ℹ️ Discussion: the Early Intel Macs versus Late Intel Macs conversation lives anew and lives here

[B S Magnet]

[Mods: If you want to move this from Early Intel Macs over to Site & Forum Feedback, post a reply to this thread with, maybe, a few days’ advance notice. Cheers!]


Confession time:

For the last few months, I’ve been dropping in on other, model-specific forums to check whether there are any new posts whose questions belong here on the Early Intel Macs forum. Whenever I find one, I‘ve notified the mods by nominating the thread to be migrated over to our quiet corner of the forest orchard. This is how and why a few pinned posts appeared here from elsewhere.

Thankfully, this process is going fairly smoothly, organic in its purpose. It frees up model-specific forums for the generally Apple-supported models. It also brings questions for earlier Intel Macs over here where we already have an established community of folks who daily-use, modify, fix, and even upgrade models which Apple have left behind.

We’ve also had genial discussions from time to time about what constitutes an “Early Intel Mac” from other, later Intel Macs. That’s what this discussion hopes to continue as time marches and the bulk of Apple-supported Macs (current or “vintage”, including where protected by law for extended periods, like in California and Turkiye) lean more on models whose CPUs begin with an “M”. Now entering its fourth year (dang), the Silicon Macs are also the only Macs Apple offer now (excluding their refurbished models).

Last day, I made a somewhat related post about where the lion’s share of migrated support questions on Early Intel Macs turn up: the iMac forum. This is where the majority of thread migration requests I’ve sent to the mods have come from (even more than from the MBP forum!). By making a now-pinned post there, my hope is this’ll reduce the frequency of maintenance migrations mods will need to handle.

On that pinned post, there’s now a new discussion about what qualifies an “Early Intel Mac” from a “Late Intel Mac”. To save you a click, I’ll paste what I posted there.

---

Apple’s Intel era covers, give or take, roughly 16 years of models (whether counting from the 2005 DTK to the last new Intel Mac introduced June 2020, or roughly 16 to 17 years, if starting from the first Intel Macs sold in 2006 through end of sales for the late 2018 Mac mini [ended in January 2023] or the Intel Mac Pro [this week]). Maybe the most basic way to bifurcate this is “eight years on either side” (2005–2013 and 2014–2022, with 2005 being the Intel DTK, and 2022 being the year most models being offered were Silicon Macs).

But as we all know, that gets muddy once one zooms in to that grey zone in the middle. That’s where the discussion lives.

My own yardstick for determining “early” versus “late” Intel camps — particularly, in that 2012 and 2014 zone — falls along a fairly loose set of criteria having at least four or more features below to be qualified as an “Early Intel” Mac. That model probably:

1. OS bootability/CPU:
   • is able, even if buggy, to run Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (without VM), even if it requires some hacks (this includes Ivy Bridge Macs but not Haswell Macs);
2. High-speed peripheral ports:
   • has FW800 (sold on at least one model until late 2016) and/or Thunderbolt 1 ports (but no Thunderbolt 2);
3. Internal drives:
   • SSD-only models: lacks PCIe slot for NVMe m.2 SSDs (e.g., late 2012 & early 2013 rMBPs,and mid-2012 MBAs, as these use AHCI SATA); or
   • mixed models: could be configured at purchase with standalone SATA HDD or “fusion” drive setup (instead of only NVMe SSD option);
4. Display:
   • lacks Retina display; or
   • if “headless”, lacks native HiDPI capability, out-of-box (some leeway given for Ivy Bridge rMBPs);
5. GPU:
   • lacks any integrated GPU above Intel HD Graphics 5000 (and if Intel, is not an Iris; late 2013 iMacs have, quietly, an HD 5000 underneath the GeForce GT);
6. Lacks pre-processor cryptography/security:
   • that is, a T2 (i.e., on every new model since the iMac Pro in 2017);
7. Memory:
   • lacks soldered RAM on at least one or more variants of a particular revision
     (exception: non-NVMe MBAs and Ivy Bridge rMBPs; this would exclude the 2013 MBA, late 2013 rMBP, late 2014 Mac mini).

