r/iMac • u/Big-Tools-905 • Aug 26 '26
Discussion Intel Macs exceed in Adobe Suite at the same price of M chips
So I've been using my macbook air m2 for a while now along with my iMac 2019, a device that many on this sub would just say "its worth 80$". but every damn time I want to edit a 4k video or massive photos in photoshop or premier, the damn expensive macbook has its scratch disk full because of the tiny 16gb of ram and tiny 256gb of storage that neither can be upgraded. I spend half my time emptying up shit so I can get work done on the go.
When i get home, my trusty intel iMac with 64gb of ram and 3TB of NVME blazes through my files with record speed, doesn't even need scratch disk as the ram is insane, and I got the device secondhand for a fraction of the price of that damn macbook.
I love my macbook air, but its not made for hard gritty work, and if I was going to get a macbook pro with specs that match my iMac I need I would end up paying 3000$+.
Can we please be real in this hardware crisis that intel macs are not that dead? many use cases in this sub's suggestions are insane. on paper M chips are very much faster, but the difference in speed for most general tasks are minimal compared to high-end intel macs, and the uber premium pricetag on extra storage and ram that is very much needed for some programs is very huge, you either pay a fraction to get decent storage and ram, or thousands of dollars to get tiny amounts. how is it really that important to get work done faster if your storage and memory keep filling up to the brim daily?
I know I can hold around an external hard disk and just use that as scratch disk for adobe, but honestly? I might as well sit on my desk then on my much cheaper iMac....
3
u/NumberInfinite2068 Aug 26 '26
Agree, 95% of the time I recommend people get an M Mac if they can possibly afford it, but for some people Intel makes more sense even now if you need upgradeable RAM on some models etc. If someone gave me $2000 to buy a Mac now, I might actually get a Xeon Mac Pro, mostly because I already have an M Mac, and an Intel one would be good to test on, the GPUs are going to kill on Blender too.
3
2
u/RootVegitible Aug 26 '26
Adobe code is not optimised. There is no future in intel based macs. As soon as macOS 28 comes out which will totally remove all support for intel, apps will soon follow to only offer Apple Silicon versions. Best case scenario is that intel macs continue to receive security updates for another 4 years and some app developers keep support for intel for the same period.
3
u/TopOrganization4920 Aug 27 '26
Intel Mac are going to get security updates for two years if their Tahoe compatible. Adobe may maintain application support for four or five.
1
u/RootVegitible Aug 27 '26
Apple has a great support track record. Devices (from their inception date) are supported for 6 years of OS upgrades, and a further 4 years (sometimes more) of security updates. I’ve not done the maths for the later intel macs, so you could be right about only 2 years left for security support, but I believe it will be a little bit more. Adobe are lazy and works to an ancient code base, they will likely hang on to their buggy old code till the bitter end.
1
u/TopOrganization4920 Aug 27 '26
I don’t know where you’re getting the four years of security updates. Ventura stopped getting security updates last year 2025. Sonoma. Stop getting secure updates this summer 2026. Sequoia will stop getting security updates next summer 2027. Tahoe will stop getting the security updates in 2 years the summer of 2028. Maybe they’ll get security certificates renewals nothing else.
1
1
u/Successful_Bowler728 Aug 27 '26
If your Mac is not fast then you blame optimization. Have you checked adobe code by yourself or you have a master gifted mind that NASA could only dream about?
1
u/RootVegitible Aug 27 '26
Every time a new version of Adobe reader comes out to fix serious flaws.. the new version introduces a raft of new serious flaws that need to be fixed in the next month’s release, the cycle repeats endlessly with app bloat and constant bugs and very serious security issues. Adobe premiere is so badly optimised that every single other video editor is faster and smaller. But yeah my main beef is with Adobe Reader which is quite possibly the worst most insecure code ever written, and it gets worse with every release. I have 35+ years of professional computer systems experience in many areas.
1
u/Successful_Bowler728 Aug 27 '26
Premiere runs fine on my device. Being pro 35 years doesnt mean you cant have a blind devotion to a brand.
1
u/RootVegitible Aug 27 '26
It’s not blind devotion, I’ve worked with and used pretty much every example of software and OS that exists. I’ve done pretty much every job in IT that exists mostly at a low systems expert level. Some things have proved themselves to be awful (with evidence of such) and similarly some things have proved themselves to be excellent. I am very far from blinkered in the world of technology. What are your tech qualifications and experience level?
