. It applies to Mac mini or iMac. (The only Mac it doesn't affect is the Mac Pro, as you can upgrade the SSD yourself.)
Also, those figures are off. A lot less than 1% of SSDs die in the first year. A good rule of thumb is that a NAND SSD will last for about 150 TB of writes. That is, around 10 years, depending on your usage.

 

[picpicmac]

It’s not out of the ordinary for Apple to remove an interface ten years before the rest of the industry

Except for the Lightning port...

 

[picpicmac]

Also, those figures are off. A lot less than 1% of SSDs die in the first year.

Certainly the Google generative "AI" could not be wrong!

I wonder if the failure rate Google quotes includes reasons not related to TBW, such as interface problems.

 

[picpicmac]

Might as well go all the way, right Tim?

Damn right.

Bring back the 20.5" display!

 

[picpicmac]

In total, you can get a similar, if not better monitor and a better spec-ed Mac mini for less than the equivalent iMac.

Help me then. I've been looking. And what I am finding is many, many of the low cost 4K displays have poor quality display panels, and/or are cheaply built.

There are high-end displays out there (Apple being one such vendor) but by then one has over-shot the iMac price considerably.

 

[eifelbube]

Something else for the 24 iMac haters to consider: Apple also put the M3 chip from the iMac in their new base model MacBook Pro. That means Apple considers it a Pro level processor for a lot of people given the base model 14 Pro could well outsell the M3 Pro and M3 Max Models.

And if tech bench and real world tests affirm M3 outperforms M1 Pro and is about the same as M2 Pro that makes the M3 iMac a very respectable machine.

It now makes sense Apple skipped M2 for the iMac and went straight to M3. Just as M1 was a game changer for Apple’s computers in moving away from Intel the M3 takes it to another level where M2 really was a stopgap move.

Big picture: in two years Apple has gained 20-50 percent performance improvement over their 2019-2920 computers and with each upgrade using successively less power to achieve it.

This is truly quite something.


So if you take performance considerations away the haters’ real criticisms boil down to: colours beyond black and grey, white bezels and not being a 27in. display.

“Apple also put the M3 chip from the iMac in their new base model MacBook Pro. That means Apple considers it a Pro level processor for a lot of people … “
Really? What would make the base M3 MBP 14 more Pro level when they put the base M3 into the Mac Book Air next year? The “Pro” in Mac Book Pro has become meaningless.

 

[AlexJaye]

They are both a joke.

 

[AlexJaye]

I have a late 2012 27-inch iMac. Been waiting for this upgrade for a long time. Very disappointed! The design is OK, I don't need a PRO-version, however i want black bezels and the same 27-inch screen! I just use it for internet browsing. The screen on this model is too small for my needs.

I'm in the same boat. I will never replace it with a 24" like these.

 

[satchmo]

Something wrong with Silver, a very neutral colour?

Nope. It is indeed a one neutral colour among 6 other bright two-tone colours.

Adding another neutral but darker colour, would cover all the bases.

 

[Warped9]

Nope. It is indeed a one neutral colour among 6 other bright two-tone colours.

Adding another neutral but darker colour, would cover all the bases.

In all candour the two-tone colour scheme of the iMac isn’t something I’m crazy about, and the Silver option avoids that, but it doesn’t bug me.

The Pink option is…weird. The back of the computer is red and the chin is…flesh coloured? I’ve seen it close up and the metallic pink is okay, but the rest is…weird. I wonder if it all would have looked better as Rose Gold.

And thats what I would have preferred—having the entire chassis the same metallic colour. But, of course, they were echoing the two-tone colouring off the original G3 iMacs.

 

[Chuckeee]

“Apple also put the M3 chip from the iMac in their new base model MacBook Pro. That means Apple considers it a Pro level processor for a lot of people … “
Really? What would make the base M3 MBP 14 more Pro level when they put the base M3 into the Mac Book Air next year? The “Pro” in Mac Book Pro has become meaningless.

Not a good reason. But the M3 MacBook Pro has a fan so in theory it is less likely to be limited by thermal throttling than the MacBook Air. Although I suspect thermal throttling is not much of an issue with the MacBook Air anyways.

Well I guess there is always Starbucks bragging rights?!?

 

[Agincourt]

Buying … with M1 iMac trade-in. Net cost $1299 - $430 = $869 before taxes

Save your money and wait for the next upgrade. Otherwise sell it on eBay for more than the crumbs Apple is offering you for trade in.

 

[svish]

Absolutely no reason for anyone with M1 iMac to upgrade. Glad to see bright colours retained with the new iMac

 

[CoreForce]

You don't have to get an iMac, just get an external display and a Mac mini or even a Studio. In total, you can get a similar, if not better monitor and a better spec-ed Mac mini for less than the equivalent iMac.
I don't see why everyone insists on getting the iMac and only the iMac, when you can get better stuff (and a better setup, since you can upgrade the computer without upgrading the display) for a lower price.

Having more cables dangling around on a desk is not a better setup. It is an aesthetic nightmare in one's everyday life. Apple used to advertise this, and it is true. Plus, having to decide on so many things brings that debate into homes, which external devices at what tradeoff to shop, that is hated everywhere from the PC world.

Cutting down on the price point:
I can provide Swiss store numbers only, but those should be similar to other countries, at least in relation to each other.

Mac mini spec'd with M2 Pro 12 CPU cores / 19 GPU cores, 32GB RAM, 2TB SSD
Mouse and Keyboard
external SD card reader (dangling around)
Thunderbolt cable (simple, 0,5m)
Samsung 27" 5k LS27C902PAUXEN (CHF 1200,-)
- CHF 4427,-
and the thinking, you operate a device on its very limits.

Mac Studio spec'd with M2 Max 12 CPU cores / 30 GPU cores, 32GB RAM, 2TB SSD
Mouse and Keyboard
Thunderbolt 4 pro cable (1m)
Studio Display Standard Glas, height and tilt adjustment (CHF 2000,- when sold separately)
- CHF 5251,-
and the thinking, you have not leveraged the true potential of the setup, just because money, but now you are locked into it.

There is a very clear sweet spot for iMac 27" in between at CHF 5000,-
that
a) seems feasible to me Apple could leverage it very very well
b) would make many people very very happy.

An iMac 24" M3 8 CPU cores / 10 GPU cores, 24GB RAM, 2TB SSD
Mouse and Keyboard included
external SD card reader (dangling around)
currently runs down at
- CHF 2934,-

 

[flottenheimer]

Far from a broken concept. Not even close.

Sustainable setup for who?

The iMac is an excellent option for offices and any operation based on Macs that does not have a heavy tilt to processor intensive functions. The investment and maintenance in the setup you describe is a nightmare for most businesses. Why would a business make that investment for office and administrative work? Additionally, the setup you describe is a nightmare for IT departments.

More sustainable in an environmental sense.
A quality display will last way longer than any CPU.

"The maintenance of a Studio Display + a Mac mini is a nightmare for IT departments"
— How is that?

 

[swm]

This iMac is an absolute joke.

the entire iMac lineup - oh, wait, that's essentially this machine itself - is a joke.
we have an overpriced display, that alone costs about 40% more than the current iMac. why? how?
if you want to have a capable device, you have to buy a mini and the studio display and literally spend 2x as much than this iPad-on-a-stand? how on earth makes this sense?
i want my 27" back.