I love the 27" iMac. It should not come back.

[HDFan]

Apple has been losing sales numbers for years and largely has some little to correct the problem.

I stated explicitly regarding Mac sales numbers.

Apple Mac shipments worldwide by quarter 2023 | Statista

In the fourth quarter of 2023, Apple Mac shipments stood at 6.3 million units worldwide, an increase from the 5.9 million Mac shipments that were recorded in the fourth quarter of the previous year.

www.statista.com

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

Let’s start out with the statement “high end display”. The Apple Studio Display has the same display that came with the 2014 IMac.

Lol! Have you actually seen the both side by side? I have. And the Studio Display is sigNIFicantly better than the old iMac display. It's really not the same display panel at all.

The simple notion that Apple is selling 2014 screen display as high end in 2023 is on the comical side.

The simple notion that you think it's the same thing, is comical.

 

[ric22]

The poster you replied to who refuses to have cables in their environment must be a corporate worker who isn't allowed personal devices and connects to servers and printers wirelessly. Personally I have power, Ethernet, headphones, 2x USB C, 3x USB 3.1 attached to my iMac. There are a myriad of other USB cables nearby that I swap around on the 4th port (USB 2, mini, micro, 3.0, micro 3.0, Lightning)

Displays should last far longer than the computer they are attached to. Should.

I have a spreadsheet showing the specifications of all 12 Macs that I've owned. One of the columns shows physical size, type and maximum resolution of the display or displays that I used with it. I was shocked to discover that there were 12 different displays listed.

So while the upgrade cycles rarely matched (except in the case of iMacs), I've owned exactly the same number of displays and Macs.

I don't expect that to change. Because the Studio Display is so expensive, my next Mac is likely to be a Mini connected to a pair of 4K displays. If that comes true I'll actually have purchased more displays than Macs and they'll need to survive 3 generations of Mac to finally tip the scale the other way.

You've been awfully unlucky on the display front! One of the monitors I use at home still is a Sony one from 2004!

 

[MacProFCP]

Apple Mac shipments worldwide by quarter 2023 | Statista

In the fourth quarter of 2023, Apple Mac shipments stood at 6.3 million units worldwide, an increase from the 5.9 million Mac shipments that were recorded in the fourth quarter of the previous year.

www.statista.com

I guess you don’t consider 27% - 40% drop a big deal.

Apple’s Mac Shipments Plummeted 40.5% Last Quarter, More Than Any Other Major PC Maker

HP fared the best of the major traditional PC companies, with sales dropping (only) 24.2% to 12 million from 15.8 million.

www.forbes.com

Apple’s Sales Drop Slightly While Profit Is Up 11 Percent

Interest in new iPhones and services such as music and cloud storage powered the quarter, but other businesses, such as Mac sales, slowed significantly.

www.nytimes.com

No matter how Apple spins it, people have stopped buying Macs

After a 34-percent drop, sales are basically back where they were before Apple silicon (and the pandemic) arrived.

www.macworld.com

 

[Abdichoudxyz]

I guess you don’t consider 27% - 40% drop a big deal.

Yeah but a lot of people have stopped buying a lot of stuff. For various reasons, but mostly cos of global recession, Covid, Brexit, etc etc etc. Apple aren't the only company suffering a downturn. Plus, less people are buying computers year on year anyway. More just using 'phones and/or tablets. Because such devices are far more suited to 90% of all users really.

 

[liberte1776]

The original iMac didn't have a cutting-edge anything. It was meant to be an easy to use, fun appliance for home users looking to get on the internet, offices wanting a bit more color, and computer labs tired of dealing with a mess of cables. Over the years Apple started pushing the boundaries of what was possible with iMac, and eventually propelled it into the cutting-edge realm. Unfortunately, putting gorgeous displays inside an all-in-one is a double-edged sword.

Newer iMacs have a poor record of being useful as displays long after the computer inside is obsolete. Apple partly addressed this with Target Display Mode before the feature was removed in the 5K generation. Even the iMacs that do have Target Display Mode tend to not be an optimal experience, requiring much more power consumption and producing much more heat than they need to just to drive the display.

I experienced this first-hand with the late 2006 iMac, the first generation to feature a full HD 1920x1200 IPS display. I picked up a used one back in 2016. Watching 1080i MPEG2 broadcast TV worked great, but when it came to modern video codecs I found I needed workarounds to play anything smoothly. Performance in the browser was choppy, so everything needed to be played in VLC or Quicktime. The OS was capped at Mountain Lion which limited things severely as many apps simply would not work.

