I’m still loving my 2019 5k IMac!! The fans rarely kick in … I have 64gb of Ram and run Final Cut, Premiere Pro and Davinci Resolve! As long as it can update to the current OS I’m fine. 👍😎
It’s possible that the difference in export time is due to the 32gb vs the 8gb on the M1 & M3. I would be interested to compare the M3 with 16GB to your 27” or simply remove some memory from your 27” and drop that down to 16GB vs the 8gb. I have a suspicion that the results will tell a different story.
Although I agree with your theory I think the test method should be the other way around meaning, instead of gimping the old version to bring it down to the weakness of the new version it should be repeated with MORE RAM for m1/m3s 16 and 24gb
Pretty obvious it’s the ram and/or drive speed difference. How much video ram (graphics card) has the intel got? Make sure the intel iMac only has 8gb RAM (including the graphics card vram) or more likely put more ram in the M1/M3 to make them equivalent. Mark is comparing Apples to an intel orange.
I have the last 2020 iMac 27" with 3.6GHz 10-core i9, AMD Pro 5700XT 16GB graphics and 128GB RAM. This replaced a 2011 i7 and I figured it would have to last a LONG TIME, so I got the biggest they had at the time. The fact I could upgrade from the base 8GB RAM to 128GB on my own was a major plus!! I do some video with Avid & DaVinci, but mostly audio post-production for Radio, TV & Film running ProTools, etc. This iMac will stay with me for a long time. BTW, our studios have MacStudio and MacPro Towers throughout the facility, along with some really BIG rendering farms, and I still like my iMac better!! THANKS for the "real world" review!!
I've certainly no desire to abandon my perfectly functional iMac 27 (2017). But I have no doubt Apple and Adobe are working hard to render it unusable as soon as they can.
@jonny_laguna There's plenty, isn't there? Stop supporting it with software updates. But I think there's a standard 10 year period before they do that (I could be wrong about that, haven't checked).
Depending what’s inside, your 2017 iMac will likely last and be quite functional for another ten years! I keep my 2020 i9 5K 27”iMac running in a sort of hardware/software stasis. The MacOS, FCP, Logic Pro and the entirety of Adobe’s Creative Suite are locked in where they were about six to nine months ago. I ordered the iMac with the optional 16GB AMD RX 5700XT GPU and immediately upgraded the memory to 96GB using two OEM 32GB SO•DIMMS - There’s no room for hardware upgrades… If it runs great today, it’ll run great next month, next year… I donated my maxed out 2010 iMac 27” to a private school library and it’s still running and serving as the library’s card catalog and library asset workstation. I only hope my M3 Max MacBook Pro lasts as long!
@@Taxiway_Alpha there is still about 100 million Intel Mac users, so yes they should continue to support Intel Mac’s as long as people are still using them. You make it sound like its a massive job, its really not. The 7 year crap has always been a marketing gimick to make people throw out their good enough machines and upgrade. Its horrible for the Enviroment, … and the latest Intel x86 had reached such a high level that many would really be able to settle with them for much longer time. It would take them like 3-10 full time employee’s, they currently have almost 170.000.
The bandwidth is the problem. The 8GB is causing at least 5GB to be shifted to the SSD, which on a 256GB model runs much slower dues to bandwidth constriction than a 512GB or 1TB drive. Increasing the RAM to 16GB would solve the export problem as that process is memory intensive. The base models are intended for folks who aren't doing what you're doing, per se. And Apple wants people to upgrade the SSD and RAM because of the extreme markup they charge.
The "APPLE TAX" on what should be cheap ram upgrd to 16 and SSD to 512 (is that $400+) has kept me from flipping to apple silicon. I would like one of these, but don't like to be taken so obviously.
so basically, if you need a REAL working mac you picking not a cheapest version but the one with +400$ (+ram+ssd), and that mean that cheapest versions of apple tech is a scam?
freaking all in the hidden fine print!! What a rip off! Thats a lot of dough for a small percentage of performance increase, even its significatnt, the cost alone is not justifiable. This is why waiting a few more yrs will solve the problem. @@bobh2185
Probably...but we'd need to see the metrics to be sure. The export writes will go into the file-system cache before being flushed to disk, which will be triggered some time after the export completes. Having a larger file-system cache (more memory) means that the writes to disk can be delayed for longer and so are less likely to slow down the export. But this means that the export can outpace the sequential write performance of the SSD. A deeper performance analysis to show where the bottlenecks really are would definitely be interesting.
Does it say in the video, if he Exports to an external disk? The M1/M3 internal disk should be way faster than the Intel ones. For me it’s the memory. Apple won’t upgrade the memory on these since it would kill their own pro market. Just release a 27“ model w 32/64/128Gigs of Ram and we have a……. iMac Pro.. for 3500€ entry price..
During export, it is going to largely be storage bottlenecked (assuming no format conversion). Memory is used only for buffering, and 8GB is sufficient for that. So, he’s testing storage.
As much as I fully understand your disappointment with export times, I missed one consideration at the end - the total time for both operations. And it should be added, as it actually creates the whole picture. If you add both - time for render and time for export, the results are significantly different: Intel - 15:51 min, M1 - 10:02 min, M3 - 6:38 min. The M3 is 58% faster than the Intel and 34% faster than the M1. You see clear benefits if you multiply this by the amount of work you typically do on the Final Cut. I produce between 4 and 7 hours of RUclips content a week. My production time is usually twice the final product length. If I could save 58% of production time by switching from 2019 i5 5K iMac to the M3 Mini Pro - then why not? One last thing - I wonder how different the result of the M3 would be if you had the 512GB SSD - based on two and not only one NAND memory chip?
It's because of the limited 8 gigs of RAM. Max Tech did a test comparing the M3 with 8GB RAM vs the same M3 with 16GB RAM, 16 gigs exported the video 4 times faster... ruclips.net/video/hmWPd7uEYEY/видео.html
I have a similar 2017 5k iMac. I bought the higher end configuration that was normally stocked in store. I paid $2,300 USD for it. The base model compared here is $1,000 cheaper. You can get the top spec with 24gb of ram and a 1TB ssd for $2,300. I imagine that would change things quite a bit. All that said, I don’t use the machine professionally, so for the amount of time I spend in front of it editing photos and videos, I’ll likely keep it until it becomes a problem. If I were editing for a living, I’d imagine this machine would have earned me a stack of money in 6 years, and certainly over a working week the speed difference would be worth the upgrade. I think he should make that distinction in his conclusion. The most apples to apples comparison for me would likely be an M3 Pro Mac Mini configured to around $2,600, Studio Display $1,600, and $300 of keyboard and mouse. $4,800. The old Intel iMacs were a deal. Of course, with the Studio Display, in 6 years I’d just be on the hook for another Mac Mini, and I could skip the mouse and keyboard as they still work fine.
@@jeansienkin - I fully agree with them on the subject of RAM. My only computer with 8GB of RAM is an M1 Air I use for travel and most mundane operations. It can do 1080p and even a 4K video project if needed, but watching how this fan-less pal is fighting hurts. :D It is unfair for those to work that hard and be that good. :D
@@mrlt1151 - well - some of us made a mistake and didn't want to wait for a proper iMac to be built... ;) Talking about me :D I quickly bought the iMac in 2019, as my old MacBook Pro 15 was sold. I bought the best config with 8GB of graphic card memory but made a mistake ordering it with 2TB Fusion Drive instead of a small SSD. And it was a HUGE mistake, slowing down all work.
I loved this comparison, as I had an 27-5K iMac and recently upgraded to an M1 Max Studio for editing purposes. And my experience matches this. Renders are faster, but exports are about the same. However, I am fine with this. I export only 4-5 times per project and usually do that overnight. But I render continuously throughout the edit process. So overall I save huge amounts of time with better render speeds.
Yep - I went from a first gen 27" iMac 5K to an M1 Max Mac Studio with an external Thunderbolt RAID and upgraded the RAM to 32Gb and the storage to 1Tb. The storage speed is insane - using Blackmagic's Disk Speed test I get 6.1Gb/s write & 5.8Gb/s read on the internal SSD. Compare that to the iMac where on the 1Tb Fusion drive I'd barely hit 1Gb/s sustained.
I love my 2020 intel iMac. It runs sonoma and works well. I also don’t want to reduce real estate to 24 inches. I’ll wait for an upgrade. Great video as always!
It’s the total production time that really counts and also agree if it was the 16GB Unified Memory version with 512GB SSD it probably be a lot different result Great Video Mark
My background is in software development and I worked for a few Mac software companies, so when Apple announced they we're going to switch to their own chip I immediately bought a new 27" iMac with Intel i9 chip. I'm still daily driving that computer and it is as fast as M1 and M2 Mac for my audio work. I would buy a new iMac if they still made the 27" or bigger model. The iMac is a great Mac and Apple needs to bring back large screen iMacs.
Buy a nice screen and mac mini with max chip. This way you can update computer without having to update screen every time! I had 27’ imac too, and was waiting for another one but now i see how dumb that is when i can just get the screen of my choice, or dual screens and get a desktop
I love my 2017 27" iMac. I spend much more time looking at the excellent 5K monitor than I do waiting for it. To replace it with a 5K monitor and Mac mini or studio will cost me twice what I paid for my 27", so I will be sticking with it for some time yet.
Great test thanks. I went for a refurb 2020 27" to replace my 2017 a few months ago.. I've upgraded the RAM to 32gb. I would have considered the M3 however the smaller screen put me off.