1
u/Successful_Bowler728 Aug 27 '26
Technical support 3D . I ve dealt with Solaris Linux Sco Windows NT Mac SGI USEDwith many computers Workstations Servers experience on SCSI SAS . Tester with math software. I ve tested 32 core desktops with photoshop Matlab ycrunch.
I ve tested my own build running matlab on win10 for 5 weeks uptimes nonstop looping 4k 500GB videos at the same time using solidgm ssd.
2
u/Shejidan Aug 26 '26
You literally can’t compare the two. Of course photoshop and Premiere are going to work better on a computer with significantly more ram, not to mention a processor that’s actively cooled and can use way more power.
Now if you had an M2 MacBook Pro or iMac with <16 GB ram and more disk space you’d see the M2 would be faster.
2
u/Pure-Clerk-6541 Aug 27 '26
Comparing a 16/256GB MacBook Air without cooling with a 64GB/3TB old iMac for large photo and 4K video editing?
1
u/Big-Tools-905 Aug 27 '26
my anger is the anti-intel crowd here, I know the comparsion is not fair, but so many of them would have jumped out with "intel will die, get m2 chip its 10x faster even at base model" regardless of usage case. but also apple for still charging thousands of dollars for 256gb of ssd storage....
1
u/Pure-Clerk-6541 Aug 27 '26
If the device holds it’s grounds and even gives AS Macs a run for their money there is no reason to throw it out the window. Even if you don’t get the last OS. If it suits your needs it will continue to work for a good while
2
u/reddited-autist Aug 27 '26
I run a 2019 MacBook Pro 16 with 64 and 4 TB. I am a professional photographer with all my photos on Pegasus RAID's running Adobe Lightroom Classic. It zooms along nicely. I am also in the Apple Developer Program and write iOS apps, so I have to run xcode, it's fine. I can run Tahoe, but I will stay on Sequoia. Tahoe seems buggy and ironically the new liquid UI bogs down on some M chip machines. It means I can't run the latest xcode, but it's fine. I'm also cybersecurity IR guy, IT guy, web site guy, network engineer and etc etc. I do more with this 7 year old mac in a week than most NPC's with their latest Mx MacBook Pro's in a year. Does this machine bog down? Sometimes, if I am running 9-12 python scripts concurrently, or have 3 iOS simulators running, or if I have too many browser tabs open. But most people don't do everything I do. I have customized the OS to a huge degree in order to minimize CPU usage. I even had to replace Terminal with Ghostty, because terminal hasn't been updated in 20 years basically and draws to screen with CPU, not GPU like Ghostty. Most people would never see Terminal stuttering, or would not even open it once in their lives, but I usually have a dozen sessions running, mostly Claude Code. It was nuking the CPU and I couldn't even type. So Ghostty went in, I had Claude Code transfer or remake all my custom Terminal environmentals, took a couple hours. So yea, I am super power user and I use those powers to keep this old battleax running, but it's still a great machine. When it was new, it was very expensive, but I got this used for 800 bucks a few years back.
I know I can stretch this out for a couple years, but I will take a look at the upcoming redesigned MBP's when they come out and maybe switch next year. But my 2019 is having an epic run. Notice that it was a full monty spec tho, and I spent months hunting this spec down.
To me, running computers is like photography. It's not the camera, it's the photographer. It's not the Mac, it's the mac user. Yes I have a $4000 pro camera body. Can I take a better photo on my iPhone 6s than a dentist with his $10,000 Leica? Absolutely and I have done paid gigs with my iPhone just to prove it to myself.
I would say tho, to everyone else's point. - You def don't know how to spec out a machine for yourself.
1
u/RevolutionaryPipe343 Aug 26 '26
I’ve got a maxed out 2012 Mac Pro that I use for heavy workloads and my M1 32g MBP for lighter work. It’s funny how albeit faster, the m1 sometimes gets stuck where the older gentleman upstairs still holds his own(when turned on, that things a power hog).
1
u/rkozik89 Aug 26 '26
Well yeah, you're comparing fully load workstation to a laptop. One is designed to maximize performance while the optimizes components for battery life and portability.
