Upgrading 27" iMac and NOT getting Mac Studio. The iMac still got it.

[Andrey84]

Hello,

This post is mainly for UX/graphic professionals working from home on an iMac and needing an upgrade.

Do you really need to buy the Apple Studio + Studio Display, if you're on a budget?

Wanted to share our experience and discuss.

My wife is a UX/graphic designer and she's been using 27" iMacs for 13 years. She recently started 3D-designing, rendering and making jewellery as a hobby. She has a base spec 2017 i5 iMac (upgraded to 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD) which has become too slow and needed an upgrade. She couldn't work in Adobe XD and share the screen in Zoom at the same time without a massive lag, and her rendering in Rhino was very slow. Latest OS wasn't supported either.

The requirements are:
- High-quality 5K monitor, due to the design work and using massive app prototype files
- 2 TB of space, as in December she had 0.9TB of 2TB free
- 64GB of RAM, as under normal use it's showing around 45GB used
- The best CPU possible for rendering

We decided to go for a top spec iMac 2020 instead of the Apple Studio. We got it for just £2,305 from eBay. It has the nano-glass too, which actually looks incredible. It's really fast on Sonoma and does really well in tests and outperforms M1 Max in Cinebench.

-------
UPDATE 04.01.2024
After having spent a month on these forums, another viable alternative came to light: to buy a used M1 Max Apple Studio (64GB/2TB) and to build a DIY 5K Apple Display (also, forum link). This will cost just around £500/$500 more, that will last at least 2 years longer. Another downside, apart from higher costs and having to do a lot of work yourself and the risk, is that you can't really get the nano-textured glass, which we got with the new iMac and I believe it's fantastic for eye health.
-------

Some cost analysis is below.

A comparable setup with Mac Studio, M2 Max, 96GB unified memory and 2TB SSD, which is her minimum storage requirement, would’ve set her back £3,699 for the box and £2,149 for the Studio Display, so £5,848 in total. This means she made a total saving of £3,534 compared to new.

I live in the UK and a used M1 Max Studio 64GB/2TB goes for around £2,200 and ASD with adjustable stand a nano-coating is around £1,700, so still even on used the total saving is around £1,500. Plus she gets 128GB of memory instead of 64GB.

A maxed-out Mac Mini would've been £2,699, however the max RAM is 32GB and it's shared with the video card. This wouldn't be enough.

This 2020 iMac will very likely support the upcoming 2024 & 2025 Mac OS too. Maintenance support is about 2-3 years, so the machine will be officially supported until late 2027. After that, she can get a new Studio Display with a used Mac Studio with M3 Ultra, which will cost at least 30% less than when released in summer next year. There is always OpenCore Legacy Patcher as well.

Overall, I'm very happy with the decision. Let's see how it will play out over the next 3 years.

Such a shame they stopped making new 27" iMacs. It's an incredible machine and actually a great value for money

Some photos are attached.

 

[alfmoonspace]

I absolutely love my 27 iMac, even if there is a slight lag compared to my M machines, they are still amazing machines in their own right.

 

[crsh1976]

Not dismissing the usefulness of the Intel iMacs that still got oomph to get things done, but you're opposing this to a Mac Studio/Mini + Studio Display combo as if it's the only viable option.

The Studio Display is a pricy one (it's a great 5k monitor but it isn't affordable), there are great monitors on the market that make cheaper companions to get work done on the Mac Studio/Mini.

 

[Andrey84]

Not dismissing the usefulness of the Intel iMacs that still got oomph to get things done, but you're opposing this to a Mac Studio/Mini + Studio Display combo as if it's the only viable option.

The Studio Display is a pricy one (it's a great 5k monitor but it isn't affordable), there are great monitors on the market that make cheaper companions to get work done on the Mac Studio/Mini.

Thank you, but genuinely, for someone who got used to Apple quality, won’t all other monitors (which have to have a matching resolution btw) feel cheap and plasticky?

 

[crsh1976]

Thank you, but genuinely, for someone who got used to Apple quality, won’t all other monitors (which have to have a matching resolution btw) feel cheap and plasticky?

Sure other options are not clad in aluminium, but ultimately (to me at least) it's the picture quality that matters.

In the case of the Mac Mini, the Studio Display costs more than the computer (even with upgrades) - it's a bit odd. It comes down to budget and how much one values having a Studio Display.