The M1 was the only chip in the M family to not get the full hardware encode/decode engine with the full FPGA on the chip, the M1 Pro & Max and M2/M3 families all got that extra little boost. Also Modern encoders since 2015 have made HEVC or H265 the standard so no one (developers) works on rendering performance for H264 anymore. The Radeon 575X can render HEVC footage just have a quick test of that and you will really see the differences. But sadly the poor little original M1 didn't get the hardware encode/decode option but every chip after it did.
@@mikey9836 Yes the HEVC/H265 codec is far better supported than H264 in MacOS since 2014, but the encoder for HEVC is much faster on all M chips compared to H264. The hardware acceleration on the M chip encoder for HEVC is much more efficient with better results.
My take away is that’s it’s crazy that a recent model M1-M3 in only a stock standard budget 8gb, stands up to an older top of the market (of its time) spec 32gb Intel Mac. Also, these machines will run for years to come, you can’t really go wrong.
The alternative view though is that your current fastest processor range and £1400 system couldn’t trounce a system at least 5 years old. 5 years is an age in technology terms!
@@ianmearsphotoit has nothing to do with the processor but everything to do with the ram and storage ,I bet if he used a 8gb ram in the intel iMac in export the result would have been very different ,look at the rendering difference between the intel iMac and the m1 and m3 ,comparing 32gb ram to 8gb ram is never going to be fully fair for export ,but if he even used a 16gb ram m1 and m3 the result would have been vastly different
That 27 in IMac is not top of the market. I have the same computer with 32 😅Gb of memory but an Intel 4.2 GHz i7 processor. I had it sitting around and just recently set it up. I set it up because I have been hoping for and upgraded newer IMac. Runs Ventura, lot faster than the truly ancient IMac I was using before but having software issues with Titanium and Sonos. This test was quite interesting though. I can get by for another year or two and see what Apple does.
Besides RAM, it could primarily be due to the different control of the SSDs. If I understood correctly, with Apple Silicon, the control of the SSD is such that you only get the full performance starting from 512 GB (internal this are two 256 GB Flash and double)
true, my base M1 Macbook Air had 2 x 128 NAND chip SSD running at full speed due to multichannel feature, while my newer base M2 Mac Mini has slower 1 x 256 NAND chip SSD... but still, this is enough and you will not spot the difference in daily use ;-)
This is true and would be a much more fair comparison as the base models of the silicon iMacs are under the price of the intel and you would get the 8 core, 512GB M3 and still be under the Intels price.
I still have the 2017 27” iMac but it is getting slow. I would like to upgrade to the new M3 iMac but very disappointed there is not a 27” version. Does anyone know if the Mac mini with the M2 pro is as fast as the M3 iMac? If so I would rather get that with a 27” monitor (not the ridiculously priced studio display.)
I put a 1TB internal SSD in my 2017 5k iMac. Also upgraded the RAM to 16 GB. It cost $250.00 AUD using an Ifixit Kit. I’m quite happy with the way it has turned out.
I have almost the same set-up and was considering the downgrade to the 24" and I have not yet been sold to move from the larger, lovlier screen on my 2017 model which I upgraded to 40 GB 2400 MHz DDR4. I am also disappointed about the decision to limit the amount of imputs on the back of the machine unless you are willing to pay more. To me, Apple has changed its schema such that they are making Macs only for people who can afford it (Mac Studio/Studio Monitor - for the Mercedes class of people - not for artists who are really struggling these days), not really offering greater access to most. So for this reason I'd rather consider the Mac Mini + a non-Apple monitor. Time will tell.....
apple always did computer for people that can afford them, is nothing new. In the past at least was cheaper to upgrade ram and drive, now that is a thing I miss.
Render times are important but for me the deciding factor was always timeline performance. I used to edit on a base model 13” MacBook Pro 2015 and though the renders where anywhere between 40 mins to 6 hours, the real pain point for me was how sluggish the timeline was when editing. It would take me 6-16 hours to edit an 8 min video. When I finally was gifted a Mac Studio, editing times went down to just a couple of hours tops, and render times didn’t give me enough time to go get my coffee at the kitchen. Even with the M3 Max available, I won’t need to upgrade in a very long time.
As some of the other comments have mentioned, system RAM and overall process times should be factored into the equation when comparing products. Otherwise it's an Apples to Oranges issue. Additionally, there were i7 and i9 iMacs available before the switch to M-series CPU/GPUs. Each has their own cost to performance equations. All-in-all, I like what I see in the Apple silicon machines. In the world of computers, there is yet to be anything called perfect. Still, we continue toward that goal. Good video.
That was fascinating- now I realise I really don’t need to upgrade our 2 x 27” 2018 iMacs with i7 processors and 48gb of memory. They both work just fine and I can’t see anything in Sonoma that I am going to use or need. If Apple come out with new 27” iMacs then perhaps I’ll rethink, but for now we love our iMacs and they’re staying put.
I have the 2017 Intel 27" I7 with 32GB and am still very happy with it, retired so do not need to do any work on it. I bought with 16GB and added 16GB, do like like that you cannot add ram after purchase with the M3. I also do not plan on downgrading to 24" screen from 27" screen and have seen a lot of other iMac owners saying the same thing. I do not plan on buying an expensive monitor from Apple. If they brick my 2017 someday I would probably go with a Mac Mini and a $250 32 inch Dell 4k screen at Amazon. Want to stay with Apple, my first Apple computer was an Apple IIC in 1984. I have 2 iPhones, 3 iPads, 3iPods and Apple TV, I prefer Apple OS over Windows. Have any 27" users switched to the 24" and are they happy about the loss of size?
Love this "real" world test. I am sitting on my 27inch Pro for now and just keep wondering if the hype is worth all that coin. My 27 inch iMac shows no signs of issues or slowing down, but it is maxed out from ram to graphics. Until the old iMac shows issues or problems with newer software, just feel like it's best to just sit and wait this out.
Clearly, it’s your money to invest with, but this test is inaccurate, just because of the RAM. Now if your work is very RAM dependent and aren’t looking to upgrade the ram on a new M professor Mac, then don’t upgrade as you bent see much value. But if your work leans on the graphics and main processor ability, the M chips will blow you away. As a designer illustrator who also cuts video, the speed improvements were unreal
Thanks Websnap. I'm holding off because all the reviews just fall short for me. At this time my old 27 iMac Pro seems to be doing the job. I was tempted when the M1 showed up, but the reviews didn't show OH WOW numbers or smoother video handling than my old machine. The studio was interesting but total out that price with the display it feels like a waste of money, and the Studio has been lagging behind with the M chips. I was expecting the studio would be a lot more bang for the buck and once again the studio is now M2 and behind the M3. Guess we need to call Tim Cook and explain it to him LOLOL..🤠
@@SirToolshey, to each their own. I had only commented because that 27” intel was the machine I came from. I went with a 16” MBP M1 Max and I found the “day-to-day” difference staggering. Similar to his first test. Because I opted for the 32gb I never hit the bottle neck he did in his second test. But like I said, if you are happy, to each their own, but it’s not as close as this made it seem. Cheers.
Love to hear more because reviews just are not hitting me with that " got to have it" feeling LOLOL. The ram like you point out would be the big difference. I can honestly say my iMac Pro is handling everything smoothly, but maybe next year I'll pick up something in a laptop and see how good it all works. Thanks again !
I am fairly new to video editing so please forgive me if this is a noob question but why is he rendering and exporting as 2 different processes? I use DaVinci Resolve and it is just one process for me. Am I not understanding something here?
I got 5k iMac. 5 years old. At the time I got the fastest intel processor and their top graphics card . 32gb ram and 2 terabytes ssd. It works a dream. £2800 back then. FcpX works great . Never known it to be more than 5 mins to render and export massive files. It updates still and has the lastest OS operating system. 👌
This is a great video. Thank you. I have an Intel 2017 iMac with the highest specs available at the time. Unfortunately, the mouse/keyboard randomly "lose connection" and I get the pinwheel of death periodically. I'm bummed that the new iMacs aren't 27 inch. I would consider buying the new M3 iMac with the best specs, but I almost feel like I am downgrading. And I don't really want to spend $6k+ for the higher end Macs with separate monitor. Any advice?
I just bought a Mac Mini and a Benq 27” monitor to update from a 2017 iMac 27”. Mac Mini was $800 and the monitor was $750. I put a Boot Camp partition on the old iMac and Windows. So I have one 27” screen running Windows and another running Sonoma and one trackpad and keyboard being shared between the two. Very happy with my setup now.
Patiently waiting for the iMac 27" M3... My 2017 is getting off to a slow start. In addition, it cannot be upgraded anymore. Wondering how long it will be able to be used without problems.
I think the point was for the old intel mac, one could upgrade the ram and storage cheaply as needs increases but for the apple silicon it means getting a new one all over again. With the apple silicon, they have turn the desktop/laptop upgrade cycle into that of a phone/tablet... creating more ewaste down the road.
I have an iPad Pro 12’9 2018 and it has been great. I now fancy an upgrade and I’m debating which one to go for: MacBook Air 2023 M2 13” with 16 gb ram or the new IMac M3. I don’t edit many videos or photos. Which one would you recommend?
Doesn't matter how unscientific it is, they make perfect sense. It looks like the rendering time you save, you almost make up in exporting, but, you're still doing it in much less time overall and I think that is what is important in this. Just got my M3 ( upgraded from the 5k 2015 iMac, no issues with it, just upgraded ) and I'm really happy that my first concern isn't a concern anymore ( getting used to a 24 from a 27in ) In Geekbench tests, my M3 flies over my 5k... only thing where its similar is in the Graphic using OpenGL, which is weird but who cares.
