Product test
M4 iMac review: it’s pretty, but is it worth it?
by Samuel Buchmann
M3 iMac Review: Heartbreaker
14.11.2023
Translation: Katherine Martin
After three years, Apple has given the iMac an update. But with meaningless enhancements and the same old weaknesses, I find myself wondering why they’ve bothered.
Before starting my review, I’m certain I’ll fall in love with the new iMac. I’m enchanted by the design, while the prospect of only needing one device on my desk sounds tempting. Not only that, but it’s even the first Mac to get the exciting M3 chip in 3-nanometer technology! What could possibly go wrong?
Filled with anticipation, I set up two versions of the all-in-one computer on my desk. Particularly interested in the basic version, I get myself a blue one from our warehouse. It sports an 8-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 8 GB of RAM and a 256 GB SSD.
Apple also sent me its top-of-the-range pink model. The full-power version of the chip has 8 CPU cores, 10 GPU cores, 24 GB of RAM and a 2 TB SSD. We don’t stock this particular configuration yet, but you can get it from Apple for the princely sum of 2,919 francs or 3,235 euros.
Once I try out the device, my rose-coloured glasses are shattered into a thousand pieces.
Design and ports: insanely slim
Deftly peeling the two computers out of their origami packaging, I think: man, they’re thin! Although I was already aware the housing looked like more of an oversized iPad, it still impressed me in real life.
Instead of installing the SoC, fan and speakers behind the display, Apple has placed them underneath it, giving the display housing a bit of a «chin». That doesn’t bother me, but I’m in two minds about the display’s white edges. Though they give the iMac a brighter look, they’re more in-your-face than black edges would be.
The colours are in keeping with the iMac’s cheerful image. Pastel shades appear on the front and base, while rich colours are used on the back. The coated aluminium looks elegant, especially when light is reflected in it. I really like both the blue and «rosé» models. The latter is pale pink at the front and raspberry-red at the back.
Like previous iMacs, all the ports are located on the back of the screen. While I understand that this looks prettier, I get annoyed any time I want to connect an external SSD. I’m forced to stand up and walk around the side of the desk whenever I want to do this. God help you if you’ve put the iMac up against a wall. If you have, you’ll need the dexterity of a cat burglar to hit the ports blind.
Display: mighty but small
Since I regularly test monster-sized monitors, the iMac’s 24-inch screen diagonal initially seems tiny to me. This leads me to pull the computer closer to me than usual. At a distance of 70 centimetres, I’m happy enough with the display size. Fortunately, the screen is at the right height for me, as it’s nonadjustable.
Despite my close proximity to the screen, the picture looks very sharp as a result of the high pixel density. It has 218 pixels per inch (ppi) and a resolution of 4,480 × 2,520 pixels. Despite its small dimensions, a relatively large amount fits on the display in standard scaling. The size of menus and texts feels just right to me. Given the choice, I’d prefer a larger screen at a greater distance – Apple, where’s your 32-inch iMac?
Periphery: struck by Lightning
iPhones now have a USB-C port. As do AirPods. Apple’s mouse and keyboard, however, which come included with the iMac, are the last bastions of Apple Lightning. I can only think of one reason why they don’t have USB-C ports: leftover stock. If you buy an iMac now, its peripherals will probably be the only thing you’ll need a Lightning cable for in three years' time. An equally ridiculous aspect of the connector is its positioning on the bottom of the mouse.
Since I’m used to Apple laptops’ excellent speakers and since the iMac has more space, I expect slightly better sound quality than the iMac delivers. If I turn up the volume, the bass booms too much. Meanwhile, sibilant sounds in the upper frequencies get unpleasantly sharp. Nevertheless, the iMac’s speakers are far superior to other display speakers.
Performance: want action? It’ll cost you
While the M3 has made solid progress in terms of performance, the new iMac generally leaves me disappointed. This has little to do with the chip itself and more to do with Apple’s stupid cost-cutting measures, which are holding the basic version back.
CPU: poor cooling compromises the basic iMac
Like its two predecessors, the M3’s CPU still has 8 cores. Four of them are designed for performance, while the other four are for efficiency. I test the CPU with three benchmarks: Cinebench R24, Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 6. As two of the benchmarks didn’t yet exist last year, I completely redo the measurements of the predecessor chips.