 

[Andrey84]

Sure other options are not clad in aluminium, but ultimately (to me at least) it's the picture quality that matters.

In the case of the Mac Mini, the Studio Display costs more than the computer (even with upgrades) - it's a bit odd. It comes down to budget and how much one values having a Studio Display.

Could you please list the top 3 (or 2) best alternative displays?

 

[alfmoonspace]

I would say the LG ultrafine 5k is a nice display. Or LG ips black 4k. I have two ASD and a 2020 iMac 27 and I prefer the iMacs display over them.

 

[Plutonius]

Not dismissing the usefulness of the Intel iMacs that still got oomph to get things done, but you're opposing this to a Mac Studio/Mini + Studio Display combo as if it's the only viable option.

The Studio Display is a pricy one (it's a great 5k monitor but it isn't affordable), there are great monitors on the market that make cheaper companions to get work done on the Mac Studio/Mini.

The iMac m3 looks like a better choice for those that like their old iMac..

Most people seem stuck on a 27" display without actually checking out the m3 iMac in person.

 

[crsh1976]

Dell's Ultrasharp 4k monitor with IPS Black panel (which is a LG panel I believe), available in 27 or 32-inch, is also a good one in my book.

 

[crsh1976]

The iMac m3 looks like a better choice for those that like their old iMac..

Most people seem stuck on a 27" display without actually checking out the m3 iMac in person.

No doubt, screen size is very much a personal pref - some find the 24-inch panel too small, to each their own.

 

[Plutonius]

No doubt, screen size is very much a personal pref - some find the 24-inch panel too small, to each their own.

I agree but most people seem to write off the 24" without actually trying out the m3 iMac.

 

[Andrey84]

@Plutonius @crsh1976 the 24” iMac is a definite no-go for my “stakeholder”.
They are very much on display in our local Apple store, so she saw them many times. Zero consideration given. Monitor is way too small. She would’ve bought the 32” if she could afford it. Her UX flow models are absolutely massive and barely fit on the 27” screen. 24GB of RAM is not going to work either, with her average usage being around 45GB, we don’t want constant swapping.

 

[drrich2]

Thank you, but genuinely, for someone who got used to Apple quality, won’t all other monitors (which have to have a matching resolution btw) feel cheap and plasticky?

How often do you feel of it?

Seriously, I ask because the build quality of the ASD is often mentioned and praised as one of the premium qualities (along with color accuracy out of the box and speaker sound) as part of the justification for what, at first glance, looks like an extraordinarily high price (especially if you're been looking at $300 - $500 27" 4K displays).

On that note, since it is an issue for some people and of course most everyone prefers high build quality, here's a follow up question:

If Apple made 2 ASD like the present one, but the only difference was that the new model felt 'cheap and plasticy' (I'm guessing you mean like a lot of mainstream brand name monitors with plastic frames/body), how much of a price differential would you accept to buy the higher priced version with the current ASD build quality?

I'm trying to get a sense of how much money that added build quality is worth to you.

 

[Homy]

outperforms M1 Max in Cinebench.

"Outperforms" by 18 points? Do you or your wife use Cinebench for living? Otherwise there's no point in comparing the two in Cinebench which is known for not performing well on Apple Silicon compared to Intel CPUs. For a fair comparison you should use the apps you use like Photoshop. In PugetBench for Photoshop M1 Max outperforms i9-12900K and RTX 3080. Your iMac has only i9-10910 and Radeon Pro 5700 XT.

M2 Max and its cost is not comparable. It outperforms iMac 2020 greatly in many ways and you can get refurbished Mac Studios way cheaper than that with enough RAM. You also don't have to buy Apple's Studio Dispaly. There are other great monitors.

If you're happy with the iMac that's fine but I wouldn't buy an Intel Mac again. When the iMac feels slow again you have to say goodbye to that nice 27" monitor but with a stand-alone monitor you can just swap your Mac.

 

[Plutonius]

@Plutonius @crsh1976 the 24” iMac is a definite no-go for my “stakeholder”.
They are very much on display in our local Apple store, so she saw them many times. Zero consideration given. Monitor is way too small. She would’ve bought the 32” if she could afford it. Her UX flow models are absolutely massive and barely fit on the 27” screen. 24GB of RAM is not going to work either, with her average usage being around 45GB, we don’t want constant swapping.

I'm glad she checked them out.

