Apple on Tuesday introduced the all-new M1 iMac featuring a much more compact and remarkably thin design vs. previous generation Intel iMacs. The new iMac offers powerful performance in a design that’s just 11.5 millimeters in depth, with a striking side profile that practically disappears. Available in an array of vibrant colors to match a user’s personal style and brighten any space, iMac features a 24-inch 4.5K Retina display with 11.3 million pixels, 500 nits of brightness, and over a billion colors, delivering a brilliant and vivid viewing experience.
The new iMac also includes a 1080p FaceTime HD camera, studio-quality mics, and a six-speaker sound system — the best camera and audio ever in a Mac. Also, Touch ID comes to iMac for the first time, making it easier than ever to securely log in, make purchases with Apple Pay, or switch user profiles with the touch of a finger.
Just like we’ve seen with the M1 MacBook Air, Pro, and Mac mini, Apple’s first desktop-class SoC outperforms a host of more expensive computers with Intel guts – including machines like its 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro.
The higher-end Apple Silicon Macs are yet to come, but the new iMac will be plenty powerful enough for regular users and even some pro workflows.
When comparing the new M1 iMac to the 21.5-inch Intel iMac, Apple says it offers up to 85% faster CPU performance, up to 2x faster GPU performance, and up to 3x faster machine learning performance. Apple hasn’t shared improvement figures when stacking up against the 27-inch iMac.
The new M1 iMac is a big step forward for Apple’s iconic all-in-one desktop. It offers a lot of value at the same starting price of the old 21.5-inch 4K Intel iMac – a larger, sharper screen, notably faster performance with the M1 chip, Thunderbolt/USB 4, all-new design, Touch ID, 1080p FaceTime camera, and more.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple’s new M1 iMac compared very favorably vs. Intel iMacs. As Potuck writes, unless you’re waiting for the higher-end iMac to be released (at WWDC in June?) or for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, the new iMac is a compelling desktop starting at just $1,299.
Customers will simply love this iMac, just like they did with the original iMac rollout, it’s a new take on what is basically an appliance for the average consumer.
A new look that’s sexy thin, they can match to their own decor and sense of style. And with wireless headphones, mics, printers, and cloud storage…who needs ports. Only the ‘old school’ pundits will complain about this, the rest of us will keep moving forward.
Who needs the unreliable Cloud? Ports and more of them, please. I keep my data where I want it and will NEVER PAY Apple for storage.
Nuff said…
This new number of ports will never work for someone using this to write music on. Apple need to remember people use these computers for more than just tinkering around with their letters and photos.
Professionals who need a powerful computer for work are not going to buy the entry-level iMacs or MacBooks. They need the top-of-the-line models that have not yet been announced. The people who buy the announced M1 Macs will find them more powerful than the last generation models, which were already powerful enough for their applications.
I’m old school and still spell it “mikes”.
Is a larger iMac — or something else — to replace the 27-inch 5K iMac, in the pipeline?
Speculation is – Yes. The assumption is that the overall size will remain 27 in, but will have thinner bezels, allowing the screen to grow up to 32 in.
Please check your maths and physics – a 32 in screen with a 27 in overall size? Really? American education has a lot to answer for … 🤦♂️🤣
Present iMac without a bezel would be around 30″, with a smaller chin, so not far off
My math is fine, and you need to actually read what I said not skim through it and jump the gun…I said overall size, this means device footprint, and screen sizes are measured diagonally, this is how you get this:
2020 21.5” iMac footprint is 20.8” x 17.7”
2021 24” iMac footprint is 21.54 x 18.15”
2020 27” iMac footprint is 25.6 x 20.4“
Notice, the chassis (foot print) is smaller than the screen size, yet its reality.
Bet you didn’t even notice the iMac Pro that was just deprecated, actually had a smaller footprint than the standard iMac, yet both were 27”.
iMac Pro 25.6” x 20.3”
Just sayin, you look foolish getting snarky if you text before you think.
