Need thoughts M1 mini vs 2020 Intel

[omeletpants]

Nuerotic nutjob with too much time on his hands is looking for opinions.

Just upgraded 5 weeks ago to a 27" 2020 Intel iMac (32gb, 256gb, i5). Has Monterrey and runs great. Use for simple stuff like surfing, email and son does world of warcraft. No graphics, video or huge spreadsheets.

Kinda got the bug to upgrade to a M1 mini (16gb, 256gb), with 32" Samsung curved screen. Have a huge desk that can accommodate the size.

The M1 would be $1400 (M1, monitor and stand), while I think I could get $1425 on market in Chicago area. So the cost would be a wash. The only issue would be the aggravation of migrating systems

The mini would be cool and different with the huge monitor and extra speed, but the 2020 Intel is working fine. The cost difference is a wash

I always want the best that I can afford.

What would you do?

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Nuerotic nutjob with too much time on his hands is looking for opinions.

Just upgraded 5 weeks ago to a 27" 2020 Intel iMac (32gb, 256gb, i5). Has Monterrey and runs great. Use for simple stuff like surfing, email and son does world of warcraft. No graphics, video or huge spreadsheets.

Kinda got the bug to upgrade to a M1 mini (16gb, 256gb), with 32" Samsung curved screen. Have a huge desk that can accommodate the size.

The M1 would be $1400 (M1, monitor and stand), while I think I could get $1425 on market in Chicago area. So the cost would be a wash. The only issue would be the aggravation of migrating systems

The mini would be cool and different with the huge monitor and extra speed, but the 2020 Intel is working fine. The cost difference is a wash

I always want the best that I can afford.

What would you do?

Keep what you have,until it dies . Then buy new, with the latest of everything

 

[Kenny99]

You may get the best price for your current setup now instead of waiting. The new M1's (2022) will be at a higher price. So you might think about a Refurbished M1 (2020 - 2021) now and upgrade in an another year to the newer M1"s. That way you can spend more on a Monitor now and have it for the newer system later.

 

[MRrainer]

I would continue to use the Intel iMac for some time - it will have to be seen how long Apple will support macOS on Intel anyway. This is not real estate. Apple are making new ones every day. You won't miss out.

It's doubtful you will gain anything, apart from satisfying the impulse-purchase urge.

I'd rather get a refurb M1 MacBookAir at some point, when you actually need it (e.g. if your son uses the computer and you need to use it too).

 

[Fishrrman]

Keep the iMac for at least 2-3 more years...

 

[theluggage]

Kinda got the bug to upgrade to a M1 mini (16gb, 256gb), with 32" Samsung curved screen. Have a huge desk that can accommodate the size.

Well, first thing is to check the support status of World of Warcraft on the M1 - it may be better, it may be worse. For everything else, the M1 should be perfectly adequate - maybe faster than your iMac, maybe not so much (it depends very heavily on what you are doing).

Remember that the 5k iMac still has a very good display, both in terms of resolution and brightness/colour gamut - and that 5120x2880 is something of a sweet-spot for MacOS in terms of resolution vs. screen estate. With a 4k display at a larger size, (a) the physical pixels are going to be larger and (b) the regular pixel-doubled mode (best quality) results in rather large system fonts and icon sizes on a 32" display, and you might find your self needing one of the non-integer scaled modes to get a suitable size - which won't be quite as pin-sharp as your 5k display. Don't get me wrong - the M1 should have the grunt to handle the scaling without issue. and the scaled modes really are perfectly good unless you're planning to climb up on the desk with a jeweller's loupe and do A-B comparisons. Are you? Not saying this is a dealbreaker, but just be aware that the Samsung might not be an unqualified all-round upgrade. (Also, you lose webcam, microphone and I bet you an Internet that the speakers - if it has them at all - won't be as good as the iMac. If I was going for > 27-30" in a 4k display I'd look for something big enough that you could comfortably use in 1:1 native 4k mode.

Also - the M1 is only Apple's low-power "consumer" processor - it may give the 2020 iMac a run for its money but it probably won't be so impressive against the 2022 M1 Pro iMac expected in a few months, or - if you want a different screen - the rumoured M1 Pro/Max mini. That shouldn't be an issue for your workload but if you've got a bug about "the best you can afford", if you settle for a M1 Mini now, that bug might revisit you in the spring...

