Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.

theMarble

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 27, 2020
1,019
1,496
Earth, Sol System, Alpha Quadrant
Welcome to the guide on buying Early Intel Macs!

I've noticed a lot of people ask questions about which Early Intel Mac they should get. Hopefully this helps clear up some confusion.

Why should I consider an Early Intel Mac?
Early Intel Macs can be a way to get a good Apple computer on a tight budget, if you want to use older software or if you like tinkering with older Macs but you don't want to go into the PPC and 68K era yet.

What qualifies as an Early Intel Mac?
The first Intel Macs went on sale with Core Duo and Core Solo CPUs starting in January 2006 (as well as Xeon X-series for Mac Pros).

For this guide, Early Intels covers any Mac equipped with a Core Solo, Core Duo, or Core 2 Duo CPU. For the latter, a couple of models were sold by Apple as late as early 2012.

In addition, early Mac Pros (2006-12) and the original Core-i-series iMacs from Late 2009 may also be considered as Early Intel Macs.

MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro
The original MacBooks and MacBook Pros can be a cheap way to start off in Early Intel Macs. We generally recommend a late 2006 or later MacBook(Pro) as the original "1,1" or early 2006 version uses the older 32-bit Core Duo and Core Solo CPUs (which are incompatible with versions of OS X newer than 10.6 Snow Leopard, released on August 28, 2009.

The MacBook came in white or black variants (up to the 4,1 model), however black 'collectors edition' units can be more expensive. Some people have taken a later-model white MacBook and a dead black MacBook to make a black-MacBook that can run El Capitan and later; however this process is difficult. There are also pre-unibody and unibody versions of the MacBook. The pre-unibody's are cheaper but older. The MacBook5,2 is a bit of a secret tip - it shares the pre-unibody design of its predecessors but has NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics which are significantly more powerful than the earlier Intel graphics and also allow the installation of versions of OS X newer than 10.7 Lion.
The Late 2008 unibody MacBook (5,1 model) has a much nicer case than its predecessors and a LED-backlit screen, however it drops the FireWire port, which can be a glaring omission if you're used to having FireWire on Macs.

In a similar fashion, the MacBook Pro came in 15-inch and 17-inch versions, there is not much of a price difference however the 17-inch is obviously slightly bigger and heavier. I would recommend a 15-inch Late 2006 MacBook Pro if you're on a tiny budget or a 2007/2008 model if you can spend more.
Note that the 2007 and 2008 models have defective/failing graphics chips but some will have working graphics. It will usually be said by the seller. A reliably way of determining whether a MacBook Pro has had its logic board replaced by Apple is a "green dot" sticker on the RAM slots. This means the machine in question has a later revision of the graphics chip which is known to be reliable.
17" Late 2008 models built after October 2008 have the later revision GPU's out of the box; these work fine.
The 2009 and 2010 13" MacBook Pro also shipped with Core 2 Duo CPUs, these are very solid machines and have significantly better screens than the plastic MacBook and the "unibody" Late 2008 MacBook. The 2010 model in particular can hold 16 GB RAM and features Nvidia GeForce 320M graphics which were very fast for an integrated solution in their day.

The MacBook Air came out in 2008 and had two "Early Intel" revisions in late 2008 and 2009. These are expensive as they are collectors items and have painfully slow processors and 1.8" hard drives so I would not recommend these.
The Late 2010 MacBook Air introduced an 11" model and decent SSDs throughout the line-up, however the 11" model also suffers from painfully slow 1.4 or 1.6 GHz processors. The 13" model has faster processors (1.86 or 2.13 GHz) than the 11" and upgrades the screen resolution to 1440×900 (all 13" MacBooks and even the 13" MacBook Pro are stuck with 1280×800).

Mac mini and the iMac
The Mac mini and iMac are good budget options if you are looking for a desktop computer.
The Mac mini is a small desktop and had versions in 2006, 2007 and 2009. The 2006 have again the older 32-bit "Core Duo" processors. These can be upgraded however you will have to upgrade the 'firmware' to the 2007 model to support newer chips. Chips supported are the ones used in the 2007 model however it is a hard procedure for the end user. I would find a 2009 Mac Mini as these can support the latest versions of macOS and are fast enough to use a daily machine. They also add support for using two monitors at once, which is a big boost to productivity.