Now the question is how do these machines perform with extrapolated specs (i.e. base Intels vs base Apple Silicon) because while the test had a rudimentary element, the Intel iMac was souped-up while the Apple Silicon models were base configurations.
I think that souped-up isn't the term Apple used when they made their own comparisons to previous generations, being that you are right using base models. There are always numbers or claims being left out of advertisements, just for this reason. AMD, Intel, Nvidia do this too when they release a product. Though, not being an Nvidia fan, what they show for comparisons, seem to be the most transparent and repeatable recently.
A very interesting real world comparison test. I've got a late 2014 iMac 27 inch, running MacOS Big Sur v.11.7.10. Unfortunately I can't upgrade to MacOS Sonoma and security updates for Big Sur stop at the end of November 2023. So I'm facing the dilemma you describe and have a decision to make. I don't do loads of photo or video editing but really love the 5K Retina screen. My options seem to be; move to an iMac 24 inch with the 4.5K screen, or combine a Mac Mini with a 5K Apple Studio Display. Based on my use case I'm leaning towards the latter option. My reason for this is that I'm pretty sure the display will outlive the Mac in terms of usability and therefore swapping the Mac Mini for the latest one some years down the road and keeping the Studio Display will be more cost effective. I'm not having any problems with my iMac 27 inch, so intend to wait until Apple bring out the Mac Mini with an M3 chip. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.
I also have a 2014 5K. I swapped the original HD (it died on me) for an SSD using the kit sold by ifixit. Then, using opencore, I installed the latest macOS (Sequoia) and it runs flawlessly and my iMac is extremely fast. Hard to believe it is already 10 years old. I even did some 4k video renderings with FCPX and it worked pretty well. I will stick this machine for several more years, no need to change it.
Still have a 2017 iMac 3.8GHz, 24Gb, 2Tb. It still works great, so I'm staying with it for the time being. I wouldn't buy a 24" iMac. Looks cheap and nasty and 24" doesn't cut it for my work.
A useful and practical test, thank you. I’d also be interested in the results of the same test on a Mac Mini M2, as I’m considering this upgrade from my iMac 27”…
I've heard that the standard M2 models are no faster than M1 boxes in practical tests, so you might want to consider the M2 Pro model. If you don't need the extra performance, I'd recommend the baseline MacBook Air, which I use myself. I mostly use it with the lid down as a desktop machine, but greatly appreciate being able to pick it up, pop into a sleeve and take it with me if I'm on the move. If you want that flexibility and an M3 processor, the MacBook Pro is an option!
I have a 21.5 inch 2017 Mac, it was very slow so I took advice and now have an external SSD which is 500 gb usb 3.2 and is super speedy, will a new Mac 24 be faster?
Try the tests again but with Activity Monitor running in the background. In the memory tab, at the very bottom and center you should see “Swap Used” with a 0 bytes. If it’s not zero, you don’t have enough memory.
How many times do you render during a project compared to exporting a project? If you add the Render time and the Export time the Intel iMac 15:51, M1 10:02, M3 6:39 That's better numbers for a real comparison.
Great testing video. Export times were close, but Render times were amazingly better for the newer models. Total time spent to complete the task still benefits the M3 iMac.
The base M1-M3 famously have significantly slower disks. Only if you upgrade to the 512GB disk do you get proper speeds. Your 2017 hyperexpensive imac probably didn't skimp on disk quality.
Well my guess would be that Intel has a better hardware engine regarding h264 encoding which could make sense (Intel is way more experienced in hardware throughout all kinds of designs - see Arc Encoder). It would be interesting to compare details on those h264 files though because profiles and levels might not be exactly the same as well as entropy which could also explain the gap. It would also be interesting, during the first rendering part, to see CPU use. It might be appear that the ProRes media hardware encoder that is new in M3 plays also a significant role when compared to Intel and even M1 (if your project is setup with ProRes as rendering codec - which it should). I always saw ProRes as a low-intense-processing codec but it might be more demanding that what I believed it to be, especially in higher resolutions.
Would be interesting to see if you run the export test on all machines 3 times over just to see if the numbers vary, would also like to see the test ran on Davinci Resolve, willing to bet a dramatic improvement..., but great video as always..
Very interesting. I have a newer 27-inch that takes forever to render my long videos. I just don't want a smaller screen if there's not much difference.
Which machine. Are you taking advantage of quick sync video encoding some leave this option unchecked. How much ram and do you have a true SSD not fusion drive. All of those can slash the rendering times as can an egpu with say a 6600 6800 6950 egpu. Which are not that expensive anymore. You can beat the m3 max and m2 ultra in many video editing work loads by adding a Samsung 4gb SSD pcie 64 to 128 GB ram a egpu case and a and rx 6600 6800 6950 all for $200 for day the SSD $400 for SSD and ram. And $2-$300 for egpu enclosure And $150-$350 for used GPU. Plus you get full windows for much better game frame rates of any game or 3d software some Windows video editing have insane render times using quicksync and AMD and dual GPU rendering together or resolve or adobe or final cut .since the Intel Mac is older you have more choices of which IS system or app to use without having to translate in risetta
I'm interested do you mind sharing the clip you exported ? see i own a mac studio with m2 ultra 128 ram. I am very interested how will it do? would you be ok with taht andi will share the results
If you're considering an upgrade, the Mac Mini Pro or Mac Studio are excellent choices. For more demanding applications, it's advisable to bypass the base M3 model and opt for the Pro or Max versions instead. These offer significantly better performance and are more suited for professional use. The M1 and base M3 models, while competent, are generally more aligned with the needs of casual users.
Yes. A big factor. His test is flawed. I was hoping that he would say towards the end that the M1 and M3 chips only have 8GB of ram. 1/4 that of his intel imac. Not to mention, the OS itself, already has a considerable share in the ram utilization. He made a mistake. I hope he comes back and redeem himself. Apart from that, both new machines is less than half the price of his intel imac.
@@MarkEllisReviews Yes. lol 😅Jokes aside. Back to the question, with just 8GB of ram, even with "the" current fastest CPU on the market, the export time will suffer. You see, for a CPU to do its work, it needs RAM. i.e. Say the CPU can crunch 10 big tasks at a time, but there's only a workspace for two big tasks, then it can only do two big tasks at a time.
Great video as always Mark - would it be possible to do an M1 vs M3 comparison in day to day work? For example, does Safari load quicker, how many tabs are okay in Chrome, MS Office performance etc. Most other tech reviews focus on Cinebench scores, rendering, photo editing etc., things which very few people actually use the iMac for (or are hard to translate for real world use). If you took that approach and tested along those lines, you'd definitely be setting yourself apart from others.
I bought the 27" 5K iMac when it first came out. Spent the same amount of money around £2.5k. I haven't replaced that iMac for a few reasons, mainly the cost and Apples support policy. This machine changed my stance on buying Apple products. I am no longer prepared to pay huge amounts of money for Apple hardware that they then refuse to provide updates for after around 5 years. The other main reason is the drop in screen size. whilst I was happy with my earlier 24" iMacs (largest available at the time), the 27" 5K screen was a marvel and they replace it with 24", duh no. The whole support thing is the biggest let down though. I used the hack tools to install MacOS Big Sur so I wasn't falling behind on security updates and it worked great and proves that it wouldn't take much for Apple to support older hardware and personally I think they have a responsibility too do that when people are spending big bucks on their hardware. Same analogy for all those poor people that spent tens of thousands on the first Gold Apple Watch, I bet they were thrilled when that became drawer junk eh??
I am replacing my 2012 imac. My budget will allow me to buy an M3 imac 8gb ram and 512gb SSD or M1 imac with 16gb ram and 1TB SSD. I use the computer for general computing and some basic photo editing. Which would you recommend?
I don't really know what I'm talking about! But like others my first thought is 32GB vs 8GB memory... 🤷♀ Anyway - another great video thanks x P.S. I know you don't do benchmarks, but I'd love to know the SSD read write speeds on the base M3 iMac..?
So, a bit of real life experience here for those who are interested. I'm still using my late 2013 - 21.5-inch iMac (iMac14,1) with the Intel CPU and 16GB of RAM. It was barely booting anymore and was basically an expensive paperweight at this point, so I bought a repair kit for € 12, cut up the bad boy (sweat), slapped a 2TB SSD (€ 80) in there, and to say I'm blown away by what this machine can still do is an understatement. It exceeded every expectation I had by FAR. I made sure to install the latest OS Sonoma (via OpenCore Patcher - it's easy, really, have no fear) and this baby runs Photoshop like it's no problem at all. Heck, I can even edit 4k in Premiere Pro. Yes, the fan can get loud for a moment but that's absolutely nothing proxy files can't fix. Just make sure to tell Premiere to only use software for editing and rendering. Otherwise you may get a green screen because yes, that is the old processor's fault. I'm very happy with my decision to pay barely 100 Bucks and basically own a new iMac that runs faster and better than ever instead of buying an actual new one for $2000+ (probably even north of that if I wanted more than the ridiculously small 256GB SSD)
As you said that you upgraded the memory in the Intel iMac, I think you should downgrade it to 8gb of memory and then redo these tests, that would be a fairer way of comparing the difference between the old and new machines, I think the tests you have done with these machines in their current configurations, although interesting, do look somewhat flawed. Also, given the massive difference in the rendering times, the overall time taken would still be hugely more beneficial on the new M3 iMac.
Interesting, but I have two thoughts: first and foremost, could the export times be depending on the amount of RAM (32 vs 8 GB) and/or the SSD speed, and number two, for me during exports I tend to do other stuff so it isn't that critical, but before that when i really do the video editing on the timeline, I want the machine to work without hick-ups. Besides that I really appreciate your videos. They are both informative, down to earth, not to technical and done with a great amount of good humour.