The new M1's (2022) will be at a higher price.

We don't know that. It's certainly possible but far too soon to state it as fact, especially considering all the M1 Macs so far have come out within ~$200 of the Intel system they replaced.

...and if anybody could reliably predict the effect on second-hand iMac prices, they'd be down at the Stock Market working on their first billion, not wasting their time on MacRumors.

However, the 2020 iMacs will always be the most up-to-date Intel Macs, and will remain attractive to people who still need to run x86 Windows, x86 Linux, or any other legacy software that won't run (well) on Apple Silicon. So they could hold their value... and if the new iMac does come with a price hike, that could increase demand for 2020 iMacs. Meanwhile, the price of second-hand M1 Minis could tank when all those people who bought them for "pro" work have the chance to replace them with M1 Pro/Max Minis or Imacs.

So, really, I wouldn't call it either way...

 

[omeletpants]

Well, first thing is to check the support status of World of Warcraft on the M1 - it may be better, it may be worse. For everything else, the M1 should be perfectly adequate - maybe faster than your iMac, maybe not so much (it depends very heavily on what you are doing).

Remember that the 5k iMac still has a very good display, both in terms of resolution and brightness/colour gamut - and that 5120x2880 is something of a sweet-spot for MacOS in terms of resolution vs. screen estate. With a 4k display at a larger size, (a) the physical pixels are going to be larger and (b) the regular pixel-doubled mode (best quality) results in rather large system fonts and icon sizes on a 32" display, and you might find your self needing one of the non-integer scaled modes to get a suitable size - which won't be quite as pin-sharp as your 5k display. Don't get me wrong - the M1 should have the grunt to handle the scaling without issue. and the scaled modes really are perfectly good unless you're planning to climb up on the desk with a jeweller's loupe and do A-B comparisons. Are you? Not saying this is a dealbreaker, but just be aware that the Samsung might not be an unqualified all-round upgrade. (Also, you lose webcam, microphone and I bet you an Internet that the speakers - if it has them at all - won't be as good as the iMac. If I was going for > 27-30" in a 4k display I'd look for something big enough that you could comfortably use in 1:1 native 4k mode.

Also - the M1 is only Apple's low-power "consumer" processor - it may give the 2020 iMac a run for its money but it probably won't be so impressive against the 2022 M1 Pro iMac expected in a few months, or - if you want a different screen - the rumoured M1 Pro/Max mini. That shouldn't be an issue for your workload but if you've got a bug about "the best you can afford", if you settle for a M1 Mini now, that bug might revisit you in the spring...


We don't know that. It's certainly possible but far too soon to state it as fact, especially considering all the M1 Macs so far have come out within ~$200 of the Intel system they replaced.

...and if anybody could reliably predict the effect on second-hand iMac prices, they'd be down at the Stock Market working on their first billion, not wasting their time on MacRumors.

However, the 2020 iMacs will always be the most up-to-date Intel Macs, and will remain attractive to people who still need to run x86 Windows, x86 Linux, or any other legacy software that won't run (well) on Apple Silicon. So they could hold their value... and if the new iMac does come with a price hike, that could increase demand for 2020 iMacs. Meanwhile, the price of second-hand M1 Minis could tank when all those people who bought them for "pro" work have the chance to replace them with M1 Pro/Max Minis or Imacs.

So, really, I wouldn't call it either way...

Thanks. I completely forgot about the mini needing an external mic

Not being very knowledgeable on monitors and pixel considerations not sure what I would lose and what differences I would see in trading the iMac retina display for the Dell S3222DGM

 

[StoneJack]

Thanks. I completely forgot about the mini needing an external mic

Not being very knowledgeable on monitors and pixel considerations not sure what I would lose and what differences I would see in trading the iMac retina display for the Dell S3222DGM

also add a camera cost
but if you want to change, change.

 

[theluggage]

Not being very knowledgeable on monitors and pixel considerations not sure what I would lose and what differences I would see in trading the iMac retina display for the Dell S3222DGM

That is much lower resolution - QHD is 2560x1440 - iMac retina is 5k: 5120x2880 - it's just not in the same class for looking at text, graphics etc. Even a 4k display (3840x2160) is a downgrade from 5k in terms of resolution - anything less than 4k (which is most 3rd-party displays that don't say "4k" in large friendly letters in the ad) will be a huge downgrade.