The iMac came in 17-inch, 20-inch and 24-inch versions in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The early 2006 has the Core Duo so these don't run newer versions of OS X. Plastic versions are from 2006 and the metal versions in 2007 and 2008. 2007 and 2008's support newer versions of OS X and can be patched to run newer versions but I will cover OS's soon. I recommend a 24-inch 2008 model as a good option as they are good machines for the price and have better screens than the white 17" or aluminum 20" models. Note that the 17" white and 20" aluminium have inferior TN screens with bad viewing angles, meaning worse image quality. You can also get the original Core-i (i5, i7) iMac's which were faster and had better screens (21.5" 1080p and 27" 1440p). These were made in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Note that the 2011 iMac's used Radeon HD 6000 series video cards that fail often.

Mac Pro
The Mac Pro is Apple's high-end Xeon based tower workstation. These are larger than iMac's but more powerful. They come with Intel Xeon processors, ECC memory and high performance graphics card upgrades. Some models can be flashed (1,1 and 4,1) to be later models (2,1 and 5,1) which support newer and faster CPU's and later OS's. The 3,1 cannot be flashed.

ModelYearCPUsMaximum RAMLatest official macOS VersionLatest macOS Version
1,120062× Dual Core Xeon (Woodcrest)64 GB (FB-DDR2)OS X Lion (10.7.5)OS X El Capitan (10.11.6) - 2,1 Firmware Patch
&
Pikify script
2,120072× Quad Core Xeon (Clovertown)64 GB (FB-DDR2)OS X Lion (10.7.5)OS X El Capitan (10.11.6) - Pikify script
3,120081x or 2× Quad Core Xeon (Harpertown)64 GB (FB-DDR2)OS X El Capitan (10.11.6)macOS Catalina (10.15.7) - dosdude1 Patcher
or
macOS Ventura (13.4.1)4 - OpenCore
4,120091× or 2× Quad Core Xeon (Bloomfield & Gainestown)64 GB or 160 GB2
(DDR3 ECC)
OS X El Capitan (10.11.6)macOS Catalina (10.15.7) - dosdude1 Patcher
or
macOS Ventura (13.4.1)4 - OpenCore
5,12010~20121× or 2× Six Core Xeon (Gulftown & Westmere)64 or 160 GB2
(DDR3 ECC)
macOS Mojave (10.14.6)
with a Metal-capable graphics card3
macOS Catalina (10.15.7) - dosdude1 Patcher
or
macOS Ventura (13.4.1)4 - OpenCore

The 1,1 or 2,1 can use Xeon 51x0 CPUs or Xeon X53x5 CPUs, the former being dual cores, the latter being quad cores. Note that you need a 2,1 or flashed 1,1 to use the X53x5s. The 5,1 uses Gulftown and Westmere series chips which are much faster than previous-gen chips in certain tasks. They can also use more and faster RAM (128 GB DDR3 vs. 32 or 64 GB DDR2 FB).

These are covered much more in the Mac Pro forum and on "The Definitive Upgrade Guide to the Classic Mac Pro".

Xserve
The Xserve was Apple's 1U rack mount system. They use similar if not the same hardware as the classic Mac Pro.

ModelYearCPUsMaximum RAMLatest official macOS VersionLatest macOS Version
1,120062× Dual Core Xeon (Woodcrest)64 GB (FB-DDR2)OS X Lion (10.7.5)OS X El Capitan (10.11.6) - 2,1 Firmware Patch
&
Pikify script
2,120081x or 2× Quad Core Xeon (Harpertown)64 GB (FB-DDR2)OS X El Capitan (10.11.6)macOS Catalina (10.15.7) - dosdude1 Patcher
or
macOS Ventura (13.4.1)4 - OpenCore
3,120091x or 2× Quad Core Xeon (Gainestown)96 GB (FB-DDR2)OS X El Capitan (10.11.6)macOS Catalina (10.15.7) - dosdude1 Patcher
or
macOS Ventura (13.4.1)4 - OpenCore

It is not clear on whether the Xserve3,1 supports running MacPro5,1 firmware, which would let it run Westmere chips and support presumably more than 128GB of RAM. The Xserve3,1 uses a GPU with an MXM slot by default, meaning that you will either need to use a MXM GPU like those used in 2009-2011 iMacs or use a PCIe riser cable and run a normal GPU outside of the chassis.