So (to check my work), if one relied on the above “three or more” criteria, which outliers would not fit the ”Early Intel Macs” bill?

• late 2013 rMBPs with NVMe: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 1);
• 2013 “trash can” Mac Pro (MacPro6,1): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 2);
• late 2014 Mac mini: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 3)

An edge-case “Early Intel Mac”:

• early 2013 rMBP: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 5)
• mid-2012 Mac Pro (MacPro5,1): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 6)
• mid-2014 iMac (education-only): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 5)

---

This is probably a good stopping point, and also a good conversation to get going here.

I think the long-term idea of starting this thread is for the EIM community to arrive to a general consensus and to let the mods know that, once the time comes for the striking of a “Late Intel Macs” forum, we’ll already have a good sense for which models belong where and, most importantly, why.

 

[eyoungren]

I think at some point it won't matter.

Right now it does and everyone has their own yardstick, but in a few years it won't. Here's what I see…

When I initially came to this forum it was August 2011, five years after the Intel transition began. By this point there was ONE forum for ALL PowerPC Macs. Because five years into the transition there was no longer any justification to split forums out based on individual types - like there is now with the more recent Intel models.

Given what I've seen about the mods and Arn over the time I've been here, I see this EIM forum simply being turned into the 'Intel Macs' forum - just like the PowerPC Macs forum is now.

Admin hates creating new subforums and any chance they get to replace multiple subforums with one subforum they will act upon it. I figure we'll see this happen here some time before 2028. And at that point, all the other subforums pertinent to specific models or types will imply the 'M' series of Macs.

We will end up being the refuge for ALL Intel Macs, just like the PowerPC forum is for all PowerPC Macs.

But for right now, I don't see any issue with how you're splitting things out.

 

[Amethyst1]

if “headless”, lacks native HiDPI capability, out-of-box (some leeway given for Ivy Bridge rMBPs);

How is "native HiDPI capability" defined?

late 2013 iMacs have, quietly, an HD 5000 underneath the GeForce GT);

Apart from one model with the Iris Pro 5200, they all have the HD 4600.

 

[B S Magnet]

How is "native HiDPI capability" defined?

I’d have just said “Retina”, but for Macs which required a separate monitor to have a display, “native HiDPI capability” (however sloppy the phrasing) is purpose-designed model for running what Apple would otherwise market as “Retina” (that is: the Mac was designed either for — or in immediate anticipation of — that “scalable resolution” feature to appear during the Mountain Lion product cycle, intended for Retina displays).

“Lacks” would probably include all HD 3000 and earlier Macs (even though, yes, as you‘ve demonstrated, the older iGPUs on models, such as the Mac mini, can display HiPDI in late ML, Mavericks, and later, and any Mac Pro with a capable GPU can meet this), as those were released some time before Apple started offering “Retina” as a name for its HiPDI-ready models (offered beginning with the late 2012 rMBP).

Apart from one model with the Iris Pro 5200, they all have the HD 4600.

Wait… which model had the Iris Pro 5200?

 

[Amethyst1]

I’d have just said “Retina”, but for Macs which required a separate monitor to have a display, “native HiDPI capability” (however sloppy the phrasing) is purpose-designed model for running what Apple would otherwise market as “Retina” (that is: the Mac was designed either for — or in immediate anticipation of — that “scalable resolution” feature to appear during the Mountain Lion product cycle, intended for Retina displays).

The 2012 Mac mini (with HD 4000) can run higher-than-native HiDPI modes but can't run a 4K monitor at 60 Hz. It can run 2560×1440 or 2560×1600 at 60 Hz... but a 27" or 30" LCD with that resolution is not a HiDPI display. So would it meet that criterion or not?

Wait… which model had the Iris Pro 5200?

The entry-level one.