Let’s start with the good news. The individual cores of the M3 are faster than those of the predecessor chips. The increase across the three benchmarks is around 15 per cent compared to the M2 and 28 per cent compared to the M1. That’s decent progress. In multi-core operation, it’s 30 per cent faster than the M1.
But only in the expensive version of the iMac.
GPU: gets a good boost thanks to 3-nanometer process technology
When it comes to the graphics processor, the difference is more transparent during the order process. The GPU comes with 10 cores in the expensive version of the M3 iMac and 8 cores in the cheaper version. I start off by testing the GPU with some synthetic benchmarks and playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
The M3’s performance is a good 20 per cent higher than that of the M2. Given both chips have the same number of cores, this is a considerable increase, likely down to the 3-nanometer process. Pitted against the M1, the M3 even reveals a 60 per cent increase in performance.
Both of these figures only apply to the full version of the M3, which sports a 10-core GPU. The graphics performance of the chip with an 8-core GPU is roughly on a par with the M2, which has a 10-core GPU.
SSD: small = slow
The gulf between the cheaper and more expensive classes of iMac continues with the SSD. As is the case with the M2, Apple only seems to use memory modules of at least 256 GB in size. In the basic version, there’s only one. The M1 generation at least had two 128-GB modules. The consequences of this are revealed by a glance at the benchmark:
During hands-on use, the SSD’s poor performance becomes particularly apparent when you need more RAM than your configuration allows. When this happens, the SSD has to step in as a buffer. If it’s slow, your system might come to a standstill. However, if you’re simply surfing the net with multiple tabs open and using Word at the same time, you’re unlikely to reach this tipping point.
Productivity: where the wheat is separated from the chaff
In Lightroom, it’s the same story. The expensive version of the iMac takes half as long as the basic version to export 100 RAW images. I guess this is largely down to the fact it has 24 GB of unified memory compared to the basic version’s measly 8 GB. Lightroom is notorious for being RAM-heavy. If you regularly edit images, you should configure at least 16 GB RAM. Especially since, unlike me during my tests, you probably have a few browser tabs open in the background.
Verdict: an uninspired, unnecessary update
There are scenarios where an iMac is the right computer for the job. Say, when you’ve got a minimalist office set-up in a small workspace. Or in places where aesthetics are really important, but without the need for a large screen. Think checkouts in stylish stores or hotel reception desks. With its brushed aluminium back, no other computer out there looks as elegant from behind as the iMac. The colour can be coordinated with the rest of the furnishings.
All in all, however, the M3 iMac is a letdown. Apple took a whole three years to release the update. Despite this, it feels as if they’ve just gone through the motions. The latest iteration of the all-in-one computer doesn’t improve on any of its weaknesses:
- Neither M3 version has a larger display
- Inadequate cooling in the basic version
- Only 8 GB of RAM in the basic version
- Slow SSD in the basic version
- Too few ports, which are only positioned on the back
- Mouse and keyboard have Lightning connectors
Instead, Apple has made progress on the only aspect of the computer I’m not bothered about: the performance of expensive configurations. In the powerful version, with proper cooling, the M3 chip is faster than its predecessors. In my benchmarks, the increase compared to M1 amounts to around 30 per cent for the CPU and 60 per cent for the GPU. Though an impressive technical feat, this proves pointless during real-world use.
At the other end of the price spectrum, daft cost-cutting measures keep the M3 in the basic iMac artificially puny. While this may not be a problem when using Office applications, I’d be happy to do without the chip in these kinds of scenarios anyway.
The only good arguments in favour of getting the iMac are the design and the pixel density of the display. If that’s more important to you than performance and ports, it’s not a bad device. But if you ask me, it’s what’s on the inside that counts. With this in mind, I’ll have to give this slim beauty the cold shoulder.
Samuel Buchmann
Senior Editor
Samuel.Buchmann@digitecgalaxus.chMy fingerprint often changes so drastically that my MacBook doesn't recognise it anymore. The reason? If I'm not clinging to a monitor or camera, I'm probably clinging to a rockface by the tips of my fingers.
Computing
Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest
