Apple iMac 27-inch (2020) review: new webcam, new screen option, same iMac

Apple’s new 2020 version of the 27-inch iMac looks like it’s right now for eight years. The updates are all on the inside, and added improvements that bring it to the specifications you would expect in a 2020 computer, with 10th Gen Intel processors and SSDs standard instead of spinning disk drives. It starts at $ 1,799 for the base Core i5 model, but you can of course price it much higher. One very expensive option is a $ 500 nano-texture finish on the glass, which Apple says is a big improvement over traditional matte displays. (For $ 500, it would have been better.)

But there is one spec-bull that is wildly out of character for Apple, even in this pandemic year: the quality of the webcam has definitely improved. If you enjoy a lot of video conferencing, the new 1080p webcam will probably be the thing that improves you the most day by day. I hate to tell you this, but you really look more professional to your colleagues when your camera is just a little sharper.

After using a device for a little over a week, it is easy to recommend for anyone who currently needs a new desktop Mac. It is fast, capable, and reliable. It’s just your basic iMac, and apart from a tired design there’s not much wrong with it.

But if you do not currently need a new desktop Mac, you may want to consider waiting. This iMac is perhaps the last Mac ever made with an Intel processor instead of Apple’s own silicon in it. Apple has publicly said that its transition to its own chips will take about two years, which is a pretty good estimate for when the next iMac update may come. That does not mean that getting an Intel-based Mac is a mistake – it will take many years and be supported – but it does mean that you have more options if you do not have to spend the money now.

The iMac’s enhanced webcam

Let’s start with that webcam. I do not think it’s worth upgrading to a new iMac to just get it, but I’m glad Apple made it better. I also do not know I would say it’s the best I’ve used, but it’s not vaguely shy like most of Apple’s other webcams.

Let’s just give you the goods. Here’s the difference, taken from a still frame from the QuickTime recorder. I happen to have a 2017 iMac for work, so it’s a direct comparison:

The webcam is not just better because it has more pixels; it’s better too, because Apple is finally applying some modern image processing to the video stream. The iMac has a T2 chip, which is used to control many of the components in the Mac. Apple uses it to process certain elements of the image of this webcam. It is capable of doing tone mapping, exposure control and face detection.

The face detection is for priority to keep your face well lit with accurate skin tones. I can move my face in the frame and see that it adjusts the exposure in real time, ensuring that my face is never too dark or blown out. It feels very much like what the iPhone does with faces. (Apple says it does not make a face smooth, if you ask yourself.)

It works really well, and fortunately it does not only work in Apple’s own apps. Since these fixes come via the T2 chip, the improved performance is just the webcam video stream that every video conferencing app gets.

One thing that does not feel modern at all with the 2020 iMac is signing up. Unless you have an Apple Watch and use it to unlock your computer, the only way to get in is to type in your password like an animal. Apple’s T2 chip checks login ID fingerprint login on Mac laptops, but Apple has chosen not to add a fingerprint sensor to the keyboard as a Face ID array in this iMac.

It’s annoying, but it’s also a feature of Apple’s decision to change nothing about the design of this iMac. It has the same Thano box, the same screen, and the same ports as before.

However, there are some upgrades in those areas. The screen is identical, but that T2 chip I am holding means you can enable True Tone to adjust it to the color balance in your room.

Performance on the 27-inch iMac

It’s fast! It should be, because the model I am testing is the Core i9 model with 32GB of RAM and a Radeon Pro 5700 XT graphics card. With the option of the screen for nano-texture and a 1TB SSD, the machine that Apple provided for review would be for about $ 4500 retail. It’s 30 percent faster with one of our standard 4K Adobe Premiere Pro exports than my 2017 Core i7 iMac with a Radeon Pro 580.

But really, the performance on an iMac should not be an X factor. How these machines work – even under heavy thermal loads – is quite a known quantity. The good news is that the new 10th Gen Intel chips so far are good in this very well known chassis.

If you do not specify your iMac to this high-sky like this, then probably the biggest performance difference you might notice is read and write speeds. That’s because Apple is definitely offering SSDs as the default option instead of Fusion Drives. If you need more storage and do not want to pay for the SSD upgrade, you can switch to Fusion Drives on some models at no extra cost. As someone who uses a Fusion Drive every day, my advice is to get the SSD and avoid the weird breaks that a spinning hard drive sometimes causes.

You can spend $ 100 and upgrade to a 10 Gigabit Ethernet port, but otherwise the IO is all the same as before. There are two Thunderbolt ports, four USB-A ports, an SD card slot, and a headphone jack.

The matte option of the iMac’s matte nano-texture

The other big upgrade is that option for nano-texture. It’s great, but I have some reservations. But first, here’s a photo that shows it’s doing its job, reducing the glare:

My first two major reservations are unfortunately the kinds of things that can’t be solved with just two days of testing. One is the price: at $ 500 it’s a super expensive upgrade, and only your tolerance for shine can tell you if it’s worth the price. Another thing that might help you decide if it is worthwhile is if the finish is durable. That’s my second reservation: I just do not know.

To explain why I need to explain what this finish of nano-texture itself is. Instead of simply placing a matte coating on top of the glass, Apple literally etches the glass on a nanometer scale. That process gives the nano-texture a leg up on traditional matte screens, because images do not look fuzzified. On matte screens, the light from the pixels is scattered out. Apple’s finish, the company claims, is mainly diffused by the light coming from outside and the light is not so diffused from the pixels.

It is a very fancy, very expensive solution to the problem. It’s very Apple. Also very Apple: the instructions that come with it, which indicate that you only need to clean the included microfiber cloth and doing so may damage the finish. Yikes.

A delicate screen on a $ 5,000 Pro Display XDR used in professional settings by professional adults who know one thing they have. A delicate screen on the iMac in the family room where children will be covered with dirt, because they rightly assume that all screens should be touchscreens, is something completely different.

I asked Apple about the durability of the finish. I was told that they do not want to give anyone the impression that it is fragile, but that, yes: over time, using something too abrasive can erase that finish. Unlike other screens, there is really no coating on top of the nano-finish; it’s just etched, bare glass.

I doubt anyone other than Apple has a critical mass of user data on how the texture is run on the XDR that can inform you if it’s a responsible thing to charge on an iMac family.

That, again, I can not tell you if it is a good option. But I can tell you that it works great. It completely eliminates glare to the point where I could first position my computer with a window behind me in my living room. It also does not affect the sharpness of images or text on the screen – but if you really move closer, you can see a bit of fuzziness.

This kind of thing is almost impossible to photograph. (I have tried.) You will just have to trust me that it is immediately incompatible and does not need to be in a corner at all.

There are really no surprises with the 27-inch iMac in 2020. It looks and works like a very fast iMac, which is exactly what it is. The standard SSDs seem to be the day for the best quality of life enhancement for me, but for my colleagues who need to see me on the other end of video calls, it’s probably that new webcam.

But as I mentioned above, there is one more variable in the decision process of buying this iMac. At some point in the next two years, it will be replaced by another model that uses Apple’s own ARM processors instead of Intel’s. Most likely, that iMac will finally get a refresh that goes away with the hooking of the can and the inability to log in biometrically. But whether ARM Macs are a good buy is not to be said today – as well as to guess if you should wait for them.

Apple has given every indication that it will support Intel-based Macs for a long time, and I have every hope that the programs and apps you need will also remain compatible with Intel-based Macs for a long time to come.

What I said is: if you need a 27-inch iMac, this is a good iMac, and you should buy it. I’m sorry the process will take 45 minutes of the nano-texture option and clear the nano-texture while you make up your mind.

Update, August 14, 1:50 PM ET: This story was originally published with early impressions on August 6, 2020. It has been updated with more impressions, tests and conclusions than a full review.

Photography by Dieter Bohn / The Verge