Mark the issue is do you give up the 5k screen at 27" for an inferior display. I'd be interested to see how an I9 with a better spec would do against the M1 or M3
Or an equivalently priced (adjusted for inflation) MBP. The MBP would smoke the Intel machine. I don't think the folks buying the M series iMac are doing any serious video editing.
I really like your "none scientific, none professional" - but grounded and realistic test. I also like that you made fresh installations and picked the basic models. Thank you for this test and I hope to see more. Here here two suggestions: 1) There is one thing I really miss: You verbally rush through the specs. it would be way way more convenient, if you do a simple text overlay with basic specs 2) You can't compare a 32GB machine to a 8GB machine. Your results would be valid if all three machines had the same amount of RAM. Also, consider, that FCP is not optimized for M3 yet.
I think it clearly showed that Apple have developed processors that are excellent when it comes to handling video tasks. There’s two reasons I think why they all had similar export speeds. The first one could be the SSD’s as it’s well known that Apple put slower SSD in the base size for the M1 machines and looks like they have probably done the same in the M3 version as well. If the CPU/GPU can output for export faster than the SSD can handle then it’s going to start filling up the memory quickly as cached data and then everything slows down whilst waiting for the SSD to catch up. If you have access to a device with 512GB or 1TB it would be interesting to see what happens.
Dang - I was pricing out a new iMac at the beginning of the video and by the end I was cleaning the screen on my 2019 i5 iMac. And don't call me Shirley!
Since '08 I've had three iMacs, all Intels. Two of them have been problematic for various reasons; one flat out died, the other has annoying issues. So I'm not inclined to buy another iMac. I resent buying that beautiful monitor that becomes a paperweight if fatal issues occur. If I decide on something new for my desk, it's going to be a Mac Mini with a nice monitor.
is the h264 codec using the GPU at all? looks more like a GPU (render) vs CPU & RAM (export) issue. level the playing field with the RAM reduced in the intel & watch the processor usage on them all. I have a 2014 27" imac, i7, maxed memory, radeon 295 with 4GB, & I use it a lot for video/audio editing. I knacker mine by running it with two additional displays- it definitely runs better without them. I've been looking at the minis too, & thinking about a curved screen instead.... but this display! I'd miss that. & you can't turn them into monitors... 😞
When Jobs returned to Apple and really pushed the three tier approach, the entry level machines have always been WAY under powered. It's a valid baseline, but the expected performance of entry Apple boxes is generally shit.
the fact remains that even using the apple silicon your work flow will still be faster even if it renders a couple seconds slower than the intel the overall spped improvement is great. throw some extra RAM into your Apple silicone and lets do some more test.
Hi sir, before i read any comments and suggestions posted below , I was wondering how that test would be on the M3 Imac if it was spec'd out max to 24 gb 1 tb ssd ?Will maxing it out make it even a faster and more efficient export ? Also for music video making would getting such a machine be better than a macbookpro with basic specs? Im on a limited budget, but Ive lived my macbook pro since 2009 and its beyond time to upgrade.So a base model Macbook pro m3max chip vs full spec'd M3 imac? Which would you choose ? Thank you for your video.
I think also another small tidbit people dont take into account is that the M chips in all of apples benchmarking is based on the ProRes format packaged in Quicktime. So yes when it comes to encoding to a different codec and package say MP4 H.264 the encoders take a lot more time. I know mac love ProRes especially FCPX it is heavily optimised for it. I've used a lot of Arri Alexa Pro Res 4444XQ 4k 10-bit and my 15 inch 2015 Macbook Pro runs it easily even on Premiere Pro. Granted It is mainly offline 30-60second commercials that are edited but it just goes to also show how well optimised the intel chips are in handling different packages and codecs
My experience, I have change the iMac 27 inch to the 24 inch iMac M1, but some apps are not good working anymore, especially 'Foto" when I tranfer from the old one, more than 10k pictures, the programme crashes, regularly in many photos the colours are very strange, not natural, am very frustrated by this.
I had a 2017 designed iMac Pro which I bought new in 2019 for $6300. It was decked out at that price. I recently got its trade-in value at Apple and, although the iMac Pro was still like new, its trade-in value was under$500. A friend then, by chance, offered his M1 Mac Studio Ultra that he bought new for $4k. 'Ultra' means that its processor is two M1 MAX chips connected as one. I paid $1500 for it. I also bought a new 27-inch Apple Display to go along with it. The performance difference was astounding to me. I'm sorry I didn't officially rate the difference, but I can tell you that short videos exported from Final Cut were done so quickly that the time it took between pressing the key to start the export and the time to look over to see the progress, the video was already exported. So many things worked so much faster than my 2017 iMac Pro with 64GB of RAM and 2TB internal drive and the fastest graphics card available at the time.
All of the reviews are confusing. I need to get a new computer because my 15-20 year old iMac can’t download the new iOS update. I’m getting into graphics and design, but I’m a loss of whether I should get an iMac, Mac Mini or a MacBook Air or Pro. Any suggestions? When I called Apple they mentioned getting the MacBook Pro and I could always get a monitor from Amazon. All the choices are confusing.
An export is dependent upon drive performance. Drives haven’t changed that much over the last few years, so export speed should be close to the same. Impressive processor performance though, with the render.
Can you do us one more test?! Let's see an M3 with the highest RAM available (24 GB). That would give us a great comparison to the older machines AND the 8 GB M3 machine.
Great but 24 is still no 27” my 2009 will just have to keep crunching away remeber that’s a pre USB3 machine no SSD and somehow it keeps putting out a weekly 4k video but yes I’m desperate to replace. And while I feel like we are there I can just smell a big screen m3 around the corner.
Using an M1 Max-version 16" MBP, purchased a year ago, with 2TB SSD and 64Gb RAM. Zero complaints with performance overall. It is bulky moving around but the immediate access to work and ability to respond to requests (I work freelance in graphics) is unbeatable. Plug in the iPhone for instant Hotspot internet, which works better than the Spectrum nonsense I have at home. My only regret is "settling" for the 2TB SSD instead of something larger. I've already filled it twice in one year. It is slightly inconvenient lugging around external SSDs to connect if I have to dig for something. At least there's enough ports to connect with.
hello mark, my main concern is about the 24 inches vs 27 inches. what do you think? I do really consider a BLACK PATTERN from apple to force average 27" user to spend 3K+ for almost the same system that previously costed 2k
I got a top spec 27" iMac in 2014. / wouldn't it be a different comparison to spend the same amount of £$ on each? comparing a model with (mine has 32gb) Ram with one with 8gb isn't fair is it?
I knew this would kick off some debate 😉 Who’s still rocking (and loving) a 27-inch iMac?
I am . The new imacs look and feel cheap . Jumped up ipad . I´ll stick for now .
Still rocking it. Do have a m2 pro 14… but mainly use the iMac. Would kill for the iMac as screen for the 14
I'm still using my 2017 27inch iMac. It is still powerful for what I do. Too bad it doesn't get new updates anymore.
I am too. 2019 i5 with top graphics. Would be perfect if not for a fusion drive...
I’m still loving my 2019 5k IMac!! The fans rarely kick in … I have 64gb of Ram and run Final Cut, Premiere Pro and Davinci Resolve! As long as it can update to the current OS I’m fine. 👍😎
It’s possible that the difference in export time is due to the 32gb vs the 8gb on the M1 & M3. I would be interested to compare the M3 with 16GB to your 27” or simply remove some memory from your 27” and drop that down to 16GB vs the 8gb. I have a suspicion that the results will tell a different story.
Although I agree with your theory I think the test method should be the other way around meaning, instead of gimping the old version to bring it down to the weakness of the new version it should be repeated with MORE RAM for m1/m3s 16 and 24gb
@@RichWithTechUnfortunately, adding RAM is no longer an option on M1-M3 Macs.
I was thinking the same. The 16GB versions of the M-series iMacs may have done better. But it also shows there's life in the Intel iMacs yet though.
Pretty obvious it’s the ram and/or drive speed difference. How much video ram (graphics card) has the intel got? Make sure the intel iMac only has 8gb RAM (including the graphics card vram) or more likely put more ram in the M1/M3 to make them equivalent. Mark is comparing Apples to an intel orange.
Aren’t the Apple silicon iMacs here about half the price of his 27” 5k? That shipped with 8gb ram?
I have the last 2020 iMac 27" with 3.6GHz 10-core i9, AMD Pro 5700XT 16GB graphics and 128GB RAM. This replaced a 2011 i7 and I figured it would have to last a LONG TIME, so I got the biggest they had at the time. The fact I could upgrade from the base 8GB RAM to 128GB on my own was a major plus!! I do some video with Avid & DaVinci, but mostly audio post-production for Radio, TV & Film running ProTools, etc. This iMac will stay with me for a long time. BTW, our studios have MacStudio and MacPro Towers throughout the facility, along with some really BIG rendering farms, and I still like my iMac better!! THANKS for the "real world" review!!
I've certainly no desire to abandon my perfectly functional iMac 27 (2017). But I have no doubt Apple and Adobe are working hard to render it unusable as soon as they can.
@jonny_laguna There's plenty, isn't there? Stop supporting it with software updates. But I think there's a standard 10 year period before they do that (I could be wrong about that, haven't checked).