I was also an early adopter of the 27" 5K iMac. It served me well for many years and I love this product, aside from some display quality issues. I upgraded the RAM in mine to 32 GB and it could handle anything I threw at it. Sadly, the same can't be said anymore. My iMac is the same, but the world has moved on. Apple Silicon and newer x86 processors both provide much better performance. There is some hope as Chinese manufacturers have created a board which allows conversion of the 5K iMac to a standalone display for a newer computer (I plan to get one), but completing this project requires extra expense and technical expertise beyond what many iMac users have.

It seems wasteful and unbalanced to have a computer fuzed to the screen in this way. And while there is an argument to be made that an easy to use, fun appliance should still exist in some form, it doesn't make sense to buy cutting-edge technology, arguably years ahead of its time as with the 5K iMac – just for it to become waste years before it has to be. The issues aren't just with the obsolete hardware. The heat from the computer degrades the display faster, the use of the display with a secondary work laptop becomes difficult, and the notorious failures with some generations of iMac left the whole thing unusable.

For those of us introduced to the world of Mac within the last 15 years, being nostalgic about the big-screen iMacs is fine. However, I'm equally quick to give Apple credit for making the right decision, and taking the iMac back to its roots was the right decision. The 24" is fine as the only iMac Apple offers.

What Apple should change is the price of the Studio Display. The Studio Display is overpriced and overenginnered, which is a shame as it has potential to be a much better value. $1,299 is a much better price target for the display, and gets rid of any doubt that a Mac mini + Studio Display or Mac Studio + Studio Display can replace the old 27" iMac, with the added benefit of fixing all the aforementioned issues.

edit: Someone asked for info about the conversion boards so here's a link to that thread: DIY 5k Monitor - success

No, the fix seems to be for Apple to make the Mac computer portion of the iMac REPLACEABLE as a module, instead of requiring display obsolescence when many would rather continue using them if in good condition.

 

[Phil77354]

Just retired my 2020 intel iMac 27”. Splurged with 2 Apple Studio displays, and a 14” M3 Max MBP.

I had my fingers crossed that a docked MBP setup would work to save the cost of needing a Mac Studio. To my surprise, the answer is a resounding yes. Works fantastic! Displays wake instantly, OWC dock keeps Ethernet connection active, etc.

Fantastic experience. I was waiting for a new 27” iMac, but now I would never go back. It just makes sense to separate the display from the computer.

Similar experience here - just replaced late 2014 iMac 27" with Mac Studio and Studio Display. Very happy with my new system. I had been waiting for the past couple of years for a 27" iMac replacement, finally decided to not wait any longer.

Too many responses here for me to catch up with all of them, but obviously there are many different points of view. Separating the display from the computer has more advantages than disadvantages, I feel. And the Studio Display is beautiful both in performance and in appearance.

I'll enjoy observing how Apple manages its desktop computers over the next few years but I doubt that I'll be sorry for making this choice today.

 

[nathansz]

Apple is still selling the 3-year old 13" M1 MacBook Air. And this is despite newer 13" M2 MacBook Air and 15" M2 MacBook Air being sold aswell.

The 3-year 13" M1 2020 MacBook Air is enough proof that if there are enough sales, products remain to be sold.

Could be that they manufactured far too many/contracted parts for too many so they simply remain available until they are sold out

 

[HawkTheHusky1902]

Timely thread. I write this on my 2017 27" 5K iMac which recently had a Fusion Drive failure and was about to be trashed until another MR member suggested putting an external USB-C Samsung SSD drive on it; one Mac OS installation & Migration Assistant import from a Carbon Copy Cloner backup later, I'm still using it and it's snapper than it was with the internal drive! I've got a Phillips 4K monitor that cost around $350 a few years back and this year had a PC Magazine Editor's Choice - PHILIPS Brilliance 279P1 27" Frameless Monitor, 4K UHD IPS (3840x2160). Here's the PC Mag. review. I like it...but I like my iMac's display better.

But here's the thing...like a lot of people who shop for powerful home use computers, I'm budget/value conscious.


$1,300 For just a monitor (even a really good one) for non-professional use in a world where good 27" 4K monitors are half that or less isn't in the cards. It's fine that Studio Displays exist for people who willing to pay the premium, but I doubt that's what most Mac Minis are hooked to.