The Truth” is The Liar
“The Truth” has a lot to answer for in his own education since he can’t even read, write or arithmetic. Must be another hillbilly conservative who falls over all himself when applying what limited brain faculties they have.
Are you trolling? Your own bigoted response fails to use proper grammar! LOL. I guess this is yet another example of progressive tolerance — you know, say the word, then burn the witch. Progress indeed!
Current 27″ iMac in front of me is 29.5 inches from rounded top to corner of black bezel. So eliminating the bezel could almost get you to 30″. However saying “The overall size will remain 27 inches” is still wrong. You may have skipped a few words there. I’m guessing you meant:
“The overall size will be less than an inch larger than the current 27 inches.”
Personally I’d prefer more ports and slots to a bigger screen. HDMI in, an empty drive bay, Front or side SD card slot, ect.
I can’t wait for the MacBooks in colors – that will be crazy – Every kid will want one.. I hope they do it.
There’s no way any company building AIO desktops will be able to match how thin the M1 iMac is. That thing must be light as a feather and sip electricity while putting out a reasonable amount of processing power. I can’t wait to see what the larger iMacs are going to be like.
I like the way this new iMac looks. The chin and white bezels are attractive to me but I’d like to put an Apple logo decal on the chin to replace the one Apple left off. Youtubers aren’t happy with the looks, but when I work on my Macs I honestly don’t even notice anything outside of the display area. I’m sure Apple must have done some survey on how the iMac looks to consumers. I think it looks very attractive in a home setting with the various colors, but I’m mainly interested in how well it performs and honestly don’t care what it looks like on the outside. I don’t get why so many critics hate the chin since it’s where all the main components are. That’s enough reason for me for the chin to be there.
I believe most consumers will like how they look and perform and Apple should sell many millions of these new iMacs. They’re going to be attractive, run cool, be quiet and power efficient. What more can be said?
Given how the whole motherboard fits within the chin of this model, I’m holding out for very easy repair and replacements for this machine without having the hassle of taking the screen out.
Wasn’t there a hint, a few months back, that there would be some kind of a Mac Pro “Junior”? I forget the “name” I saw, but this is the best I can think of at the moment.
Yes, people were calling it the Mini-pro.
Please don’t mix opposite terms. Mini is the opposite of Pro. To achieve middle ground, you don’t stick on “small” and “large” labels to describe a “medium”.
Of course, Apple has cheapened the term Pro to the point it sticks that label onto sealed disposable consumer electronics with very NON-Pro operating systems, so labels now mean nothing. Apple is still pushing its thin design paradigm, so Air, Nano, Shuffle, SE, XR, S, XS, SeX, Diet, Lite, Not-a-Cube, and Ive Edition are all possible names for the next Mac.
A proper premium screenless expandable desktop for discerning customers could simply be called a Mac. It should exceed the Mini in all performance measures, and top options should place it well beyond any iMac in all performance and capabilities.
Too bad Apple can’t seem to innovate their way to getting this massive hole in the Mac lineup filled.
I have a 27” iMac and a second 27” screen. I need the desk space. As much as I’d like an M1, I need desk top space. Also, I have a BW printer, a color printer, a label printer, 2 or 3 backup drives — ports, PLEASE.
Unfortunately, Apple’s attitude is that you don’t need ports, but can replace it all with wireless…
…and that magically, a room full of wireless devices will somehow “never” bottleneck over bandwidth…
…or that the typical home won’t ever run into allocation limits/problems: even though the theoretical limit is 255, the typical home router default limit is just 32 connections max (to keep performance per channel decent).
A family member has mentioned that his home gets pushed over his router’s max allocation when family visited during holidays (everyone’s got a smartphone in their pocket). Checking my own network, I’m currently at ~20 connections “hot” (in use) without any visitors.
There is no black iMac in this selection. These are racists iMacs. Cook, what the hell are you doing?
Fat X, is your logic so weak that all you can do is attempt to falsely correlate computer surface finish to skin tone? Whatever points you thought you were going to score, you failed miserably.
You seriously need psychiatric help.
LOL! Excellent satire, man!