I believe they are ! It’s so annoying
Depending what’s inside, your 2017 iMac will likely last and be quite functional for another ten years! I keep my 2020 i9 5K 27”iMac running in a sort of hardware/software stasis. The MacOS, FCP, Logic Pro and the entirety of Adobe’s Creative Suite are locked in where they were about six to nine months ago.
I ordered the iMac with the optional 16GB AMD RX 5700XT GPU and immediately upgraded the memory to 96GB using two OEM 32GB SO•DIMMS - There’s no room for hardware upgrades…
If it runs great today, it’ll run great next month, next year… I donated my maxed out 2010 iMac 27” to a private school library and it’s still running and serving as the library’s card catalog and library asset workstation.
I only hope my M3 Max MacBook Pro lasts as long!
Which I hate both of them for, the brand have lost 85% brandvalue to me, just because of how they force upgrades. We should all repel about this.
@@Taxiway_Alpha there is still about 100 million Intel Mac users, so yes they should continue to support Intel Mac’s as long as people are still using them. You make it sound like its a massive job, its really not. The 7 year crap has always been a marketing gimick to make people throw out their good enough machines and upgrade. Its horrible for the Enviroment, … and the latest Intel x86 had reached such a high level that many would really be able to settle with them for much longer time.
It would take them like 3-10 full time employee’s, they currently have almost 170.000.
The bandwidth is the problem. The 8GB is causing at least 5GB to be shifted to the SSD, which on a 256GB model runs much slower dues to bandwidth constriction than a 512GB or 1TB drive. Increasing the RAM to 16GB would solve the export problem as that process is memory intensive. The base models are intended for folks who aren't doing what you're doing, per se. And Apple wants people to upgrade the SSD and RAM because of the extreme markup they charge.
Memory swapping is the problem.
The "APPLE TAX" on what should be cheap ram upgrd to 16 and SSD to 512 (is that $400+) has kept me from flipping to apple silicon. I would like one of these, but don't like to be taken so obviously.
so basically, if you need a REAL working mac you picking not a cheapest version but the one with +400$ (+ram+ssd), and that mean that cheapest versions of apple tech is a scam?
jeez why is there a 256 option ? most phones have more storage . its crazy
freaking all in the hidden fine print!! What a rip off! Thats a lot of dough for a small percentage of performance increase, even its significatnt, the cost alone is not justifiable. This is why waiting a few more yrs will solve the problem. @@bobh2185
Your tests show that the render is processor dependent, while the export is memory dependent. I'd love to see you do the tests on 16gb m1s and m3s.
Probably...but we'd need to see the metrics to be sure. The export writes will go into the file-system cache before being flushed to disk, which will be triggered some time after the export completes. Having a larger file-system cache (more memory) means that the writes to disk can be delayed for longer and so are less likely to slow down the export. But this means that the export can outpace the sequential write performance of the SSD. A deeper performance analysis to show where the bottlenecks really are would definitely be interesting.
Does it say in the video, if he Exports to an external disk? The M1/M3 internal disk should be way faster than the Intel ones. For me it’s the memory. Apple won’t upgrade the memory on these since it would kill their own pro market. Just release a 27“ model w 32/64/128Gigs of Ram and we have a……. iMac Pro.. for 3500€ entry price..
During export, it is going to largely be storage bottlenecked (assuming no format conversion). Memory is used only for buffering, and 8GB is sufficient for that. So, he’s testing storage.
Right, some tasks benefit from GPUs and from memory, not just CPU features
As much as I fully understand your disappointment with export times, I missed one consideration at the end - the total time for both operations. And it should be added, as it actually creates the whole picture.
If you add both - time for render and time for export, the results are significantly different:
Intel - 15:51 min,
M1 - 10:02 min,
M3 - 6:38 min.
The M3 is 58% faster than the Intel and 34% faster than the M1. You see clear benefits if you multiply this by the amount of work you typically do on the Final Cut.
I produce between 4 and 7 hours of RUclips content a week. My production time is usually twice the final product length.
If I could save 58% of production time by switching from 2019 i5 5K iMac to the M3 Mini Pro - then why not?
One last thing - I wonder how different the result of the M3 would be if you had the 512GB SSD - based on two and not only one NAND memory chip?
It's because of the limited 8 gigs of RAM. Max Tech did a test comparing the M3 with 8GB RAM vs the same M3 with 16GB RAM, 16 gigs exported the video 4 times faster... ruclips.net/video/hmWPd7uEYEY/видео.html
I have a similar 2017 5k iMac. I bought the higher end configuration that was normally stocked in store. I paid $2,300 USD for it. The base model compared here is $1,000 cheaper. You can get the top spec with 24gb of ram and a 1TB ssd for $2,300. I imagine that would change things quite a bit.
All that said, I don’t use the machine professionally, so for the amount of time I spend in front of it editing photos and videos, I’ll likely keep it until it becomes a problem. If I were editing for a living, I’d imagine this machine would have earned me a stack of money in 6 years, and certainly over a working week the speed difference would be worth the upgrade. I think he should make that distinction in his conclusion.
The most apples to apples comparison for me would likely be an M3 Pro Mac Mini configured to around $2,600, Studio Display $1,600, and $300 of keyboard and mouse. $4,800. The old Intel iMacs were a deal. Of course, with the Studio Display, in 6 years I’d just be on the hook for another Mac Mini, and I could skip the mouse and keyboard as they still work fine.
@@jeansienkin - I fully agree with them on the subject of RAM. My only computer with 8GB of RAM is an M1 Air I use for travel and most mundane operations. It can do 1080p and even a 4K video project if needed, but watching how this fan-less pal is fighting hurts. :D
It is unfair for those to work that hard and be that good. :D
@@mrlt1151 - well - some of us made a mistake and didn't want to wait for a proper iMac to be built... ;) Talking about me :D
I quickly bought the iMac in 2019, as my old MacBook Pro 15 was sold. I bought the best config with 8GB of graphic card memory but made a mistake ordering it with 2TB Fusion Drive instead of a small SSD. And it was a HUGE mistake, slowing down all work.
@@RadekPogoda Use an external NVMe SSD to edit from which solves the issue of the Fusion HD.
I loved this comparison, as I had an 27-5K iMac and recently upgraded to an M1 Max Studio for editing purposes. And my experience matches this. Renders are faster, but exports are about the same. However, I am fine with this. I export only 4-5 times per project and usually do that overnight. But I render continuously throughout the edit process. So overall I save huge amounts of time with better render speeds.
I heard about this and immediately bought OWC’s Thunderbolt Dock. It worked like a charm on my exports.
Yep - I went from a first gen 27" iMac 5K to an M1 Max Mac Studio with an external Thunderbolt RAID and upgraded the RAM to 32Gb and the storage to 1Tb. The storage speed is insane - using Blackmagic's Disk Speed test I get 6.1Gb/s write & 5.8Gb/s read on the internal SSD. Compare that to the iMac where on the 1Tb Fusion drive I'd barely hit 1Gb/s sustained.
I love my 2020 intel iMac. It runs sonoma and works well. I also don’t want to reduce real estate to 24 inches. I’ll wait for an upgrade. Great video as always!
I doubt you'll get one. I went from a 27 inch iMac to Mac Studio and Studio display. Works great.
yep, I have 2019 iMac, stuck an i9 and 32gb in it.... love it
Too expensive...... Mac Studio + the Display... that's a lot of money bro@@jasonk9779
It’s the total production time that really counts and also agree if it was the 16GB Unified Memory version with 512GB SSD it probably be a lot different result Great Video Mark
8GB of Ram are is not enough for export. That should be obvious.
That $400 more ouch.
@@JohnArmwood not according to most Mac RUclips channels over the last three years.
@@Tigerex966 to be fair, youtubers are often these days, just an expansion of companys pr-department.
@@AndrewTSq they are basically free advertisement and often.at the cost 9f only lending them. The product or giving them invitation to events
My background is in software development and I worked for a few Mac software companies, so when Apple announced they we're going to switch to their own chip I immediately bought a new 27" iMac with Intel i9 chip. I'm still daily driving that computer and it is as fast as M1 and M2 Mac for my audio work. I would buy a new iMac if they still made the 27" or bigger model. The iMac is a great Mac and Apple needs to bring back large screen iMacs.
Stage Manager is annoying
M2 Mini + decent 27" 5K screen and you're set.
Buy a nice screen and mac mini with max chip. This way you can update computer without having to update screen every time! I had 27’ imac too, and was waiting for another one but now i see how dumb that is when i can just get the screen of my choice, or dual screens and get a desktop
I love my 2017 27" iMac. I spend much more time looking at the excellent 5K monitor than I do waiting for it. To replace it with a 5K monitor and Mac mini or studio will cost me twice what I paid for my 27", so I will be sticking with it for some time yet.
Great test thanks. I went for a refurb 2020 27" to replace my 2017 a few months ago.. I've upgraded the RAM to 32gb. I would have considered the M3 however the smaller screen put me off.
The M1 was the only chip in the M family to not get the full hardware encode/decode engine with the full FPGA on the chip, the M1 Pro & Max and M2/M3 families all got that extra little boost. Also Modern encoders since 2015 have made HEVC or H265 the standard so no one (developers) works on rendering performance for H264 anymore. The Radeon 575X can render HEVC footage just have a quick test of that and you will really see the differences. But sadly the poor little original M1 didn't get the hardware encode/decode option but every chip after it did.
Very interesting to know!
does that mean if you have a m2 or 3 series chip you should use HEVC when rendering?
@@mikey9836 Yes the HEVC/H265 codec is far better supported than H264 in MacOS since 2014, but the encoder for HEVC is much faster on all M chips compared to H264. The hardware acceleration on the M chip encoder for HEVC is much more efficient with better results.