 

[Plutonius]

"Outperforms" by 18 points? Do you or your wife use Cinebench for living? Otherwise there's no point in comparing the two in Cinebench which is known for not performing well on Apple Silicon compared to Intel CPUs. For a fair comparison you should use the apps you use like Photoshop. In PugetBench for Photoshop M1 Max outperforms i9-12900K and RTX 3080. Your iMac has only i9-10910 and Radeon Pro 5700 XT.

View attachment 2325376
View attachment 2325377
M2 Max and its cost is not comparable. It outperforms iMac 2020 greatly in many ways and you can get refurbished Mac Studios way cheaper than that with enough RAM. You also don't have to buy Apple's Studio Dispaly. There are other great monitors.

View attachment 2325390View attachment 2325448View attachment 2325396

If you're happy with the iMac that's fine but I wouldn't buy an Intel Mac again. When the iMac feels slow again you have to say goodbye to that nice 27" monitor but with a stand-alone monitor you can just swap your Mac.

The other week, I got a refurbished (Apple store) M2 Studio Max with 38-core GPU, 64 GB RAM, and 2 TB storage for $2719. It sometimes takes awhile for the configuration you want to show up but it is worth it,

I'm very happy with my purchase.

 

[Homy]

The other week, I got a refurbished (Apple store) M2 Studio Max with 38-core GPU, 64 GB RAM, and 2 TB storage for $2719. It sometimes takes awhile for the configuration you want to show up but it is worth it,

I'm very happy with my purchase.

Another thing to consider is that developers are dropping the Intel support. You see that in gaming where new games don’t support Intel Macs.

 

[Andrey84]

How often do you feel of it?

Seriously, I ask because the build quality of the ASD is often mentioned and praised as one of the premium qualities (along with color accuracy out of the box and speaker sound) as part of the justification for what, at first glance, looks like an extraordinarily high price (especially if you're been looking at $300 - $500 27" 4K displays).

On that note, since it is an issue for some people and of course most everyone prefers high build quality, here's a follow up question:

If Apple made 2 ASD like the present one, but the only difference was that the new model felt 'cheap and plasticy' (I'm guessing you mean like a lot of mainstream brand name monitors with plastic frames/body), how much of a price differential would you accept to buy the higher priced version with the current ASD build quality?

I'm trying to get a sense of how much money that added build quality is worth to you.

You don't need to actually touch something to know how it will feel to touch. So the question "how often do you feel it" is irrelevant. I should correct myself and say "won't the other monitors look and feel cheap and plasticky?"

4K displays are unfortunately not an option, as the resolution has to match Apple's resolution exactly, for the picture quality to be as it was designed.

The LG 27" 5K display is quite expensive actually - costs around £1,250, so only £900 cheaper, I don't think the saving is worth having a bog-standard-looking dull office display on your desk for the next 10 years. If it cost £700, then it might have been worth it.

So at the moment with 5-7 comments about other displays still no-one offered a real alternative to ASD.

 

[Andrey84]

The other week, I got a refurbished (Apple store) M2 Studio Max with 38-core GPU, 64 GB RAM, and 2 TB storage for $2719. It sometimes takes awhile for the configuration you want to show up but it is worth it,

I'm very happy with my purchase.

Congrats!!! Sounds like an amazing buy.

 

[Andrey84]

"Outperforms" by 18 points? Do you or your wife use Cinebench for living? Otherwise there's no point in comparing the two in Cinebench which is known for not performing well on Apple Silicon compared to Intel CPUs. For a fair comparison you should use the apps you use like Photoshop. In PugetBench for Photoshop M1 Max outperforms i9-12900K and RTX 3080. Your iMac has only i9-10910 and Radeon Pro 5700 XT.

View attachment 2325376
View attachment 2325377
M2 Max and its cost is not comparable. It outperforms iMac 2020 greatly in many ways and you can get refurbished Mac Studios way cheaper than that with enough RAM. You also don't have to buy Apple's Studio Dispaly. There are other great monitors.

View attachment 2325390View attachment 2325448View attachment 2325396

If you're happy with the iMac that's fine but I wouldn't buy an Intel Mac again. When the iMac feels slow again you have to say goodbye to that nice 27" monitor but with a stand-alone monitor you can just swap your Mac.

Yes, if the result is higher, by definition it means "outperforms". I didn't know that Cinebench didn't give good results on M chips, but do you know if Rhino has been optimised for M chips yet? This is the actual application she is using for rendering and if it's not optimised either, then Cinebench provides a more real-world test.