I wonder what Apple or another manufacturer could produce for a 27" 5K monitor of iMac quality that's just a monitor. Not a Thunderbolt dock, no webcam, no ridiculously expensive height adjustable monitor stand or glare resistant nano-texture coating option, no bionic chip or internal storage, maybe no webcam and the monitor housing doesn't have to have such high-end machining. PC Magazine did a Studio Display review that touched on some of my points - do we really need all these things (even minus options like nano-texture and height-adjustable stand)? From the article -

"Is it "$1,599 fine" or "$2,299 fine," though? Almost definitely not the latter, at least for general use. About a dozen other monitors I could list off the top of my head would be better suited to general media consumption for a fraction of the cost."

Further down, it adds:

"It's just that pricing. A similar 5K model without the webcam and AI frills, and with a basic stand, at $999 would go gangbusters as a companion for a low-end configuration of the Mac Studio, or maybe even the latest Mac mini."

To sum it up, for a recognized brand name new 5K 27" monitor on par with the 27" iMac, without the costly frills (e.g.: Thunderbolt doc functionality, etc...), what's out there? Quick Amazon shopping shows for nearly $860 (+ tax) at 12% off, this LG Monitor 27MD5KL-B Ultrafine 27" IPS LCD 5K UHD Monitor for Apple Mac. It's got Thunderbolt capability. Others I see seem to be in the $950+ range.

Is that the practical reality today? If you want 5K, you've gotta pay a $500 premium over 4K, albeit picking up added functions like Thunderbolt you may not need?

Remember to use Opencore Legacy Patcher on it when it goes out of support for you! xD

 

[Warped9]

Yes, you can get a 27in. display for much less than a Studio Display, but…

- what resolution are you getting?
- what is the sound system like?
- how is it constructed?

And possibly other questions I’m overlooking.

 

[ric22]

Yes, you can get a 27in. display for much less than a Studio Display, but…

- what resolution are you getting?
- what is the sound system like?
- how is it constructed?

And possibly other questions I’m overlooking.

Perhaps the alternate screen has a higher refresh rate? Perhaps it's OLED? Not everyone has the same requirements.

 

[Warped9]

The Studio Display looks like an all-in-type package, but like others have said it has things that aren’t really necessary.

 

[tothemoonsands]

So while the upgrade cycles rarely matched (except in the case of iMacs), I've owned exactly the same number of displays and Macs.

Interesting perspective! As someone who just dropped $4k+ on two Studio Displays, I am hoping that these survive at least 2-3 generations (including the M3 I am currently on). Having the yearly renewing AppleCare+ should help, since as far as I know, that lasts as long as the product is sold - more than the previous 3 year limit for the fixed one-time Applecare+.

 

[Student of Life]

Lol! Have you actually seen the both side by side? I have. And the Studio Display is sigNIFicantly better than the old iMac display. It's really not the same display panel at all.


The simple notion that you think it's the same thing, is comical.

I am attaching the 2014 5K iMac screen, the 2019 and the Apple Studio display.
It should be noted that the 2014 iMac has a 218 pixel per inch just like the 2019 iMac and the Studio display.
It should be noted that all three, the 2014 iMac, the 2019 iMac and the Studio display max out at 60Hz
The 2014 iMac has a 461 nit brightness, the 2019 iMac has a 500 nits brightness and the Studio display has 600 nits.

Verge Review of Studio display
" If you have ever looked at a 27-inch 5K iMac display, you know exactly what this thing looks like. The Studio display is the same 27-inch size, the same 5120x2880 resolution, the same 218 pixels per inch, the same 60Hz refresh rate, and has the same single-zone LED backlight. The only real spec difference is that Apple says the Studio Display now has a “typical brightness” of 600 nits vs. 500 on the iMac, but in my actual typical use next to a 2015-vintage 27-inch iMac, that’s pretty hard to see"

Take what you want from that information. Maybe your old display is damaged but the numbers dont lie.
In a span of basically ten years, we have kept the same screen resolution, the same PPI, the same Hz. The most we have improved upon is the nits brightness. Give or take a little over 100 nits. This is all in a span of 10 years. This is what Apple is charging 1599 dollars for.

 

[ErikGrim]

Seems unlikely that dust is causing constant reboots (probably kernel panics) almost certainly a software issue of some kind.

Dust causing overheating and kernel panics is a very real thing. My 2020 iMac was causing frequent and unexplained beach balling and low FPS on the Wintendo (Bootcamp). Cleaned out the dust and it is as good as brand new again.

