24" Early 2008 iMac Upgrades

[At_Op45]

Hi there. I was hoping to get some recommendations on which parts to buy in order to upgrade my iMac. I understand that I should probably sell and replace my current desktop but I would like to humor the idea of upgrading it as much as I can within a fair budget of course.

Ultimately, I would like to run High Sierra and bootcamp Windows 10 on my device. Apparently one can do this after meeting the base hardware and system requirements for each respective OS. Also, I already have a Windows 7 install disk so, the update to 10 shouldn’t be difficult.

As of now, I mostly just use my iMac for school and personal work, as well as some media consumption, like YouTube and Netflix. After taking into consideration the suggestions of this forum, I would like to breath new air into my system by making it overall faster and adding the option of light gaming to it.


Early 2008 24" iMac - Specs:

· OS X El Capitan (10.11.6)

· Processor: 3.06 GHz Intel "Core 2 Duo"

· Memory: 2GB (800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM, PC2-6400)

· Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS 512 MB

· Storage: 3.5" 500GB HDD



Potential Upgrades:

· Samsung 850 EVO 500GB 2.5-Inch SATA III Internal SSD

· 6GB Kit (2GB x 4GB) RAM


I know that because of its age, I am going to be limited in the number of changes I can make to the system but, based on other forums, apparently one can upgrade the CPU, and even add an external GPU, in addition to the RAM and storage. Please comment below if you have any other part suggestions or insights. Thank you.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

It’s ten years old nothing you can add to it will be worth the cost of the parts and time and effort performing the upgrades and the fact that it won’t make your machine much better than it already is makes it doubly pointless. Fast booting and app opening and the ability to run multiple apps mean nothing when your core two duo processor and ancient graphics just aren’t up to the job of modern computing.

Any money you spend would be far better spent towards a new computer even a 5 year old imac, from 2012, would be a far better investment of your money.

 

[EugW]

SSD plus RAM would be a great upgrade to that iMac8,1. The CPU speed is not a problem with a 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo.

With an OS patch, you can also run Sierra or High Sierra on it.

Check my sig. I run High Sierra on a 2008 MacBook5,1 2.0 GHz and a 2009 MacBookPro5,5 2.26 GHz and they work fine for your type of usage. Mine have 8 GB, but 6 GB would be sufficient.

 

[MCAsan]

Time to move on to a newer machine. Look for a newer refurbished unit from Apple.

 

[EugW]

For another machine you won’t be able to get anything decent for the cost of RAM plus SSD. Total cost of upgrade for his existing machine is less than US$300 for 6 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD.

 

[Zeke D]

So many people are willing to just toss your old unit in the land fill. So wasteful IMHO.

The issue I see with replacing it is that since there are no newer 24" iMac, you'll need to switch to a 21.5", or a 27". You can get a refurbished 21.5" 2011 i3 iMac for about $300, or a refurbished 27" 2011 i5 iMac for $600. Of course, you'll likely want to upgrade the RAM and HDD anyway, so why not get those first, and get more life out of your 2008?

The Samsung EVO is nice. Remember that if you do get more ram for your 2008, since it takes DDR2 sodimms, you'll need to get new ram if you upgrade to a 2010 or 2011.

Be sure to add in the cost of an SSD bracket (less than $20), and either a thermal sensor (about $5 on eBay) or a SATA harness ($40 from OWC). Either way, you'll need to repurchase the RAM and thermal sensor if/when you upgrade.

OS X up to El Crappy will run okay on your current machine with an SSD & more RAM, but Windows 10 and Sierra/High Sierra really need a Core "i" series, and more video ram than your 2008 to run smoothly.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP:
You haven't told us what your financial situation is.

Of course, at 9 years old, there can be little comparison between the iMac you have, and either a new or perhaps 2015 (Apple refurbished).

On a very limited budget, I'd put a modest-capacity SSD (250 or 500gb) into it, and bump up the RAM to at least 4gb.

If you can spend more, take a look at this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/202117459305?siteId=0&AdChoicePreference=true&rmvSB=true
(I have no financial interest, just saw it a few days' back and archived it)

This could carry you 6-7 more years "down the line", easily.

 

[EugW]

OS X up to El Crappy will run okay on your current machine with an SSD & more RAM, but Windows 10 and Sierra/High Sierra really need a Core "i" series, and more video ram than your 2008 to run smoothly.

No they don't.

Sierra/High Sierra runs just fine on Core 2 Duo. I should know, since I run High Sierra on a 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo. And Windows 10 runs just fine on my Windows 10 Athlon II X3 435, which is roughly equivalent to a sub-3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo on average.

The 512 MB RAM of the GPU is also fine. I run High Sierra with a 256 GB GPU. Yeah, the screen is smaller, but then again it's only half the VRAM that iMac has. Also, Windows 10 will also run just fine with 512 MB VRAM.

However, the one question I have is whether or not the 8800GS supports hardware h.264 decode acceleration. If not, that means YouTube and Netflix decode is purely in software. Software playback of 1080p h.264 can be problematic even on a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo. However, with a 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo it should be less of a problem, but it will mean the machine will ramp up the fan to cool the CPU which can lead to significant fan noise. OTOH, if it does support hardware h.264 decode acceleration, then life is good.

At_Op45, what is your experience now when you play back YouTube at 1080p? Is the CPU usage in Activity Monitor low (which means the GPU supports hardware h.264 decode), or is the CPU usage high with significant fan noise (which means the GPU does not support hardware h.264 decode)? I think Netflix is limited to 720p anyway on that machine, so it's less of an issue for Netflix.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

No they don't.

Sierra/High Sierra runs just fine on Core 2 Duo. I should know, since I run High Sierra on a 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo. And Windows 10 runs just fine on my Windows 10 Athlon II X3 435, which is roughly equivalent to a sub-3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo on average.

The 512 MB RAM of the GPU is also fine. I run High Sierra with a 256 GB GPU. Yeah, the screen is smaller, but then again it's only half the VRAM that iMac has. Also, Windows 10 will also run just fine with 512 MB VRAM.

However, the one question I have is whether or not the 8800GS supports hardware h.264 decode acceleration. If not, that means YouTube and Netflix decode is purely in software. Software playback of 1080p h.264 can be problematic even on a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo. However, with a 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo it should be less of a problem, but it will mean the machine will ramp up the fan to cool the CPU which can lead to significant fan noise. OTOH, if it does support hardware h.264 decode acceleration, then life is good.

At_Op45, what is your experience now when you play back YouTube at 1080p? Is the CPU usage in Activity Monitor low (which means the GPU supports hardware h.264 decode), or is the CPU usage high with significant fan noise (which means the GPU does not support hardware h.264 decode)? I think Netflix is limited to 720p anyway on that machine, so it's less of an issue for Netflix.

We get your point but its usb 2, outdated wifi and Bluetooth, its got firewire, the screen will be dimming as that's just an LCD screen they start going at this age, the power supply will be on its last legs. Not to mention not so good on HD content no ability with 4K, it will even be struggling to run some websites now. People seem to think that there is a suggestion of new things to be wasteful, its not, putting new tech in this old computer is wasteful, it's using time, money, effort and resources for something that just isn't up to scratch against almost anything you can buy today right down to cheap 3-400 dollar desktops.

 

[EugW]

We get your point but its usb 2, outdated wifi and Bluetooth, its got firewire, the screen will be dimming as that's just an LCD screen they start going at this age, the power supply will be on its last legs. Not to mention not so good on HD content no ability with 4K, it will even be struggling to run some websites now. People seem to think that there is a suggestion of new things to be wasteful, its not, putting new tech in this old computer is wasteful, it's using time, money, effort and resources for something that just isn't up to scratch against almost anything you can buy today right down to cheap 3-400 dollar desktops.

Screen dimming isn't a significant issue in my experience. Yes, an LCD can die, but Mac LCD dimming isn't a big problem. My 2009 iMac works just fine, and I generally run at the 4th or 5th level setting out of 10, since 10 is way, way, way too bright. In fact, I use it as a second monitor for my 2017. (I may give it to kids later if they want it, but I suspect they'll prefer laptops.)

WiFi 802.11n is fine for most, and if you use Gigabit Ethernet it's moot. (It's a desktop afterall.)

I haven't had any major issues with Mac power supplies. If anything GPU problems have been a bigger issue, although IIRC not with this particular model.

USB 2 is definitely an issue though for some people. For others, not so much.

As for HD content, depends if it does h.264 decode acceleration or not. I'm not sure either way actually, which is why I asked the OP.

And if you're going to bring up 4K, basically in 2017 it would be foolish to buy anything less than a 2017 model. Only the 2017 has full support for both hardware 4K 10-bit HEVC decode and hardware encode. It also has hardware support for 4K DRM. This DRM is something Apple hasn't implemented yet in Macs, but if it ever does (as in iTunes 4K and Netflix 4K) you can be pretty sure it will only ever be supported in the 2017 Macs or later, and I predict it will come to Macs in 2018 with macOS 10.14. IOW, if you're suggesting 4K is a necessary feature to get, you're basically telling him he needs to buy a 2017 Mac, or maybe even a 2018.

Putting time and a bit of money into this machine is clearly what the OP is considering and I support his idea, at least if he's brave enough to crack the case.

I currently have 5 High Sierra Macs, including two 2017 Macs and three Macs from 2008-2009, and honestly I think machines of this era are fine for the OP's stated usage. My 2008 and 2009 laptops will be given to my kids when they are old enough. I think they still have a good several years of useful life in them, and they just have 2.0 and 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo CPUs.

OTOH, if he had told us he was running say an iMac6,1, I would tell him to get a new machine. There is a HUGE difference between iMac6,1 and iMac8,1 in real-world functionality. The main limitation is the OS. I just retired a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook, because it can't run anything beyond 10.7.5, which is a major impediment.

If in the end he were to decide to get a new machine, I would actually suggest considering waiting until summer 2018. There are some pretty big changes coming. The main reason I didn't wait was because I was forced for business reasons to buy in 2017.