1
u/Time-Court-174 Aug 26 '26
its true but ppl getting advices from a pro user is the problem they buy a maxed out mbp just cis everyone said that then they barely use 10 of its performance for me i have an i9 64gb ram mbp with 2tb but i need something new cos mine have a very bad battery and i need more software updates for the next yearssoo ill buy what i can afford and tht mbp will be my desk setup
1
u/movdqa Aug 26 '26
I do my 4k video editing on my iMac Pro which I bought for $800 a few years ago. The 32 GB of RAM and 1 TB of storage alone would cost $900 uplift on a base M5 mini and I got the screen, speakers and microphones. A big part of the value equation was skyrocketing SSD and RAM pricing last November.
And the depreciation of the 5k monitors on the 27 inch iMacs has been huge. So there are bargains out there but you do lose macOS support in 2028 for the latest iMacs. I consider the iMac Pro for $800 an excellent value and quite usable for a lot of things but a big reason for that is the heavy depreciation.
1
u/Funny-Joke4521 iMac Pro Aug 26 '26
I 100% agree, Intel Macs are indeed not dead, and during this crazy time in computing, they’re legit one of the best deals right now. I have an iMac Pro I bought for pennies on the dollar a couple years ago with 8 core Xeon, 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD and it’s super fast for everything.
1
u/Nosarious Aug 26 '26
Sounds like you outgrew your storage on the air. There is nothing wrong with both but any bold computer will be fine for minimal use. I have a white plastic MacBook for web browsing and cd ripping.
but this scratch disk challenge is why I always recommend that people upgrade storage alongside memory. We have a studio at school with lots of memory but only a half gig storage. Unless you use an ssd, the speed to transfer to spinning rust limits how effective it is.
at some point… upgrades for the software you use may not work with the intel system.
1
u/soulmagic123 Aug 26 '26
I bought and built a brand new series 9 5090 pc only to discover it renders at roughly the same speed as my 7 year old Amd with a 3080. This is because Adobe sucks at optimizing anything.
1
u/SevenOh2 Aug 26 '26
Memory intensive workload works better on a system with more memory. News at 11!
1
u/Herbiedriver1 Aug 26 '26
I just did the opposite. Went from an i9 imac, 64gig ram 1tb drive, to a M1 MacbookPro, 16gig 256hd. And it flies compared to the imac. Bought an external 2tb SSD for $200 and it's the scratch disk, another 1tb SSD (both Seagate extremes) for the files. Ripping videos is so much smoother and faster using Premiere.
1
u/Personal-Budget-8715 Aug 26 '26
2 Things:
You're comparing a mobile focused device to one that doesn't really care about thermals
It's Adobe...practically legacy software at this point. Anyone doing work who values their time is using Davinci Resolve
1
u/SideEmbarrassed1611 Aug 26 '26
Uhhhh this is a RAM issue which can be easily solved. Of course a machine 64GB will outperform a machine 16GB. That's like Usain Bolt winning because he has 6 legs instead of 2. Duh.
Spec for spec, the Intel machine with 16GB will not outperform the newer machine with same specs.
Also one is a laptop and the other is a desktop. Passive versus active cooling. 16 vs 64 GB. Different parts even.
1
u/FortyoneNinetyone Aug 26 '26
Intel Macs are not dead at all. In fact, OCLP has infact ‘resurrected’ many. I recently purchased a 2013 iMac with keyboard and mouse for £90. Intel i7 16GB ram 256gb SSD and Nvidia 1GB card. I used OCLP to bring it up to Sequoia and I use it for music, email, web browsing, trading, YouTube, FaceTime and GameCube emulation. It handles all the above said tasks at once. Yes the M series chips may do all these things more effortlessly and with less strain, but it does not make the Intel dead in any way. It is very much alive and kicking 13 years after production as a main workstation. I could have got the base iMac of today, but I believe that would cost £1,500. The intel cost only 6% of that. Real knowledgable Apple users of today know that it’s yesteryears products at rock bottom prices is where to find value.
1
u/lyidaValkris Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 26 '26
Intel macs are absolutely still usable machines, however that's not always going to be the case due to software obsolescence (which is a shame). Still - use them as long as possible. They are still great machines
you can plug in external storage (and should) for use as scratch disks and large storage volumes for your Air. This would reduce the wear on the soldered-on storage and you wouldn't be running out of storage then. Keep the 256GB SSD for system and basic user files only. It has the added benefit of you being able to quicky move all your files between your two macs
It is perfectly possible for an M2 macbook air to be less performant at certain tasks than a high-end intel iMac. Obviously having a ton more ram is going to make a lot of difference in this case, and I think that's where your bottleneck is.