 

[Falhófnir]

I thought a very rough rule of thumb was core duo type chip = early, core i type chip = mid-late. So based on the MBP, up to ~2009 = early, ~2010-2015 = mid, 2016-2020 = late (USB C models). Obviously this is nowhere near as comprehensive, but as @eyoungren says it's probably going to blur quickly given how quickly Apple is retiring off all remaining Intel models. I wouldn't be surprised to see MacOS 15 as the first all Apple Silicon release, with Sonoma getting extended security support to soften the blow slightly.

 

[B S Magnet]

The 2012 Mac mini (with HD 4000) can run higher-than-native HiDPI modes but can't run a 4K monitor at 60 Hz. It can run 2560×1440 or 2560×1600 at 60 Hz... but a 27" or 30" LCD with that resolution is not a HiDPI display. So would it meet that criterion or not?

I would say “no”, solely in the sense that in 2012, the only display in 27-inch-or-higher form factor Apple sold was a 27-inch non-Retina Thunderbolt LED display. The 2012 Mac mini with iGPU only would be able to run that display. Thoughts?

In any event, more than four of the above seven would still have the 2012 iGPU Mac mini sequarely in the Early Intel Macs camp.

The entry-level one.

Under the four-out-of-seven-point criteria proposed above, this point — the base, late 2013 iMac 2.7 i5 — would be moot, insofar as qualifying it as an Early Intel Mac: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 5)

 

[Amethyst1]

Thoughts?

I agree with you. I think a more accurate/less ambiguous criterion for not being early might be “if headless: can run 4K display at 60 Hz” since all Macs that can do this can also run higher-than-native HiDPI modes, but not vice versa.

 

[B S Magnet]

I thought a very rough rule of thumb was core duo type chip = early, core i type chip = mid-late. So based on the MBP, up to ~2009 = early, ~2010-2015 = mid, 2016-2020 = late (USB C models). Obviously this is nowhere near as comprehensive, but as @eyoungren says it's probably going to blur quickly given how quickly Apple is retiring off all remaining Intel models. I wouldn't be surprised to see MacOS 15 as the first all Apple Silicon release, with Sonoma getting extended security support to soften the blow slightly.

I might reply more in depth later when I have a bit of time to do so.

For now, I think it’s become a bit clearer to begin talking about this now that Apple have completely stopped selling Intel Macs altogether (again, refurbs notwithstanding). Before this (or, before a majority of Mac models on sale were Silicon models), our discussions here were about what constituted community support on “early” Intel Macs; it was, at first, cut-and-dry with C2D Macs, especially at a time when Apple still classified some Macs as “vintage“ which still ran stuff, as shipped by Apple, as old as Lion (e.g., the mid-2012 MBP).

In the time since, we have come to see how Apple sold C2D Macs into 2012; how Apple sold Core iX Macs from 2009, and how all of these ran a version of OS X/macOS — Snow Leopard — which didn’t re-engineer how volumes were re-partitioned around a hidden recovery partition (premiering mid 2012 with Lion and making it so that Snow Leopard could not access a Lion-or-later volume).

Also, we have come to know definitively the number of years the Intel platform was Apple’s dominant platform for consumer offerings. We didn’t have that back when we first began to ponder this topic a couple of years ago. Now that we do, it gets a bit easier to see the forest as we’re no longer within those trees.

In some ways, this latter detail initialized, arguably, the most pivotal, intra-architectural change to the Mac since the Old World/New World PowerPC transition of 1998–99. Like that transition (i.e., some had residual gestalt “personality” IDs, even as they also had new IDs applicable to New World era), this one has some hybridizing, as laid out by the seven areas above. Likewise, whilst from time to time an Old World Mac question shows up on the PowerPC Macs forum, most Old World Macs threads end up on the Vintage Macs forum.

So… idk if that helps to resolve your question.

 

[SuperKerem]

Keeping it simple, in typical Apple fashion:

Steve Jobs era = Early Intel Mac
Tim Cook era = Late Intel Mac

Judged by release date rather than sale date. The cut-off would be August 24, 2011, but we could simplify to 2006-2011 and 2012-2020.