Bottom line: the display built in to the 5k iMac is a steal - the 5k resolution never really caught on in the PC world (I don't think there are any other 5k displays currently on sale - when there were they were at the $1000+ level) but for Macs, 5k @ 27" it is a "sweet spot" because it is exactly twice the number of horizontal and vertical pixels used in the earlier iMac and Cinema displays and works well with the design of MacOS and Mac software.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree looking at gaming displays - the cheaper ones are only "full HD" (1920x1080) and the more expensive ones offer features like higher refresh rates/Freesync and faster response times that - if you are a heavy gamer - may be worth "trading" for lower resolution.

NB: don't be misled by the names of "looks like 2048x1152" when choosing Mac screen modes - you are always seeing more detail on the 5k screen than you would on an actual (say) 2948x1152 screen: the "looks like" mostly just describes the physical size of the system font, icons and window furniture. It is best when the "looks like" resolution is exactly half the actual resolution (so "looks like 2560x1440" on a 5129x2880 iMac gets the most out of the 5k display) but in other scaled modes what you get is double the "looks like" resolution re-scaled to fit the 5k screen, which is a bit "softer" than the optimum but a lot better than the actual "looks like" would be. Yeah... it's a bit confusing.

Having a Mac Mini that lets you choose your own display is good if you have a clear idea of what alternative display set-up you want, and why, but if the 5k iMac display suits your needs, you won't find better value.

 

[omeletpants]

That is much lower resolution - QHD is 2560x1440 - iMac retina is 5k: 5120x2880 - it's just not in the same class for looking at text, graphics etc. Even a 4k display (3840x2160) is a downgrade from 5k in terms of resolution - anything less than 4k (which is most 3rd-party displays that don't say "4k" in large friendly letters in the ad) will be a huge downgrade.

Bottom line: the display built in to the 5k iMac is a steal - the 5k resolution never really caught on in the PC world (I don't think there are any other 5k displays currently on sale - when there were they were at the $1000+ level) but for Macs, 5k @ 27" it is a "sweet spot" because it is exactly twice the number of horizontal and vertical pixels used in the earlier iMac and Cinema displays and works well with the design of MacOS and Mac software.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree looking at gaming displays - the cheaper ones are only "full HD" (1920x1080) and the more expensive ones offer features like higher refresh rates/Freesync and faster response times that - if you are a heavy gamer - may be worth "trading" for lower resolution.

NB: don't be misled by the names of "looks like 2048x1152" when choosing Mac screen modes - you are always seeing more detail on the 5k screen than you would on an actual (say) 2948x1152 screen: the "looks like" mostly just describes the physical size of the system font, icons and window furniture. It is best when the "looks like" resolution is exactly half the actual resolution (so "looks like 2560x1440" on a 5129x2880 iMac gets the most out of the 5k display) but in other scaled modes what you get is double the "looks like" resolution re-scaled to fit the 5k screen, which is a bit "softer" than the optimum but a lot better than the actual "looks like" would be. Yeah... it's a bit confusing.

Having a Mac Mini that lets you choose your own display is good if you have a clear idea of what alternative display set-up you want, and why, but if the 5k iMac display suits your needs, you won't find better value.

You have really made me think. The retina looks fabulous, but if it's going to cost me $1K plus to duplicate then that's too much. I can live with the 27" as my needs are simple: Only one game, surfing, email. No video editing, corporate apps or graphics work. Just that I could sell the 2020 imac ($1450 range) and a mini set-up would make the cost a wash. But not with a $1k+ monitor. Thought I would be getting a major improvement with a M1/16gb config but that's not what you are saying. I like to stay on the leading edge concerning computers and TVs.

Maybe I'll wait to see what apple announces in the spring

 

[Neodym]

If only Apple would offer UW curved displays, then an iMac might be an option. I‘ve gone for a 21:9 monitor (some 3 years or so ago) and despite resolution „only“ being 3440x1440 on 34“, I’m not sure I’d ever want to go back to a bog-standard, flat whatever-resolution display in 16:9. UW feels so much more natural.

Gimme an iMac with a 6880x2880 display in 34“(+) UW curved and I’m sold … (but as that probably won’t happen, I’ll stick to a mini, with monitor choices being a major reason).