 

[Woodstockie]

Typing this on my 2008 24" iMac. Upgraded couple years back with an SSD and extra drive in the CD/DVD, ran already 6GB RAM for some time. I agree with Zeke that it is wasteful to toss your current iMac out. Although, not sure if it is worth the money upgrading at this point, but is sure a fun project to replace the parts if you are into that. You definitely have a better graphics card than I do, I cannot upgrade to High Sierra. There are always arguments for buying a replacement, but I still enjoy this machine and plan to keep it until it breaks.

 

[At_Op45]

At_Op45, what is your experience now when you play back YouTube at 1080p? Is the CPU usage in Activity Monitor low (which means the GPU supports hardware h.264 decode), or is the CPU usage high with significant fan noise (which means the GPU does not support hardware h.264 decode)? I think Netflix is limited to 720p anyway on that machine, so it's less of an issue for Netflix.

I don't hear the fans but it does load very slowly.

 

[EugW]

I don't hear the fans but I does load very slowly.

Load up YouTube 1080p in Safari and check the overall CPU usage in Activity Monitor.

 

[EugW]

I did a little research into this. All of the lower to mid-end 2008 iMac models use Radeon HD 2xxx GPUs which reportedly do support hardware h.264 decode. The 3.06 GHz model is the top end model and is the only one with the 8800GS. However, I know that this model does have the hardware to support h.264 decode, and I would presume that Apple would implement it with this GPU as well since it is the top end model, with all the other lower end models supporting it.

tl;dr:

I'm pretty sure that At_Op45's 2008 iMac 3.06 GHz with nVidia GeForce 8800GS fully supports hardware 1080p h.264 decode.

It would be nice if the OP would confirm this though. It's a simple test. Load up Activity Monitor and then load up Safari with 1080p YouTube and look at the CPU usage. It should be low, as in less than 20%.

 

[robertosh]

I did a little research into this. All of the lower to mid-end 2008 iMac models use Radeon HD 2xxx GPUs which reportedly do support hardware h.264 decode. The 3.06 GHz model is the top end model and is the only one with the 8800GS. However, I know that this model does have the hardware to support h.264 decode, and I would presume that Apple would implement it with this GPU as well since it is the top end model, with all the other lower end models supporting it.

tl;dr:

I'm pretty sure that At_Op45's 2008 iMac 3.06 GHz with nVidia GeForce 8800GS fully supports hardware 1080p h.264 decode.

It would be nice if the OP would confirm this though. It's a simple test. Load up Activity Monitor and then load up Safari with 1080p YouTube and look at the CPU usage. It should be low, as in less than 20%.

I did the test on mine (8800gs, 6gb RAM) and i see different results depending of the video, I suppose that is due to the code they use. I run a 1080p video and usage wen to 50% and after that a run another 1080p 60fps video and the cpu usage was 18.8 youtube and 9.9 a process called VTDecoderXPCService. Even a 60fps video runs very well !. I'm really impressed about this machine even today (almost 9 years!)

I'm still running on the original noisy 1tb hard drive but i want to go for an SSD. My question is, a Samsung PRO will perform better than an EVO, even in a sata2 port?. It will be the final upgrade so I will try to get as much as possible from the ssd. (If the machine dies I always have the possibility to reuse the ssd)

Thanks!

 

[EugW]

For a machine that old I wouldn’t bother with an 850 Pro. Its main advantage over the 850 EVO is longevity, with a longer warranty. It’s likely that an ancient iMac will die before the 850 EVO would under regular usage.

There aren’t that many performance differences between the two models, but the SATA II interface will limit peak performance anyway. The main thing is you want is very low seek latency, and both models have that in spades. Both models will be a night-vs-day improvement in performance over a hard drive. Ironically, in some performance tests, the EVO actually outperforms the Pro.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9451/the-2tb-samsung-850-pro-evo-ssd-review/5

 

[robertosh]

For a machine that old I wouldn’t bother with an 850 Pro. Its main advantage over the 850 EVO is longevity, with a longer warranty. It’s likely that an ancient iMac will die before the 850 EVO would under regular usage.

There aren’t that many performance differences between the two models, but the SATA II interface will limit peak performance anyway. The main thing is you want is very low seek latency, and both models have that in spaces. Both models will be a night-vs-day improvement in performance over a hard drive. Ironically, in some performance tests, the EVO actually outperforms the Pro.

View attachment 743670

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9451/the-2tb-samsung-850-pro-evo-ssd-review/5

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I will go for the EVO. And what about two 250 ssd in raid 0? Maybe is not that crazy, the price of 2 250 evo is only 20€ more than the 500gb. Of course i need to pull out the superdrive but i think that is not a big deal. Any experiences of someone doing this?

 

[EugW]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I will go for the EVO. And what about two 250 ssd in raid 0? Maybe is not that crazy, the price of 2 250 evo is only 20€ more than the 500gb. Of course i need to pull out the superdrive but i think that is not a big deal. Any experiences of someone doing this?

Forget all the stuff from the HD days. For a personal laptop, RAIDed SSDs are completely pointless. RAID 0 is never recommended for data integrity anyway.

If you need 250 GB, just get one 250 GB drive and be done with it.