EFI32 systems
In September 2006, Apple started shipping Macs with the fancy new Core 2 Duo "Merom" chip, which were a 64-bit CPU. However, these systems while having a fully 64-bit compatible CPU, had 32-bit firmware "EFI32". This meant that were not actually "full 64-bit" systems. EFI32 systems support up to 4GB of DDR2 667MHz, however only ~3-3.5GB can be used. 64-bit Windows and Linux can be installed with some tweaking, Lion is the official max supported OS X version, but with the excellent NexPostFacto, Mountain Lion can be installed if you only have the Intel GMA 950 or X3100 chip, and if you have a Radeon X1600 you can run Mavericks.

ModelRevision/YearMaximum OS X version (patched)
MacBookLate 2006; Mid 200710.8.5
MacBook ProLate 200610.9.5
iMacLate 200610.9.5 (X1600) 10.8.5 (7300/7600 GT)
Mac miniMid 200710.8.5
Mac ProLate 2006; Early 200710.11.6 (If using a compatible GPU)

The Mid 2007 iMac, Mid/Late 2007 MacBook Pro and the Late 2007 MacBook all had Merom chips, but they were fully 64-bit, known as they support up to 6GB of RAM, which is past the physical 3.84GB limit for 32-bit systems. The '07 iMac and MacBook Pro can run up to El Capitan (10.11.6) but the Late 2007 MacBook can only run up to Mountain Lion since it has the GMA X3100, which is not supported past Mountain Lion. The Early '08 MacBook Air is the same.

RAM upgrades and Operating Systems for other models:
To sum up operating systems, Mac OS X versions are on a table below (excluding Mac Pro; compatibility given above).
Windows 7 is the best Windows version to use and Linux support varies depending on the model in question.

ModelMaximum RAMOriginal OS XNewest Official OS XNewest Patched OS X
Early 2006 Core Duo (all models)2 GB (DDR2)10.4.4 or later10.6.8(10.7.x)
Late 2006 iMac or MacBook Pro;
Mid-2007 MacBook or Mac mini;
Late 2007/Early 2008 MacBook
4 GB1 (DDR2);
6 GB (DDR2)
- Late 2007/2008 MB
10.4.7 or later;
10.5.2 for Early 2008 MB
10.7.510.9.5
Mid-2007 iMac, MacBook Pro6 GB (DDR2)10.4.9 or later10.11.6--
Early 2008 iMac, MacBook Air,
MacBook Pro
6 GB (DDR2) - iMac; MBP10.5.210.11.6current
Late 2008 unibody;
Early 2009 MacBook;
Early 2009 Mac mini
6 GB (DDR2) - 2009 MB;
8 GB (DDR3) - others
10.5.4 or later10.11.6current
2010 MacBook, MacBook Air,
MacBook Pro, Mac mini
16 GB (DDR3) -
MB; MBP; MM
10.6.3 or later10.13.6current

System discs can be found on sites like eBay and OS X installers for Lion and later versions can be acquired from Apple.

Upgrades:
Mac minis, MacBooks and MacBook Pros can have RAM (see table above) and hard drives upgraded through SODIMMs and 2.5" SATA discs respectively. The iMac's RAM can be upgraded easily but drives are much harder. Mac Mini's CPU (2006/2007), RAM (all) and discs (all) can be upgraded.

1: Late 2006 Mac's support 4GB of RAM and will show up in About this Mac, however only ~3.5GB will be detected and be used by the computer due to 32-bit EFI limitations.