PugetBench - I've never heard about this benchmark before. I'm not going to use a 4th benchmark in addition to the ones I know and trust: GeekBench, Cinebench and Blender. However, you are right and in other benchmarks M1 Max is doing really well. In GeekBench M1 Max is about 50% faster than than the fully loaded 2020 iMac. I'm not not sure how this translates into real rendering performance in Rhino. Geekbench is a very generic test of overall CPU speed, so I suspect it doesn't translate very well. Cinebench is a test specifically designed to test rendering performance.

Regarding M1 Max vs M2 Max - I don't see the difference being drastic on this CPU Monkey page.

I was quite careful in my text and said "comparable", I didn't say they were very close. Even if I accept that M2 Max in reality is 58% faster, like the Geekbench test suggests (8.5k vs 14.5k for multicore), then it's still a comparable system. 58% difference is not a 150% difference. However, the price of the new M2 Max setup with ASD is 154% higher. I don't think I would've saved much on a used M2 Max Studio either. The official UK Apple store says “save up to 15%” on refurbished.

 

[drrich2]

I should correct myself and say "won't the other monitors look and feel cheap and plasticky?"

If you mean more so than the ASD, that may well be so. So the question comes back around to how much extra cost is the ASD look and feel worth to you?

4K displays are unfortunately not an option, as the resolution has to match Apple's resolution exactly, for the picture quality to be as it was designed.

I get that some people prefer 5K (I use a 2017 27" 5K iMac and at times a 4K 27" Philips Brilliance monitor, so I see both), and elsewhere someone mentioned a higher resolution monitor can let one work in 4K video and its full size and still have room to application tool bars (passing along what I heard, this isn't something I've done). But it seems odd to me to write off an entire category of monitor that so many people, including many Mac users, are happy with. Especially when the price difference is often quite large.

So at the moment with 5-7 comments about other displays still no-one offered a real alternative to ASD.

The question then becomes what features are you willing to compromise on. From reviews and discussions, I get the impression that no competitor is quite like the Apple Studio Display. You're not going to get much cheaper without compromising on something, though you may gain something else. (such as more ports, greater compatibility with PCs and physical buttons to optionally adjust settings rather than having to do it by hooking up a Mac).

So I ask what features you are willing to compromise on (i.e.: accept a bit lower quality, at least out-of-the-box) on vs. the ASD. Here's a list of what I have heard put forth by reviewers:

1.) Build Quality - which you cited. How much money do you have to save to accept 'cheap and plasticy' looking?

2.) Color accuracy out of the box? Someone doing professional graphics-related work on Macs, not able or inclined to do specialized calibrating, may care more than the average user.

3.) 5K High resolution. I already asked about this; there are many nice 4K monitors. If there's a slight edge to 5K that many users wouldn't notice if they weren't shown examples meant to highlight it, how much money is that worth to you?

4.) High quality in-monitor sound system. This is lauded, but many people already have speaker setups.

5.) Thunderbolt hub functionality - how important is this?

There is no universal set of answers. What you need and want will differ from me, we'll both differ from the next guy, etc...

The LG 27" 5K display is quite expensive actually - costs around £1,250, so only £900 cheaper, I don't think the saving is worth having a bog-standard-looking dull office display on your desk for the next 10 years. If it cost £700, then it might have been worth it.

I think in U.S. $, but I can see relative pricing so I'll use your numbers. The LG is 1,250 and the ASD around 2,150? If I understand correctly, that puts the LG at just over 58% of the ASD. Apple is known for premium pricing (for both premium quality and fat margins), but can a competitor sell you something just as good across the board for significantly less than 58% of the price? If it were marked down to 700, that's slightly under 1/3rd the price of the ASD. You'll get major compromises at that price.

When you said 'bog-standard-looking dull office display,' were you talking about the imaging on the screen, or the aesthetic look of the monitor from a style perspective?

 

[Andrey84]

If you mean more so than the ASD, that may well be so. So the question comes back around to how much extra cost is the ASD look and feel worth to you?

I get that some people prefer 5K (I use a 2017 27" 5K iMac and at times a 4K 27" Philips Brilliance monitor, so I see both), and elsewhere someone mentioned a higher resolution monitor can let one work in 4K video and its full size and still have room to application tool bars (passing along what I heard, this isn't something I've done). But it seems odd to me to write off an entire category of monitor that so many people, including many Mac users, are happy with. Especially when the price difference is often quite large.