 

[kingtj1971]

Didn't have time to read 7 pages of comments about this, and it looks like a bunch were just people debating the merits of the display included in the 5K iMac vs. external display offerings?

All I can say is, I disagree with the premise that we don't really need an integrated computer and display package in 2023.

It was never optimal for a lot of scenarios, but it serves a real purpose. I feel like primarily, it's about embracing the minimalism that Apple was known for all along. The original Macintosh was an "all in one". It's part of the DNA of the company. Sure, you have to tackle issues like extra heat to dissipate. But most of that can be solved just as easily as we solve it for notebook computers that are also "all in one". iMacs essentially use notebook computer type logic boards.

I have an iMac Pro I still use and for my purposes (primarily to download, edit and print files to my 3D printers, but also for some music-related tasks) - there's no need for it to have a more powerful GPU or whatnot. It's a benefit that it keeps my desk cleaner, with less cable clutter. And yes, the 5K display in it still looks amazing. I don't care that other options might be superior. The practical fact is, I don't own any other monitors around the house that can do 5K resolution and even my 2 large (34" curved) displays I use with other machines aren't quite that crisp or have that same resolution.

I'd absolutely consider buying another iMac (especially a "Pro" variant) if the price was right and if they did a 27" display. I'm not interested in anything smaller than that, myself, since this is a desktop machine. (No need to compromise on screen size for portability, in other words!)

 

[Chuckeee]

I'd absolutely consider buying another iMac (especially a "Pro" variant) if the price was right and if they did a 27" display.

Just curious. What price would you consider acceptable for an Apple silicon 30” iMac Pro?

 

[tomscott1988]

Just curious. What price would you consider acceptable for an Apple silicon 30” iMac Pro?

Thats it at this rate as a studio max and a display together and you aren't far off 6k so I would think that the ball park, similar to the old one. Maybe 5k in a cheaper config like the base studio.

 

[colodane]

Perhaps the alternate screen has a higher refresh rate? Perhaps it's OLED? Not everyone has the same requirements.

Yes, it is this lack of choice that is frustrating.

Unlike some on this thread, I don't mind that there is no new 27 inch iMac. I rather like the concept of a separate display and don't mind dealing with a few cables in my workspace.

If you look at the complete range of CPU options from the base Mac Mini to the fully-optioned Mac Studio Ultra, just about every conceivable user can find something that suits their needs for a (reasonably) acceptable price.

But for the display there is only ONE choice. 27 inches and $1600. Lots of folks here want something bigger or higher tech and are willing to pay for it. Others, like me, just want a 24 inch retina display with Apple build quality at a price of $1000 or less.

Please, Apple, give us some choice.

 

[Student of Life]

Yes, it is this lack of choice that is frustrating.

Unlike some on this thread, I don't mind that there is no new 27 inch iMac. I rather like the concept of a separate display and don't mind dealing with a few cables in my workspace.

If you look at the complete range of CPU options from the base Mac Mini to the fully-optioned Mac Studio Ultra, just about every conceivable user can find something that suits their needs for a (reasonably) acceptable price.

But for the display there is only ONE choice. 27 inches and $1600. Lots of folks here want something bigger or higher tech and are willing to pay for it. Others, like me, just want a 24 inch retina display with Apple build quality at a price of $1000 or less.

Please, Apple, give us some choice.

I think your best choice might be to just buy a 24 M1 iMac, they can be had for under 1000 and then use Luna Display, or sidecar to meet you needs, and as an added bonus you get a keyboard and mouse. If anything you could sell the keyboard and mouse and come out with a 24 inch Retina display for under 900 dollars and as a freebie it's also a computer.

 

[Warped9]

Decided to do a little comparison. This is taken off the Canadian Apple Store website.

Mac Mini M2 Pro .......................... $1699
32GB RAM ................................... $500
1TB SSD ...................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad .......... $209
Magic Mouse .................................. $89
Total (before tax) .................... $2747

Minus keyboard and mouse I already have total is $2449. Refurbished Mac Mini Pro equipped as above is $2204.


Mac Studio Max ........................... $2699
32GB RAM ....................................... $0
1TB SSD ...................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad .......... $209
Magic Mouse .................................. $89
Total (before tax) .................... $3247

Minus keyboard and mouse I already have total is $2949. Refurbished Mac Studio Max equipped as above is $2279.