@@joesalyers awesome thank you for the info!
@@mikey9836 Cheers!
My take away is that’s it’s crazy that a recent model M1-M3 in only a stock standard budget 8gb, stands up to an older top of the market (of its time) spec 32gb Intel Mac. Also, these machines will run for years to come, you can’t really go wrong.
What a nice, interesting, measured response. Thank you 👍
A person of reason!
The alternative view though is that your current fastest processor range and £1400 system couldn’t trounce a system at least 5 years old. 5 years is an age in technology terms!
@@ianmearsphotoit has nothing to do with the processor but everything to do with the ram and storage ,I bet if he used a 8gb ram in the intel iMac in export the result would have been very different ,look at the rendering difference between the intel iMac and the m1 and m3 ,comparing 32gb ram to 8gb ram is never going to be fully fair for export ,but if he even used a 16gb ram m1 and m3 the result would have been vastly different
That 27 in IMac is not top of the market. I have the same computer with 32 😅Gb of memory but an Intel 4.2 GHz i7 processor. I had it sitting around and just recently set it up. I set it up because I have been hoping for and upgraded newer IMac. Runs Ventura, lot faster than the truly ancient IMac I was using before but having software issues with Titanium and Sonos. This test was quite interesting though. I can get by for another year or two and see what Apple does.
Besides RAM, it could primarily be due to the different control of the SSDs. If I understood correctly, with Apple Silicon, the control of the SSD is such that you only get the full performance starting from 512 GB (internal this are two 256 GB Flash and double)
It could indeed!
true, my base M1 Macbook Air had 2 x 128 NAND chip SSD running at full speed due to multichannel feature, while my newer base M2 Mac Mini has slower 1 x 256 NAND chip SSD... but still, this is enough and you will not spot the difference in daily use ;-)
This is true and would be a much more fair comparison as the base models of the silicon iMacs are under the price of the intel and you would get the 8 core, 512GB M3 and still be under the Intels price.
I still have the 2017 27” iMac but it is getting slow. I would like to upgrade to the new M3 iMac but very disappointed there is not a 27” version. Does anyone know if the Mac mini with the M2 pro is as fast as the M3 iMac? If so I would rather get that with a 27” monitor (not the ridiculously priced studio display.)
I put a 1TB internal SSD in my 2017 5k iMac. Also upgraded the RAM to 16 GB. It cost $250.00 AUD using an Ifixit Kit. I’m quite happy with the way it has turned out.
I have almost the same set-up and was considering the downgrade to the 24" and I have not yet been sold to move from the larger, lovlier screen on my 2017 model which I upgraded to 40 GB 2400 MHz DDR4. I am also disappointed about the decision to limit the amount of imputs on the back of the machine unless you are willing to pay more. To me, Apple has changed its schema such that they are making Macs only for people who can afford it (Mac Studio/Studio Monitor - for the Mercedes class of people - not for artists who are really struggling these days), not really offering greater access to most. So for this reason I'd rather consider the Mac Mini + a non-Apple monitor. Time will tell.....
apple always did computer for people that can afford them, is nothing new. In the past at least was cheaper to upgrade ram and drive, now that is a thing I miss.
I'll make it easier for you, export is majorly dependent on ssd and ram. and by the way your videos are awesome
Render times are important but for me the deciding factor was always timeline performance. I used to edit on a base model 13” MacBook Pro 2015 and though the renders where anywhere between 40 mins to 6 hours, the real pain point for me was how sluggish the timeline was when editing. It would take me 6-16 hours to edit an 8 min video. When I finally was gifted a Mac Studio, editing times went down to just a couple of hours tops, and render times didn’t give me enough time to go get my coffee at the kitchen. Even with the M3 Max available, I won’t need to upgrade in a very long time.
As some of the other comments have mentioned, system RAM and overall process times should be factored into the equation when comparing products. Otherwise it's an Apples to Oranges issue. Additionally, there were i7 and i9 iMacs available before the switch to M-series CPU/GPUs. Each has their own cost to performance equations. All-in-all, I like what I see in the Apple silicon machines. In the world of computers, there is yet to be anything called perfect. Still, we continue toward that goal. Good video.
Please also consider Apple claims Apple memory would be twice as effective as Intel memory.
That was fascinating- now I realise I really don’t need to upgrade our 2 x 27” 2018 iMacs with i7 processors and 48gb of memory. They both work just fine and I can’t see anything in Sonoma that I am going to use or need. If Apple come out with new 27” iMacs then perhaps I’ll rethink, but for now we love our iMacs and they’re staying put.
*Do you have to render before exporting?*
Yes.
It's a matter of RAM and Ssd slower; using 16GB and 512 GB Ssd, you could have a different result.
I have the 2017 Intel 27" I7 with 32GB and am still very happy with it, retired so do not need to do any work on it. I bought with 16GB and added 16GB, do like like that you cannot add ram after purchase with the M3. I also do not plan on downgrading to 24" screen from 27" screen and have seen a lot of other iMac owners saying the same thing. I do not plan on buying an expensive monitor from Apple. If they brick my 2017 someday I would probably go with a Mac Mini and a $250 32 inch Dell 4k screen at Amazon. Want to stay with Apple, my first Apple computer was an Apple IIC in 1984. I have 2 iPhones, 3 iPads, 3iPods and Apple TV, I prefer Apple OS over Windows. Have any 27" users switched to the 24" and are they happy about the loss of size?
Love this "real" world test. I am sitting on my 27inch Pro for now and just keep wondering if the hype is worth all that coin. My 27 inch iMac shows no signs of issues or slowing down, but it is maxed out from ram to graphics. Until the old iMac shows issues or problems with newer software, just feel like it's best to just sit and wait this out.
Clearly, it’s your money to invest with, but this test is inaccurate, just because of the RAM. Now if your work is very RAM dependent and aren’t looking to upgrade the ram on a new M professor Mac, then don’t upgrade as you bent see much value. But if your work leans on the graphics and main processor ability, the M chips will blow you away. As a designer illustrator who also cuts video, the speed improvements were unreal
Thanks Websnap. I'm holding off because all the reviews just fall short for me. At this time my old 27 iMac Pro seems to be doing the job. I was tempted when the M1 showed up, but the reviews didn't show OH WOW numbers or smoother video handling than my old machine. The studio was interesting but total out that price with the display it feels like a waste of money, and the Studio has been lagging behind with the M chips. I was expecting the studio would be a lot more bang for the buck and once again the studio is now M2 and behind the M3. Guess we need to call Tim Cook and explain it to him LOLOL..🤠
@@SirToolshey, to each their own. I had only commented because that 27” intel was the machine I came from. I went with a 16” MBP M1 Max and I found the “day-to-day” difference staggering. Similar to his first test. Because I opted for the 32gb I never hit the bottle neck he did in his second test. But like I said, if you are happy, to each their own, but it’s not as close as this made it seem. Cheers.
Love to hear more because reviews just are not hitting me with that " got to have it" feeling LOLOL. The ram like you point out would be the big difference. I can honestly say my iMac Pro is handling everything smoothly, but maybe next year I'll pick up something in a laptop and see how good it all works. Thanks again !
I am fairly new to video editing so please forgive me if this is a noob question but why is he rendering and exporting as 2 different processes? I use DaVinci Resolve and it is just one process for me. Am I not understanding something here?
Does the 32g of RAM in the Intel iMac help it export faster against the 8g on the M1 and M3?
Mark, would this M3 be great for video editing and photograhy processing? I would upgrade RAM of course but would like your opinion. Thanks.
The best pice/spes iMac is 27” 2015. The best iMac ever - iMac Pro.
I got 5k iMac. 5 years old. At the time I got the fastest intel processor and their top graphics card . 32gb ram and 2 terabytes ssd. It works a dream. £2800 back then. FcpX works great . Never known it to be more than 5 mins to render and export massive files. It updates still and has the lastest OS operating system. 👌
This is a great video. Thank you. I have an Intel 2017 iMac with the highest specs available at the time. Unfortunately, the mouse/keyboard randomly "lose connection" and I get the pinwheel of death periodically. I'm bummed that the new iMacs aren't 27 inch. I would consider buying the new M3 iMac with the best specs, but I almost feel like I am downgrading. And I don't really want to spend $6k+ for the higher end Macs with separate monitor. Any advice?
I just bought a Mac Mini and a Benq 27” monitor to update from a 2017 iMac 27”. Mac Mini was $800 and the monitor was $750. I put a Boot Camp partition on the old iMac and Windows. So I have one 27” screen running Windows and another running Sonoma and one trackpad and keyboard being shared between the two. Very happy with my setup now.
Patiently waiting for the iMac 27" M3...
My 2017 is getting off to a slow start. In addition, it cannot be upgraded anymore. Wondering how long it will be able to be used without problems.
I think the point was for the old intel mac, one could upgrade the ram and storage cheaply as needs increases but for the apple silicon it means getting a new one all over again.
With the apple silicon, they have turn the desktop/laptop upgrade cycle into that of a phone/tablet... creating more ewaste down the road.
Especially if the owner failed to disconnect it from their account it cannot be reused. Not sure if Asahi Linux could be implemented either
I have an iPad Pro 12’9 2018 and it has been great. I now fancy an upgrade and I’m debating which one to go for: MacBook Air 2023 M2 13” with 16 gb ram or the new IMac M3. I don’t edit many videos or photos. Which one would you recommend?
Doesn't matter how unscientific it is, they make perfect sense. It looks like the rendering time you save, you almost make up in exporting, but, you're still doing it in much less time overall and I think that is what is important in this.