The question then becomes what features are you willing to compromise on. From reviews and discussions, I get the impression that no competitor is quite like the Apple Studio Display. You're not going to get much cheaper without compromising on something, though you may gain something else. (such as more ports, greater compatibility with PCs and physical buttons to optionally adjust settings rather than having to do it by hooking up a Mac).

So I ask what features you are willing to compromise on (i.e.: accept a bit lower quality, at least out-of-the-box) on vs. the ASD. Here's a list of what I have heard put forth by reviewers:

1.) Build Quality - which you cited. How much money do you have to save to accept 'cheap and plasticy' looking?

2.) Color accuracy out of the box? Someone doing professional graphics-related work on Macs, not able or inclined to do specialized calibrating, may care more than the average user.

3.) 5K High resolution. I already asked about this; there are many nice 4K monitors. If there's a slight edge to 5K that many users wouldn't notice if they weren't shown examples meant to highlight it, how much money is that worth to you?

4.) High quality in-monitor sound system. This is lauded, but many people already have speaker setups.

5.) Thunderbolt hub functionality - how important is this?

There is no universal set of answers. What you need and want will differ from me, we'll both differ from the next guy, etc...


I think in U.S. $, but I can see relative pricing so I'll use your numbers. The LG is 1,250 and the ASD around 2,150? If I understand correctly, that puts the LG at just over 58% of the ASD. Apple is known for premium pricing (for both premium quality and fat margins), but can a competitor sell you something just as good across the board for significantly less than 58% of the price? If it were marked down to 700, that's slightly under 1/3rd the price of the ASD. You'll get major compromises at that price.

When you said 'bog-standard-looking dull office display,' were you talking about the imaging on the screen, or the aesthetic look of the monitor from a style perspective?

Thanks so much for your comments.

No compromise on: picture quality, 5K. Possible compromise on monitor’s looks, but only if it’s at least 3X cheaper than the maxed-out ASD. Can easily compromise on built-in sound and video.

Are there real viable alternatives out there that you know of?

 

[macman4789]

It’s a nice machine overall and is still an amazing all in one computing solution. My only reservations are:

1. As long as you’re happy to spend that sort of money on a machine that Apple will render obsolete and stop supporting in approximately 3 years then it’s a great solution for you.
2. That you are aware the programs that your wife uses may potentially cease supporting Intel based Macs in the near future.

 

[drrich2]

No compromise on: picture quality, 5K. Possible compromise on monitor’s looks, but only if it’s at least 3X cheaper than the maxed-out ASD. Can easily compromise on built-in sound and video.

Are there real viable alternatives out there that you know of?

Not with those criteria. I'll be surprised if anyone can point out a product like that (even absent good, or any, built-in sound and webcam) at that price. 5K Monitors seem to be slim pickings; it's currently a 4K (and under) world for the most part.

If I went looking (and even then, I'm skeptical it could be done now), I'd anticipate one of these scenarios:

1.) Black Friday/Cyber Monday/Amazon Prime Day sales - Apple doesn't do huge mark downs but competitors do. Even then, 1/3rd price or cheaper is a tall order.

2.) Refurb or used. Not an option with reliable availability, but if you happened to know someone with an LG 5K selling it to buy an ASD, etc...

3.) Take a chance on a 'no name.' The stereotype would be a Chinese (no knock on them, they manufacture a lot of high end stuff, too) imitation product alleged to be close enough but much cheaper. I wouldn't expect the build quality.

A known brand name product meeting your criteria new ought to get a lot of discussion on Mac Rumors forum, YouTube, etc...

 

[Andrey84]

It’s a nice machine overall and is still an amazing all in one computing solution. My only reservations are:

1. As long as you’re happy to spend that sort of money on a machine that Apple will render obsolete and stop supporting in approximately 3 years then it’s a great solution for you.
2. That you are aware the programs that your wife uses may potentially cease supporting Intel based Macs in the near future.

Yes, thank you for these points, understood. I don't think Apple will make Intel systems fully obsolete - the old Mac OS's will still work. New OS's don't really bring any critical features anyway.

New versions of some applications won't support Intel, but again, old versions will still be useable.

I expect right now 80% of all Macs in the world to be still on Intel, so this transition will take ages.

Also, most importantly, we just don't have £5.8k to spend right now on a new machine. Need something to get by for 3 years. Should probably start saving for MS + ASD right now...