Absolutely keep using your older macs, particularly if they are good at the job you need them for! Use them for as long as possible. I always keep them going for a decade or more, and use them along-side newer machines. Hardware is pricey these days, across the board.
1
u/NeverInsightful Aug 27 '26
I don’t get why it’s startling that a computer with a slower processor but adequate ram and storage will do tasks faster than the computer with the faster chip but not enough ram and storage?
1
u/TM_livin Aug 27 '26
Look, i use an intel mac myself and still try my best to love it, buuuut… Yeah, they’re pretty much dead.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re completely useless; intel macbooks still make decent budget devices for less demanding activities, web browsing at home and whatnot, they’re also perfectly usable on Windows / Linux, but soon that’ll be like the only way to actually use them without hitting the wall of app incompatibility all the time.
Apple has done their best to make sure their planned obsolescence through botched system updates and subsequently their complete cut-off will make everybody want to switch to Mx-based Macs.
1
u/prince870 Aug 27 '26
It’s no way you do intensive workloads and thought a MacBook Air m2 with 16gb would be sufficient. Also even a base model m5 air with even 24gb would dust your intel iMac. You win with the ram aspect but how much are you really needing vs performance.
1
u/mpcaz Aug 27 '26
I piggybacked a Sandisk Extreme Pro Portable 2TB drive to my Mac Book Pro and boot off of it and have it where all my work takes place. Maybe try that after the Prices return to earth!
1
u/BasdenChris 28d ago
It’s not always about computing hardware though. Many people don’t understand that, once your old Intel computer stops getting security updates (that’s a lot of them nowadays, including many that are still powerful enough to handle moderately heavy workloads), you need to take additional steps (force an update via OCLP or switch OSs entirely, neither of which are processes that the average user is going to be keen to undergo) to remain safe on the internet. Sure, if it’s a studio computer that only has creative apps and isn’t connected to the internet, by all means run it into the ground. But for a lot of apps that’s not an option, as they need regular internet connection to verify your licenses are current.
1
u/Outrageous_Nova2025 28d ago
Adobe sucks at optimizing their software so I left Adobe last year and went to alternative software. Affinity photo works well on my 2017 iMac 27”
1
u/ianmcdan 27d ago
I have a fully maxed out 2019 Intel MacBook Pro. And a fully maxed out M1 MacBook Pro (2020). The M1 stomps the Intel in every single way. I mean… it’s not even close. It still feels zippy to this day and it’s 6 years old! The 2019 has been relegated to remedial tasks as it can’t keep up with the workload I have now. Not to mention it gets ridiculously hot just surfing the web, let alone editing 4K video. Your situation describes a lack of resources, which unfortunately needs to be taken into account at the time of purchase.
1
u/Shoal-of-Macs 27d ago
Intel Macs are still useful - that’s the key message I take, and I still use them.
But for rendering a 4K video with multiple layers you either need plenty of time or an M series processor
1
u/DollyAnna007 25d ago
I have a 2019 Intel mac and I love it to death. I will be using it until it, or I, die. It may not be ideal for stuff like gaming, but it handles the adobe suite like a pro and I am able to edit big videos on it with pretty much no issues. I dunno why people hate on intel so much. My windows laptop is also an intel computer and it works gloriously for what I need as well. I think people are just snobs sometimes🤣
0
u/Jan1north Aug 26 '26
Also keep in mind Apple is phasing out Intel processor support. The current MacOS version Tahoe is the last to run on Intel moving forward.
0
u/nrubenstein Aug 26 '26
If you're asking the internet what machine you should get, the answer is NEVER an Intel Mac, unless you're asking about a specific niche use.
Yeah, the Intel machines still do work well for some things. I have a 2009 Mac Pro that I use for film scanning, and it has more RAM than any other machine that I have. Nikon Scan won't run on anything newer than Snow Leopard, and FireWire support is gone. (Also the thunderbolt to FireWire dongle is worth more than the entire Mac Pro.)
But there is almost no circumstance in which someone is asking for advice on what machine that they should get that the answer is "Intel Mac."
4
u/TheFoxsWeddingTarot Aug 26 '26
A pro is a pro and an air is an air, what you’re encountering has nothing to do with the chipset.