Has there been much improvement in iMacs lately?

I haven't seen any such problems reported for the M3 based iMacs. The issue seems to be limited to the 2021 M1 based machines.

I purchased an M3 based iMac with 8GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD this spring to replace my 21.5" 6 core i5 2019 iMac. The difference is phenomenal. Don't let yourself be deceived by numbers citing clock speeds and such.

The M3 is vastly superior to the Intel i5. I can't make a direct comparison to later Intel processors, but compared to the midrange to relatively potent Intel based PCs I use and deploy on a daily basis in my role as a systems administrator for a mid-size healthcare facility, Modern iMacs easily beat them.

Apple claims an M series processor with 8GB of RAM is better than an Intel processor with 16GB of RAM or more and I believe it.

Don't feel like you have to buy an iMac, Mac Mini's with a good quality displays are tough to beat. In addition they will far out-perform your 2017 Intel based iMac. You can get a mid level Mac mini and either the Apple, Samsung or LG 27" 5K displays and you will have a terrific machine.

I also would wait until next week or so to see if they are coming out with new models. However, I would seriously consider not getting an M iMac due to it's display problem but get a Mac Mini with a 27" or 32" monitor w/speakers.

A tricked out Mini M2 Pro with 1TB drive, 16GB memory ($1500) and a 32" LG 4k monitor w/speakers (on sale at Amazon for $315) is several hundred dollars less than a comparably configured 24" iMac.

The reason I'm going that route is the following;

The following topics illustrate the Silicon iMac Display problem:

Screen Failure on 24-inch-iMac, M1, 2021 - Apple Community

Persistent horizontal lines appear on iMac Screen - Apple Community

Horizontal Lines on Screen of iMac, 24", 2021

Horizontal black lines covering bottom 3rd of 2021 M1 iMac screen

Grey horizontal patches on my M1 iMac 2021 model

Horizontal lines at the bottom of iMac(M1,2021) screen

I have a 2017 27" iMac and will be upgrading soon to a Mini + 32" monitor described previously.

rlplant wrote:

I was thinking about replacing my 2017 27” iMac with a new iMac but I was shocked at how bad the options are. I’ve owned Macs since 1985 and this seems to be the first time that, even after a seven year gap, the new models are not much better than their predecessors.

The options and pricing are what they are. If you refer to the benchmark screenshot that Allan posted you will see that the new Silicon M3 Mac's are way faster than the Intel Mac's.

My current iMac has a 3.5 GHZ Intel i5 CPU, a 1 Tb hard disk, and I’ve increased the RAM to 24 GB. It was more or less the middle-of-the-line when I bought it.  Unfortunately I cannot run anything newer than Ventura on it.

If you would like to run a newer macOS version and the latest App Store app's, then it is time to replace.

They no longer even sell a 27” iMac and the 24” version at $1699 comes with an M3 chip, only 512 GB storage (though SSD, not hard drive) and 8 GB of RAM.  Bringing it up to 24 GB RAM and 1 TB of storage like my current configuration would add $600. 

About the same price for a Mac mini with a 1T drive, 24GB of RAM and a decent 27" or 32" external display.

Given that seven years have passed, even with inflation this doesn’t seem to be a big technological or cost improvement. Am I wrong?

Not true. For the same bottom line, the M2 and M3 Silicone Mac's will run circles around your 2017 Intel iMac.

Apple unveils M2 with breakthrough performance and capabilities - Apple

Apple unveils M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max, the most advanced chips for a personal computer - Apple

Apple doesn't sell 27" 5K Retina iMacs any more.

If you were looking to put together the equivalent of one, that might consist of

• A M2 Pro Mac mini or M2 Max Mac Studio
• A 27" Apple 5K Studio Display
• An Apple Magic Keyboard
• An Apple Magic Mouse

Given the way that Apple has priced the standalone 5K display, a lot of people settle for lesser 27"–32" 4K displays (readily available from a number of third parties). (There are also two competing 27" 5K displays – one from LG and one from Samsung.)

rlplant wrote:

Given that seven years have passed, even with inflation this doesn’t seem to be a big technological or cost improvement. Am I wrong?

CPU performance is just one aspect of system performance – and for many applications, probably not even the most important one.

Single-core CPU benchmarks

• 27" 2017 iMac (3.5 GHz Core i5) – 1299
• M2 Mac mini – 2635
• M2 Pro Mac mini (10-core CPU, 16-core GPU) – 2645
• M2 Pro Mac mini (12-core CPU, 19-core GPU) – 2651
• M2 Max Mac Studio (12-core CPU, 38-core GPU) – 2803

For single-core performance, even a base M2 chip runs about as fast as a M2 Max chip – provided that you have enough RAM for the workload that you are running. All run twice as fast as the Intel CPU in your iMac.

Multi-core CPU benchmarks

• 27" 2017 iMac (3.5 GHz Core i5) – 3571
• M2 Mac mini – 9754
• M2 Pro Mac mini (10-core CPU, 16-core GPU) – 12180
• M2 Pro Mac mini (12-core CPU, 19-core GPU) – 14287
• M2 Max Mac Studio (12-core CPU, 38-core GPU) – 14788

Multi-core performance is most relevant when you have a long batch job that can make good use of a lot of CPU cores. Here you can see that a high-end Mac mini or low end Mac Studio might crunch through such a job in just one quarter of the time your iMac would require.

----------

Then there's the matter of going from a mechanical hard disk to a modern SSD.

The M1 Max Mac Studio goes from power off to the login prompt in just a few seconds. I was surprised at just how fast it was. It makes my 12" 2015 Retina MacBook (which also boots off a SSD) look like a slug. That machine – in turn – booted very quickly compared to a 27" iMac starting up from a mechanical hard drive. Although I use "Lock Screen" (and turning off my monitor) a lot on my Mac Studio, the startup times are so quick that I could almost use powering down and back up again as a substitute for sleep.

Note: Macs with 'plain' M2 chips and 256 GB SSDs reportedly have "slow" SSDs, because Apple implemented the SSD using a single 256 GB flash chip. Even these "slow" SSDs are faster than any USB 3.0 / SATA SSD that you can buy.

I don't know how much benchmarks relate to your actual use, but the MacTracker database (in the Mac App Store) shows this comparison:

Wait until next week. They hinted there’s some new ones due to be announced.

Note that RAM was user-upgradable on all 27" iMacs – and is not upgradable at all on any Apple Silicon Mac. Be sure to get all of the RAM that you need. If you get too little, you will not be able to add more later.

rlplant wrote:

Given that seven years have passed, even with inflation this doesn’t seem to be a big technological or cost improvement. Am I wrong?

It seems to me a 218% performance increase for approximately the same cost is a big technological improvement.

Now that you mention it you're right. All of those examples are for M1 iMac. Thanks for the heads up.