M3 iMac ..................................... $2199
24GB RAM ................................... $500
1TB SSD ..................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad ........... $30
Magic Mouse ................................... $0
Total (before tax) ................... $2979


Note that neither the Mac Mini nor Mac Studio yet have a display and audio system added to the price while the iMac has a very nice 4.5K display included as well as a decent sound system. If you add a new Studio Display it's an extra $1999 (CAN). A refurbished Studio Display is $1699.

The cheapest alternative would be a refurbished Mac Mini equipped as wished (but presently there aren't any on the Canadian website) and a non Apple display in tandem with using the keyboard and mouse I already have from my 2011 iMac. But then I still have to add a sound system. At best this alternative would still cost about the same as an M3 iMac equipped the way I want.

With a Mac Studio plus display and possibly plus audio it's always going to be more than the iMac.

A final alternative could be to wait longer for refurbished M3 iMacs to become available. But if I order the iMac through work this month I can save 10-15 percent which equals or beats waiting for a refurbished unit.

 

[redheeler]

Decided to do a little comparison. This is taken off the Canadian Apple Store website.

Mac Mini M2 Pro .......................... $1699
32GB RAM ................................... $500
1TB SSD ...................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad .......... $209
Magic Mouse .................................. $89
Total (before tax) .................... $2747

Minus keyboard and mouse I already have total is $2449. Refurbished Mac Mini Pro equipped as above is $2204.


Mac Studio Max ........................... $2699
32GB RAM ....................................... $0
1TB SSD ...................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad .......... $209
Magic Mouse .................................. $89
Total (before tax) .................... $3247

Minus keyboard and mouse I already have total is $2949. Refurbished Mac Studio Max equipped as above is $2279.


M3 iMac ..................................... $2199
24GB RAM ................................... $500
1TB SSD ..................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad ........... $30
Magic Mouse ................................... $0
Total (before tax) ................... $2979


Note that neither the Mac Mini nor Mac Studio yet have a display and audio system added to the price while the iMac has a very nice 4.5K display included as well as a decent sound system. If you add a new Studio Display it's an extra $1999 (CAN). A refurbished Studio Display is $1699.

The cheapest alternative would be a refurbished Mac Mini equipped as wished (but presently there aren't any on the Canadian website) and a non Apple display in tandem with using the keyboard and mouse I already have from my 2011 iMac. But then I still have to add a sound system. At best this alternative would still cost about the same as an M3 iMac equipped the way I want.

With a Mac Studio plus display and possibly plus audio it's always going to be more than the iMac.

A final alternative could be to wait longer for refurbished M3 iMacs to become available. But if I order the iMac through work this month I can save 10-15 percent which equals or beats waiting for a refurbished unit.

$500 for 32 GB RAM is crazy. I have that amount already in my 8-year-old iMac which I installed myself for about $200 in 2016. Not saying that everyone needs that much, certainly not the case, but it's hard to justify that much of a markup...

An upgradable Mac mini or Mac Studio would be great, but in the meantime I am probably done with new Mac purchases.

 

[redheeler]

I am attaching the 2014 5K iMac screen, the 2019 and the Apple Studio display.
It should be noted that the 2014 iMac has a 218 pixel per inch just like the 2019 iMac and the Studio display.
It should be noted that all three, the 2014 iMac, the 2019 iMac and the Studio display max out at 60Hz
The 2014 iMac has a 461 nit brightness, the 2019 iMac has a 500 nits brightness and the Studio display has 600 nits.

Verge Review of Studio display
" If you have ever looked at a 27-inch 5K iMac display, you know exactly what this thing looks like. The Studio display is the same 27-inch size, the same 5120x2880 resolution, the same 218 pixels per inch, the same 60Hz refresh rate, and has the same single-zone LED backlight. The only real spec difference is that Apple says the Studio Display now has a “typical brightness” of 600 nits vs. 500 on the iMac, but in my actual typical use next to a 2015-vintage 27-inch iMac, that’s pretty hard to see"

Take what you want from that information. Maybe your old display is damaged but the numbers dont lie.
In a span of basically ten years, we have kept the same screen resolution, the same PPI, the same Hz. The most we have improved upon is the nits brightness. Give or take a little over 100 nits. This is all in a span of 10 years. This is what Apple is charging 1599 dollars for.

View attachment 2320698

Late 2014 to late 2015 made the jump to P3 color gamut. That was noticeable but everything since has been pretty minor. Even the late 2014s are honestly still pretty good. If you can put up with the ghosting / image retention which was, from my experience, very common on those.

 

[Warped9]

I was able to upgrade the RAM of my 21.5 2011 iMac myself over the years. The 2011 came with 4GB which I immediately upgraded to 8. A few years later I upgraded it to 16. Finally 3-4 years ago I upgraded the RAM to 32.

But that alternative isn’t possible with current Apple Silicon. If you want/need more RAM you have to pay at time of initial purchase. You can go with only 512GB SSD, but then you’re likely going to buy external SSD to supplement the built-in 512. Might as well order it with 1TB.

 

[tomscott1988]

Decided to do a little comparison. This is taken off the Canadian Apple Store website.

Mac Mini M2 Pro .......................... $1699
32GB RAM ................................... $500
1TB SSD ...................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad .......... $209
Magic Mouse .................................. $89
Total (before tax) .................... $2747

Minus keyboard and mouse I already have total is $2449. Refurbished Mac Mini Pro equipped as above is $2204.


Mac Studio Max ........................... $2699
32GB RAM ....................................... $0
1TB SSD ...................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad .......... $209
Magic Mouse .................................. $89
Total (before tax) .................... $3247

Minus keyboard and mouse I already have total is $2949. Refurbished Mac Studio Max equipped as above is $2279.


M3 iMac ..................................... $2199
24GB RAM ................................... $500
1TB SSD ..................................... $250
Keyboard w. numeric keypad ........... $30
Magic Mouse ................................... $0
Total (before tax) ................... $2979


Note that neither the Mac Mini nor Mac Studio yet have a display and audio system added to the price while the iMac has a very nice 4.5K display included as well as a decent sound system. If you add a new Studio Display it's an extra $1999 (CAN). A refurbished Studio Display is $1699.

The cheapest alternative would be a refurbished Mac Mini equipped as wished (but presently there aren't any on the Canadian website) and a non Apple display in tandem with using the keyboard and mouse I already have from my 2011 iMac. But then I still have to add a sound system. At best this alternative would still cost about the same as an M3 iMac equipped the way I want.

With a Mac Studio plus display and possibly plus audio it's always going to be more than the iMac.

A final alternative could be to wait longer for refurbished M3 iMacs to become available. But if I order the iMac through work this month I can save 10-15 percent which equals or beats waiting for a refurbished unit.

It all depends what you need. Those three machines have wildly different use cases and capability.

Again I will mention that the standard M1 chip is as fast as the 2020 build to order 10 core Intel Core i9-10910 which was the fastest chip available in all of apples line apart from the higher core Mac Pro chips which were 3-4x the price. The m3 is 30% faster than the m1 and were not even at the pro and max comparison.

I struggle with Apple marketing to figure out where they sit but find the intel line easier to figure out.

So if you look at it like that you have a base chip that is faster than the highest end previous pro chip. Time moves on but I would say that amount of power is more than 90% of people need and apple have kind of shot themselves in the foot with it.

So they gimped the chips with display output and ram availability. I could get by with an M3 with 64gb but you cant get one with even half that which is why they push you up the line because the only chip with more than 32gb is the Max.

Couple of things to do so you can see what your usage is: Have you got iStat installed? Run it for a month and see where your memory pressure is and make a decision based on that rather than "This is what I need"

The general rule of thumb with Apple Silicon is buy on ram first, then on CPU need/graphics power and display output then SSD. The SSD is the only thing you can add more of later externally that is as fast.

With that rhetoric that rules out the M3 for me, 24gb of ram option is silly money and still isnt a lot for a pro but for a usual user not multitasking with lots of pro apps it should be fine.

But then where the iMacs has pros it also has failings. M3 can run one extra display whereas in the mini pro it runs 3 studio max 4.

The other thing to think about is do you need that much SSD. It is a desktop you can buy very fast external thunderbolt drives for much cheaper, save yourself some money. If it were a laptop then ye but its a static item and SSD is one area of expansion.

I use my MacBook Air with 16gb generally with maybe only one or two pro apps open with my usual day to day stuff and never have an issue. If I try to work from home and use it vs 64gb in my work iMac then its a real struggle its choppy as hell and memory pressure is at max. At work 64 gb im at high pressure too and you cant change the rules of physics. My use case is completely different work to home tho I will have 5-6 pro apps open at once flipping between (and the creative suit loves ram) plus all productivity then I run external displays that also uses the onboard ram as its shared.

Again it's down to use case and actual need. Better doing the pre work seeing where the machines pressure is then deciding. A lot of people "think" they need but in reality iStat will tell. Could save a lot of money using 16 over 32 or 18 over 36.