Just got my M3 ( upgraded from the 5k 2015 iMac, no issues with it, just upgraded ) and I'm really happy that my first concern isn't a concern anymore ( getting used to a 24 from a 27in )
In Geekbench tests, my M3 flies over my 5k... only thing where its similar is in the Graphic using OpenGL, which is weird but who cares.
Now the question is how do these machines perform with extrapolated specs (i.e. base Intels vs base Apple Silicon) because while the test had a rudimentary element, the Intel iMac was souped-up while the Apple Silicon models were base configurations.
I think that souped-up isn't the term Apple used when they made their own comparisons to previous generations, being that you are right using base models. There are always numbers or claims being left out of advertisements, just for this reason. AMD, Intel, Nvidia do this too when they release a product. Though, not being an Nvidia fan, what they show for comparisons, seem to be the most transparent and repeatable recently.
A very interesting real world comparison test.
I've got a late 2014 iMac 27 inch, running MacOS Big Sur v.11.7.10. Unfortunately I can't upgrade to MacOS Sonoma and security updates for Big Sur stop at the end of November 2023. So I'm facing the dilemma you describe and have a decision to make.
I don't do loads of photo or video editing but really love the 5K Retina screen. My options seem to be; move to an iMac 24 inch with the 4.5K screen, or combine a Mac Mini with a 5K Apple Studio Display. Based on my use case I'm leaning towards the latter option. My reason for this is that I'm pretty sure the display will outlive the Mac in terms of usability and therefore swapping the Mac Mini for the latest one some years down the road and keeping the Studio Display will be more cost effective.
I'm not having any problems with my iMac 27 inch, so intend to wait until Apple bring out the Mac Mini with an M3 chip.
Would appreciate your thoughts on this.
I also have a 2014 5K. I swapped the original HD (it died on me) for an SSD using the kit sold by ifixit. Then, using opencore, I installed the latest macOS (Sequoia) and it runs flawlessly and my iMac is extremely fast. Hard to believe it is already 10 years old. I even did some 4k video renderings with FCPX and it worked pretty well. I will stick this machine for several more years, no need to change it.
Still have a 2017 iMac 3.8GHz, 24Gb, 2Tb. It still works great, so I'm staying with it for the time being. I wouldn't buy a 24" iMac. Looks cheap and nasty and 24" doesn't cut it for my work.
A useful and practical test, thank you. I’d also be interested in the results of the same test on a Mac Mini M2, as I’m considering this upgrade from my iMac 27”…
I've heard that the standard M2 models are no faster than M1 boxes in practical tests, so you might want to consider the M2 Pro model. If you don't need the extra performance, I'd recommend the baseline MacBook Air, which I use myself. I mostly use it with the lid down as a desktop machine, but greatly appreciate being able to pick it up, pop into a sleeve and take it with me if I'm on the move. If you want that flexibility and an M3 processor, the MacBook Pro is an option!
I have a 21.5 inch 2017 Mac, it was very slow so I took advice and now have an external SSD which is 500 gb usb 3.2 and is super speedy, will a new Mac 24 be faster?
Try the tests again but with Activity Monitor running in the background. In the memory tab, at the very bottom and center you should see “Swap Used” with a 0 bytes. If it’s not zero, you don’t have enough memory.
How many times do you render during a project compared to exporting a project? If you add the Render time and the Export time the Intel iMac 15:51, M1 10:02, M3 6:39 That's better numbers for a real comparison.
Great testing video. Export times were close, but Render times were amazingly better for the newer models. Total time spent to complete the task still benefits the M3 iMac.
The base M1-M3 famously have significantly slower disks. Only if you upgrade to the 512GB disk do you get proper speeds. Your 2017 hyperexpensive imac probably didn't skimp on disk quality.
Great review. I do keep wishing for a 27 inch variant. I'm happy Apple is still offering the Vesa option on these iMacs, pleasant surprise.
or a 30" ?!
@@martenlundinthe older I get, the more I appreciate those larger screen sizes. 30 would be great.
Does it depend on the code you use for these tests and whether it is optimised for ARM or Intel?
Well my guess would be that Intel has a better hardware engine regarding h264 encoding which could make sense (Intel is way more experienced in hardware throughout all kinds of designs - see Arc Encoder). It would be interesting to compare details on those h264 files though because profiles and levels might not be exactly the same as well as entropy which could also explain the gap.
It would also be interesting, during the first rendering part, to see CPU use. It might be appear that the ProRes media hardware encoder that is new in M3 plays also a significant role when compared to Intel and even M1 (if your project is setup with ProRes as rendering codec - which it should). I always saw ProRes as a low-intense-processing codec but it might be more demanding that what I believed it to be, especially in higher resolutions.
well, consider also the ram disadvantage, which probably is the culprit, more then the encoder. the intel has 32gb the other 2 only 8.
How much RAM did the Intell iMac you tested have?
Would be interesting to see if you run the export test on all machines 3 times over just to see if the numbers vary, would also like to see the test ran on Davinci Resolve, willing to bet a dramatic improvement..., but great video as always..
dear sir.. does the 8core gpu or 10core gpu affect the performance with a 8gb RAM.?
Very interesting. I have a newer 27-inch that takes forever to render my long videos. I just don't want a smaller screen if there's not much difference.
Which machine.
Are you taking advantage of quick sync video encoding some leave this option unchecked.
How much ram and do you have a true SSD not fusion drive.
All of those can slash the rendering times as can an egpu with say a 6600 6800 6950 egpu. Which are not that expensive anymore.
You can beat the m3 max and m2 ultra in many video editing work loads by adding a Samsung 4gb SSD pcie 64 to 128 GB ram a egpu case and a and rx 6600 6800 6950 all for $200 for day the SSD $400 for SSD and ram.
And $2-$300 for egpu enclosure
And $150-$350 for used GPU.
Plus you get full windows for much better game frame rates of any game or 3d software some Windows video editing have insane render times using quicksync and AMD and dual GPU rendering together or resolve or adobe or final cut
.since the Intel Mac is older you have more choices of which IS system or app to use without having to translate in risetta
I wonder what my 2020 27 iMac would do this in. 128gb 16gb 4TB.
Excellent video, thank you for doing this! For many of us, real world tests are always preferable to theoretical benchmarks.
Thank you!
Is the export writing to the SD card or the internal SSD?
It would be interesting to see how long the export would take if you downgraded the RAM back to 8GB on the 2017 iMac. Got your old RAM chips handy?
I'm interested do you mind sharing the clip you exported ? see i own a mac studio with m2 ultra 128 ram. I am very interested how will it do? would you be ok with taht andi will share the results
If you're considering an upgrade, the Mac Mini Pro or Mac Studio are excellent choices. For more demanding applications, it's advisable to bypass the base M3 model and opt for the Pro or Max versions instead. These offer significantly better performance and are more suited for professional use. The M1 and base M3 models, while competent, are generally more aligned with the needs of casual users.
What influences the export time? RAM? I am a novice on video stuff.
Yes. A big factor. His test is flawed. I was hoping that he would say towards the end that the M1 and M3 chips only have 8GB of ram. 1/4 that of his intel imac. Not to mention, the OS itself, already has a considerable share in the ram utilization. He made a mistake. I hope he comes back and redeem himself. Apart from that, both new machines is less than half the price of his intel imac.
“Redeem himself” 🤣
I genuinely don’t know the answer to that I’m afraid - lots of people are chipping in, though!
@@MarkEllisReviews Yes. lol 😅Jokes aside. Back to the question, with just 8GB of ram, even with "the" current fastest CPU on the market, the export time will suffer. You see, for a CPU to do its work, it needs RAM. i.e. Say the CPU can crunch 10 big tasks at a time, but there's only a workspace for two big tasks, then it can only do two big tasks at a time.
Great video as always Mark - would it be possible to do an M1 vs M3 comparison in day to day work? For example, does Safari load quicker, how many tabs are okay in Chrome, MS Office performance etc. Most other tech reviews focus on Cinebench scores, rendering, photo editing etc., things which very few people actually use the iMac for (or are hard to translate for real world use). If you took that approach and tested along those lines, you'd definitely be setting yourself apart from others.
I bought the 27" 5K iMac when it first came out. Spent the same amount of money around £2.5k. I haven't replaced that iMac for a few reasons, mainly the cost and Apples support policy. This machine changed my stance on buying Apple products. I am no longer prepared to pay huge amounts of money for Apple hardware that they then refuse to provide updates for after around 5 years. The other main reason is the drop in screen size. whilst I was happy with my earlier 24" iMacs (largest available at the time), the 27" 5K screen was a marvel and they replace it with 24", duh no. The whole support thing is the biggest let down though. I used the hack tools to install MacOS Big Sur so I wasn't falling behind on security updates and it worked great and proves that it wouldn't take much for Apple to support older hardware and personally I think they have a responsibility too do that when people are spending big bucks on their hardware. Same analogy for all those poor people that spent tens of thousands on the first Gold Apple Watch, I bet they were thrilled when that became drawer junk eh??
That just comes to show how important the amount of RAM is.
I am replacing my 2012 imac. My budget will allow me to buy an M3 imac 8gb ram and 512gb SSD or M1 imac with 16gb ram and 1TB SSD. I use the computer for general computing and some basic photo editing. Which would you recommend?
I don't really know what I'm talking about! But like others my first thought is 32GB vs 8GB memory... 🤷♀ Anyway - another great video thanks x
P.S. I know you don't do benchmarks, but I'd love to know the SSD read write speeds on the base M3 iMac..?