This also coincides with pre-Retina and post-Retina. I don’t think a Retina MBP or a 2013 Mac Pro can be described as an Early Intel Mac.

 

[Wokis]

I think the average threadmaker wouldn't be that enthustiastic on going over a list of models qualified for a section. It would need to be dead-simple so they can move on to what actually matters: getting an answer to their question or start a discussion on a particular topic.

It also helps if the forums list can sum it up without listing the topic-rules in a separate guide or something.

I'd like to see something like this.. years up in the air but pretty much..
Early-era Intel Macs - Topics about Intel Macs made from 2006 to 2013
Late-era Intel Macs - Topics about Intel Macs made from 2014 to 2020.

Anything particular with the model in question can then be outlined by us nerds within the thread in question, whenever necessary. E.g. "you're talking about a model with a mechanical drive, that's why your day-to-day is so painful".

 

[padams35]

Intel models really want to be split 3-ways: Early (USB 2.0), Mid (USB 3.0), and Late (USB-C), so I'd suggest creating a new "Mid Intel Macs" sub forum (and leave Late intel models in the laptop/desktop forums for a couple more years.)


If a 3-way split splits the community too thinly and a 2-way (Early vs Late) split is the long term plan, then I would suggest setting the split at:

a) 2013 and older is old, 2014 and newer is Late.
+ Easy. Evenly splits the 2006-2020 period in half.
- Arbitrary.

or

b) Firewire 800/Thunderbolt-1 and older is Early, Thunderbol-2 and Thunderbolt-3 are Late.
+ Less arbitrary.
- Thunderbolt-1 vs Thunderbolt-2 is hard for casual users to distinguish.

Alternatively,

c) "Broadwell and newer CPUs -OR- Metal-capable AMD Graphics are Late Intel, older is Early Intel."
+ Keeps Keplar macs together. May end up accurately reflect the Sonoma unofficial support.
-- I expect a lot of push back against calling 2014 models 'Early'.

 

[GMShadow]

I feel like the Trash Can Mac Pro will probably stick in the Mac Pro forum regardless - it's not an especially busy subforum and probably fits better there given all the 'weirdness'.

late 2013 rMBPs with NVMe: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — (total: 1);

So I happen to have picked up a 13" of one of these a few months ago...and it's kinda notable how *slow* it gets when you push it, NVMe or not. Obviously the 15" would perform a little better, but even moderate internet browsing starts to choke that poor old dual-core chip - I would have trouble recommending one to someone for more than simple sites or what I use it for in my case - a 'disposable' writing 'puter I can take places and not worry about it if it's damaged or swiped.

 

[B S Magnet]

I think the average threadmaker wouldn't be that enthustiastic on going over a list of models qualified for a section. It would need to be dead-simple so they can move on to what actually matters: getting an answer to their question or start a discussion on a particular topic.

The idea isn’t to be strict about it, but to aid in how each forum (provided a Late Intel Macs forum shows up next year, 2028, or February 2038) gets described.

Now, Early Intel Macs reads:

Whereas one day it might look more like:

That sub-title will offer fairly clear guidance, and where it’s a little iffy down the middle, posting to either forum would probably not faze anyone.

It also helps if the forums list can sum it up without listing the topic-rules in a separate guide or something.

I'd like to see something like this.. years up in the air but pretty much..
Early-era Intel Macs - Topics about Intel Macs made from 2006 to 2013
Late-era Intel Macs - Topics about Intel Macs made from 2014 to 2020.

That’s basically the bifurcation I described. Some stragglers from 2006–2013 tech lingered into 2014 models, and features increasingly ubiquitous from 2014 forward began to creep in during the latter end of 2013.

Anything particular with the model in question can then be outlined by us nerds within the thread in question, whenever necessary. E.g. "you're talking about a model with a mechanical drive, that's why your day-to-day is so painful".

Indeed!