2: 56GB is the maximum supported RAM if you have a single CPU Mac Pro with a W3xx0 CPU, if you have a X5xx0 CPU the limit is 64GB. The limit for any Dual CPU model is 160GB, using 5x 32GB DIMM, however that is not 100%. There are also posts where people have used OpenCore to get 256GB working (8x32GB).

Since all 4,1/5,1 CPUs are triple-channel capable, I'd suggest that for optimal performance you only use a total RAM amount that divides by 6 eg: 24GB, 48GB and 96GB.

3: The original GPU's that shipped with or could be bought alongside the Mac Pro 2009/2010/2012 are not Metal-capable, these include;
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 120
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
- NVIDIA Quadro 4000
- NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
- ATI Radeon HD 4870
- ATI Radeon HD 5770
- ATI Radeon HD 5870

Metal is supported on:
- NVIDIA GeForce 600 series "Kepler" or later
- AMD Radeon 7000 series "GCN 1" or later


4: Ventura support is still new and may contain random bugs and/or glitches. See the OCLP releases page on GitHub for details around Ventura patches for old Macs. Note that with OCLP a Metal-capable video card is not a necessity, however is highly recommended.
 
Last edited:

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,783
12,183
I would recommend a 15-inch Late 2006 MacBook Pro if you're on a tiny budget or a 2007/2008 model if you can spend more. Note that the 2007 and 2008 models have defective/failing graphics chips but some will have working graphics.
The GPU issues are indeed a huge problem with these machines. If the GPU hasn’t been replaced it’s likely to fail sooner or later.

I recommend a 20-inch 2008 model as a good option as they are good machines for the price.
The 20“ aluminium iMacs have inferior TN LCDs with bad viewing angles. Same goes for the white 17“ iMacs.

2007 machines: Shipped with 10.4.10 'Tiger' - Last version is 10.11.6 'El Capitan' - No patchers
This doesn’t apply to the MacBook or Mac mini due to their Intel graphics which are unsupported past 10.7.5.

Other than that, good thread. Thanks a lot for creating it. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: netsrot39

sdwaltz

macrumors 65816
Apr 29, 2015
1,086
1,742
Indiana
The GPU issues are indeed a huge problem with these machines. If the GPU hasn’t been replaced it’s likely to fail sooner or later.


The 20“ aluminium iMacs have inferior TN LCDs with bad viewing angles. Same goes for the white 17“ iMacs.


This doesn’t apply to the MacBook or Mac mini due to their Intel graphics which are unsupported past 10.7.5.

Other than that, good thread. Thanks a lot for creating it. :)

The 17 inch Macbook Pros with a build date of October or later have an updated version of the 8600GT which is far more reliable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1

dukebound85

macrumors Core
Jul 17, 2005
19,160
4,152
5045 feet above sea level
The GPU issues are indeed a huge problem with these machines. If the GPU hasn’t been replaced it’s likely to fail sooner or later.


The 20“ aluminium iMacs have inferior TN LCDs with bad viewing angles. Same goes for the white 17“ iMacs.


This doesn’t apply to the MacBook or Mac mini due to their Intel graphics which are unsupported past 10.7.5.

Other than that, good thread. Thanks a lot for creating it. :)
I have a 2008 15in mbp that I use daily with no gpu issues
 

sdwaltz

macrumors 65816
Apr 29, 2015
1,086
1,742
Indiana
So 17" Late 2008's built after October 2008 have the 603 revision but the earlier Late 2008's have the bad 602?
That's my understanding! I have a late 2008 17" that's still kicking (actually, I bought it a couple months ago) - at some point I plan to open it up to reapply thermal paste and verify this but it's low on the to-do list.

It gets a little warm but honestly, not that bad.
 

rampancy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
741
999
It's also worth adding that for people getting pre-unibody MacBooks (e.g. the A1181), it's important to get/have at least a working battery (even if it is just at "Service Battery" status), as the firmware of these machines automatically downclocks the CPU to 1.0 Ghz in the absence of a working battery, even if its running on AC power.