So, a bit of real life experience here for those who are interested. I'm still using my late 2013 - 21.5-inch iMac (iMac14,1) with the Intel CPU and 16GB of RAM. It was barely booting anymore and was basically an expensive paperweight at this point, so I bought a repair kit for € 12, cut up the bad boy (sweat), slapped a 2TB SSD (€ 80) in there, and to say I'm blown away by what this machine can still do is an understatement. It exceeded every expectation I had by FAR. I made sure to install the latest OS Sonoma (via OpenCore Patcher - it's easy, really, have no fear) and this baby runs Photoshop like it's no problem at all. Heck, I can even edit 4k in Premiere Pro. Yes, the fan can get loud for a moment but that's absolutely nothing proxy files can't fix. Just make sure to tell Premiere to only use software for editing and rendering. Otherwise you may get a green screen because yes, that is the old processor's fault. I'm very happy with my decision to pay barely 100 Bucks and basically own a new iMac that runs faster and better than ever instead of buying an actual new one for $2000+ (probably even north of that if I wanted more than the ridiculously small 256GB SSD)
As you said that you upgraded the memory in the Intel iMac, I think you should downgrade it to 8gb of memory and then redo these tests, that would be a fairer way of comparing the difference between the old and new machines, I think the tests you have done with these machines in their current configurations, although interesting, do look somewhat flawed. Also, given the massive difference in the rendering times, the overall time taken would still be hugely more beneficial on the new M3 iMac.
04:30 you can upgrade memory on later modes of imac. Latest one is iMac20,2 from 2020.
Interesting, but I have two thoughts: first and foremost, could the export times be depending on the amount of RAM (32 vs 8 GB) and/or the SSD speed, and number two, for me during exports I tend to do other stuff so it isn't that critical, but before that when i really do the video editing on the timeline, I want the machine to work without hick-ups. Besides that I really appreciate your videos. They are both informative, down to earth, not to technical and done with a great amount of good humour.
I appreciate the kind words, Thomas - thank you!
Mark the issue is do you give up the 5k screen at 27" for an inferior display. I'd be interested to see how an I9 with a better spec would do against the M1 or M3
RAM!
32GB vs. 8GB (unified).
Do the Test with a 16GB M1/M3.
Or an equivalently priced (adjusted for inflation) MBP. The MBP would smoke the Intel machine. I don't think the folks buying the M series iMac are doing any serious video editing.
I really like your "none scientific, none professional" - but grounded and realistic test. I also like that you made fresh installations and picked the basic models. Thank you for this test and I hope to see more. Here here two suggestions:
1) There is one thing I really miss: You verbally rush through the specs. it would be way way more convenient, if you do a simple text overlay with basic specs
2) You can't compare a 32GB machine to a 8GB machine. Your results would be valid if all three machines had the same amount of RAM.
Also, consider, that FCP is not optimized for M3 yet.
I think it clearly showed that Apple have developed processors that are excellent when it comes to handling video tasks. There’s two reasons I think why they all had similar export speeds. The first one could be the SSD’s as it’s well known that Apple put slower SSD in the base size for the M1 machines and looks like they have probably done the same in the M3 version as well. If the CPU/GPU can output for export faster than the SSD can handle then it’s going to start filling up the memory quickly as cached data and then everything slows down whilst waiting for the SSD to catch up. If you have access to a device with 512GB or 1TB it would be interesting to see what happens.
Dang - I was pricing out a new iMac at the beginning of the video and by the end I was cleaning the screen on my 2019 i5 iMac. And don't call me Shirley!
Since '08 I've had three iMacs, all Intels. Two of them have been problematic for various reasons; one flat out died, the other has annoying issues. So I'm not inclined to buy another iMac. I resent buying that beautiful monitor that becomes a paperweight if fatal issues occur. If I decide on something new for my desk, it's going to be a Mac Mini with a nice monitor.
What will you recommend mac mini pro m2 or imac m3 16gb ram? Thanks
is the h264 codec using the GPU at all? looks more like a GPU (render) vs CPU & RAM (export) issue. level the playing field with the RAM reduced in the intel & watch the processor usage on them all. I have a 2014 27" imac, i7, maxed memory, radeon 295 with 4GB, & I use it a lot for video/audio editing. I knacker mine by running it with two additional displays- it definitely runs better without them. I've been looking at the minis too, & thinking about a curved screen instead.... but this display! I'd miss that. & you can't turn them into monitors... 😞
When Jobs returned to Apple and really pushed the three tier approach, the entry level machines have always been WAY under powered. It's a valid baseline, but the expected performance of entry Apple boxes is generally shit.
the fact remains that even using the apple silicon your work flow will still be faster even if it renders a couple seconds slower than the intel the overall spped improvement is great. throw some extra RAM into your Apple silicone and lets do some more test.
Hi sir, before i read any comments and suggestions posted below , I was wondering how that test would be on the M3 Imac if it was spec'd out max to
24 gb 1 tb ssd ?Will maxing it out make it even a faster and more efficient export ? Also for music video making would getting such a machine be better than a macbookpro with basic specs? Im on a limited budget, but Ive lived my macbook pro since 2009 and its beyond time to upgrade.So a base model Macbook pro m3max chip vs full spec'd M3 imac?
Which would you choose ? Thank you for your video.
What codec are you using?
Thanks!
That’s unbelievably kind - thank you!
I think also another small tidbit people dont take into account is that the M chips in all of apples benchmarking is based on the ProRes format packaged in Quicktime. So yes when it comes to encoding to a different codec and package say MP4 H.264 the encoders take a lot more time. I know mac love ProRes especially FCPX it is heavily optimised for it. I've used a lot of Arri Alexa Pro Res 4444XQ 4k 10-bit and my 15 inch 2015 Macbook Pro runs it easily even on Premiere Pro. Granted It is mainly offline 30-60second commercials that are edited but it just goes to also show how well optimised the intel chips are in handling different packages and codecs
My experience, I have change the iMac 27 inch to the 24 inch iMac M1, but some apps are not good working anymore, especially 'Foto" when I tranfer from the old one, more than 10k pictures, the programme crashes, regularly in many photos the colours are very strange, not natural, am very frustrated by this.
Is it possible to swap the internals in the intel one with the m3 version, to get the big nice screen?
Is there a maintainable upgradeable version of Mx Mac? Mini? And why iMac versus mini? Isn’t it better to keep monitor separate, easily replaced?
I had a 2017 designed iMac Pro which I bought new in 2019 for $6300. It was decked out at that price. I recently got its trade-in value at Apple and, although the iMac Pro was still like new, its trade-in value was under$500. A friend then, by chance, offered his M1 Mac Studio Ultra that he bought new for $4k. 'Ultra' means that its processor is two M1 MAX chips connected as one. I paid $1500 for it. I also bought a new 27-inch Apple Display to go along with it. The performance difference was astounding to me. I'm sorry I didn't officially rate the difference, but I can tell you that short videos exported from Final Cut were done so quickly that the time it took between pressing the key to start the export and the time to look over to see the progress, the video was already exported. So many things worked so much faster than my 2017 iMac Pro with 64GB of RAM and 2TB internal drive and the fastest graphics card available at the time.
Thanks Mark. One question though- scaling down from 27” to 24”, how do you se that experience?
Obvious that for me that would not be acceptable. My next TV will be larger, not smaller also.
All of the reviews are confusing. I need to get a new computer because my 15-20 year old iMac can’t download the new iOS update. I’m getting into graphics and design, but I’m a loss of whether I should get an iMac, Mac Mini or a MacBook Air or Pro. Any suggestions? When I called Apple they mentioned getting the MacBook Pro and I could always get a monitor from Amazon. All the choices are confusing.
I am curious what the write speeds would be if you got the M3 imac with 32gb ram, and a 512gb or 1tb ssd.
Apparently RAM makes a big difference (32 GB vs 8 GB) for Exporting in Final Cut Pro.
Difference in RAM regarding export times. 32GB vs 8GB
An export is dependent upon drive performance. Drives haven’t changed that much over the last few years, so export speed should be close to the same.
Impressive processor performance though, with the render.
What version of Final Cut Pro were you using? Newest?
Yep.
Can you do us one more test?! Let's see an M3 with the highest RAM available (24 GB). That would give us a great comparison to the older machines AND the 8 GB M3 machine.
Great but 24 is still no 27” my 2009 will just have to keep crunching away remeber that’s a pre USB3 machine no SSD and somehow it keeps putting out a weekly 4k video but yes I’m desperate to replace. And while I feel like we are there I can just smell a big screen m3 around the corner.
Using an M1 Max-version 16" MBP, purchased a year ago, with 2TB SSD and 64Gb RAM. Zero complaints with performance overall. It is bulky moving around but the immediate access to work and ability to respond to requests (I work freelance in graphics) is unbeatable. Plug in the iPhone for instant Hotspot internet, which works better than the Spectrum nonsense I have at home. My only regret is "settling" for the 2TB SSD instead of something larger. I've already filled it twice in one year. It is slightly inconvenient lugging around external SSDs to connect if I have to dig for something. At least there's enough ports to connect with.
hello mark, my main concern is about the 24 inches vs 27 inches. what do you think? I do really consider a BLACK PATTERN from apple to force average 27" user to spend 3K+ for almost the same system that previously costed 2k
I got a top spec 27" iMac in 2014. / wouldn't it be a different comparison to spend the same amount of £$ on each? comparing a model with (mine has 32gb) Ram with one with 8gb isn't fair is it?
Great video. Is the 2017 intel iMac with Fusion Drive? And all others with SSD ?
Thank you! SSDs all round.