I think Amethyst1 also mentioned that the same is also true for the A1150, A1211 and A1226 MacBook Pros, though I haven't personally tested this.
 
It's also worth adding that for people getting pre-unibody MacBooks (e.g. the A1181), it's important to get/have at least a working battery (even if it is just at "Service Battery" status), as the firmware of these machines automatically downclocks the CPU to 1.0 Ghz in the absence of a working battery, even if its running on AC power.

I think Amethyst1 also mentioned that the same is also true for the A1150, A1211 and A1226 MacBook Pros, though I haven't personally tested this.

As far as I know, this is the case with most, if not possibly all of the Intel MacBook/Pro/Airs. I haven’t tried to run without battery on retina-era MBPs, so this may or may not apply to them, as well.

When I got my A1261 working a couple of months ago, GeekBench scores without the battery were around 2000 (Everymac reported the model around 3700); after adding a battery, that figure went to just over 4000. Similarly, my A1278 early 2011 13-inch MBP presently is without a battery (the last replacement began to swell), and that is running at a downclocked half-speed.
 
Last edited:

Lost Windows User

macrumors newbie
Jan 9, 2022
4
0
Can my IMac OS X 10.8.5, Processor 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Memmory 4 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM run macOS 11: Big Sur or macOS 12: Monterey ?
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,783
12,183
Can my IMac OS X 10.8.5, Processor 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Memmory 4 GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM run macOS 11: Big Sur or macOS 12: Monterey ?
Officially: no. Depending on whether it's a 2008 or 2009 model, it tops out at OS X v10.11.6 El Capitan or macOS v10.13.6 High Sierra.
Unofficially, with patchers: yes, but YMMV.
 
Last edited:

Adv34

macrumors member
Jan 20, 2022
30
1
I want to buy an imac mid 2009 or 2010, but I can't figure out if the 4670 card is good or bad? On the Internet, I found information that 2011 is all bad and the card burns out. There is no such information for 2010. On the forum everyone writes different things. Someone says that 4670 also burns out very often, and someone advises taking it. I do not know what to do. I need typing, youtube bootcamp I work from home 12-14 hours a day. Which year is better to buy, 2009/2010? Thank you
 

theMarble

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 27, 2020
1,019
1,496
Earth, Sol System, Alpha Quadrant
I want to buy an imac mid 2009 or 2010, but I can't figure out if the 4670 card is good or bad? On the Internet, I found information that 2011 is all bad and the card burns out. There is no such information for 2010. On the forum everyone writes different things. Someone says that 4670 also burns out very often, and someone advises taking it. I do not know what to do. I need typing, youtube bootcamp I work from home 12-14 hours a day. Which year is better to buy, 2009/2010? Thank you
The 4670 is a little slow these days, however it didn't die like every 2011.
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,783
12,183
The 4670 is a little slow these days, however it didn't die like every 2011.
AFAIK every discrete AMD GPU in the 2009…2011 iMacs was/is at risk of failing. Is that not the case? I’m certainly seeing many 2009/2010 27” iMacs with failed GPUs on eBay…
 

Adv34

macrumors member
Jan 20, 2022
30
1
AFAIK every discrete AMD GPU in the 2009…2011 iMacs was/is at risk of failing. Is that not the case? I’m certainly seeing many 2009/2010 27” iMacs with failed GPUs on eBay…
Now I want to buy 21.5 (2009/9400m) mb 950 or 21.5 (2010/4670-256 mb ) ms 509 I heard that the 27" model is very hot, while the 21.5 is smaller and the card lives well. Is it really? I have to work in the office every day and I don't want to buy a dead car with a bad card. Please help me choose the correct model.
 

m1maverick

macrumors 65816
Nov 22, 2020
1,368
1,267
Now I want to buy 21.5 (2009/9400m) mb 950 or 21.5 (2010/4670-256 mb ) ms 509 I heard that the 27" model is very hot, while the 21.5 is smaller and the card lives well. Is it really? I have to work in the office every day and I don't want to buy a dead car with a bad card. Please help me choose the correct model.
Given the uncertainty and lack of concrete information you may want do look for years prior or after. I don't know what your budget is but here's a 2012 21.5" BIN of $200


MODS: Not my auction.
Everyone else: I neither endorse, recommend (or not) this particular model / seller. I am providing it for illustrative purposes to help the poster.
 

Adv34

macrumors member
Jan 20, 2022
30
1
Given the uncertainty and lack of concrete information you may want do look for years prior or after. I don't know what your budget is but here's a 2012 21.5" BIN of $200


MODS: Not my auction.
Everyone else: I neither endorse, recommend (or not) this particular model / seller. I am providing it for illustrative purposes to help the poster.

Given the uncertainty and lack of concrete information you may want do look for years prior or after. I don't know what your budget is but here's a 2012 21.5" BIN of $200


MODS: Not my auction.
Everyone else: I neither endorse, recommend (or not) this particular model / seller. I am providing it for illustrative purposes to help the poster.
I need to type text, browse the web and youtube (720p) Office work 10-12 hours every day. I don't know which model is more reliable card 2009 or 2010
 

m1maverick

macrumors 65816
Nov 22, 2020
1,368
1,267
I need to type text, browse the web and youtube (720p) Office work 10-12 hours every day. I don't know which model is more reliable card 2009 or 2010
The system I referenced can easily meet those requirements (I took note of them from post #14). Given the uncertainty of which GPUs fail in which model years (at least 2009 - 2011) my recommendation would be to look at something outside of those years.
 

Amethyst1

macrumors G3
Oct 28, 2015
9,783
12,183
Given the uncertainty of which GPUs fail in which model years (at least 2009 - 2011) my recommendation would be to look at something outside of those years.
The Late 2013 21.5" iMac was also available without discrete GPUs. The Intel Iris Pro 5200 is pretty decent for an iGPU, so if the budget can be stretched just a little more this model would be my recommendation.

I need to type text, browse the web and youtube (720p) Office work 10-12 hours every day. I don't know which model is more reliable card 2009 or 2010
I would always go for a model without a discrete GPU, so between the 2009 and the 2010, the 2009 with the 9400M would be my choice. I don't know how well it handles "720p" video though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Adv34

Adv34

macrumors member
Jan 20, 2022
30
1
mac mini late 2009 (2.26/256 ssd/4ram) vs imac mid 2009 (3.06/8 ram /256 ssd) Is there a big difference between the models? imac 2009 better? Thank youI work with text, watch web pages, YouTube and movies). Work 10-15 hours a day. Home Office
 

ahurst

macrumors 6502
Oct 12, 2021
410
815
AFAIK every discrete AMD GPU in the 2009…2011 iMacs was/is at risk of failing. Is that not the case? I’m certainly seeing many 2009/2010 27” iMacs with failed GPUs on eBay…
For some systems (well, at least my 24" Early 2009 with the HD4850), it wasn't the GPU that would fail but the heatsink itself. I retired mine in 2013 when the GPU temperatures started hitting 95° C regularly during mild Final Cut work, assuming the GPU had gone bad (that's what Apple told me, anyway). A few years later I was trying to fix it up for my parents to use, and my dad had the idea to use his infrared iPhone camera on it to look at the heat flow. The heatsink looks like this, with a main part over the GPU itself and some pipes to carry the heat to a separate spreader:

s-l640.jpg

Sure enough, the heat wasn't getting to the big spreader at all and staying on the GPU, thanks to a tiny hole that somehow appeared in one of the heat pipes! Not sure if that helps purchase decisions since those heatsinks probably cost as much as a replacement MXM GPU, but I figured it info was worth sharing.
 

Adv34

macrumors member
Jan 20, 2022
30
1
Well, the iMac has a discrete GPU and a 35% higher CPU clock speed. And 4 GB RAM is a bit on the low side these days, but the Mac mini can be upgraded to 8 GB.
我犯了一个错误. Mac mini 2009 (2.26 /4/256) vs imac mid 2009 21.5 (3.06 /8/256:9400m) -imac 21.5 2009 better? faster ? Will I see a difference?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.