 

[Gudi]

When I initially came to this forum it was August 2011, five years after the Intel transition began. By this point there was ONE forum for ALL PowerPC Macs. Because five years into the transition there was no longer any justification to split forums out based on individual types - like there is now with the more recent Intel models.

Exactly. Two and a half years into the ARM transition all Intel Macs are Early Macs. SSD and Retina are useful distinctions, but no need to split the talk into different subforums.

 

[SuperKerem]

Exactly. Two and a half years into the ARM transition all Intel Macs are Early Macs. SSD and Retina are useful distinctions, but no need to split the talk into different subforums.

When Intel Macs go out of mainstream usage and are classified as vintage in 2027, it will be best to have a single Intel Macs subforum alongside a single PowerPC Macs subforum, with the regular subforums for Apple silicon Macs.

However, until then, I think the discussions involving a 2006 vs. 2020 iMac are too different to merge them into a single subforum.

 

[GMShadow]

Exactly. Two and a half years into the ARM transition all Intel Macs are Early Macs. SSD and Retina are useful distinctions, but no need to split the talk into different subforums.

Eventually, sure, but for the moment there's a lot of actively supported Intel Macs where the questions are less "How can I get another couple of years out of this?" and more "Word 360 not working - please help!" As those Macs age and get cut off by Apple, yes, I expect they'll naturally migrate here.

 

[padams35]

Exactly. Two and a half years into the ARM transition all Intel Macs are Early Macs. SSD and Retina are useful distinctions, but no need to split the talk into different subforums.

Disagree. Even if we include the ancient PowerPC 6xx (which is more likely to appear in Apple Collectors) PowerPC still only bridged about 1994-2005: 11 years. Excluding those to focus on G3/G4/G5 models is 1998-2005, 7 years. With a 14 year span from 2006-2020 Intel macs have twice the history.


Just noticed:

High-speed peripheral ports:

• has FW800 (sold on at least one model until late 2016) and/or Thunderbolt 1 ports (but no Thunderbolt 2)

This one test will correctly* predict the outcome of the entire best 4 of 7 proposed test suite, so maybe simplify down to just that one? Or rather "Does not have native Thunderbolt 2 or USB-C" to cover the really old FW400 stuff?

Consider:
Early [Thunderbolt 1]
Listed Edge cases (2012 Mac Pro, Early2014 iMac, E2013 rMBP)
L2013 iMac: No retina, HDD only options, no T2 chip
2014 Air: No retina, no advanced iGPU, no T2 chip

Late [Thunderbolt 2]
Listed Edge cases (2013 Mac Pro, L2013 rMBP, 2014 mini)
2015 Air: Has NVMe SSD, Has HD 6000 iGPU, Has soldered RAM, can't boot Snow Leopard
etc


*By the way, new edge case: Late 2014 / Mid 2015 5K iMacs
> Lack soldered RAM
> Can be configured with Fusion drives
> No T2 chip
> Either no iGPU or quietly uses Intel HD 4600

 

[redheeler]

I vote 2011 and earlier for "early Intel" (Metal vs. non-Metal GPU and pre vs. post Steve Jobs' death combine to make 2011 a good delineator though even ones with non-Metal should've been supported for longer).

Gray area: 2009 through 2012 Mac Pro. IMO it should be acceptable to talk about it in either the early Intel or Mac Pro section.

At some point early Intel will become the section for all Intel discussion similarly to how there is a single section for PowerPC discussion. So if someone really wants to talk about their 2012 Retina MacBook Pro here I don't think it's worth stopping them.

 

[B S Magnet]

*By the way, new edge case: Late 2014 / Mid 2015 5K iMacs
> Lack soldered RAM
> Can be configured with Fusion drives
> No T2 chip
> Either no iGPU or quietly uses Intel HD 4600

“5K” is, for every intent, a Retina-pitch display.

 

[m1maverick]

Way too much thought going into this. If you can help someone out, regardless of where the ask is posted, do so. Even if it means redirecting the poster to a different forum where more readily available help can be found.

 

[padams35]

“5K” is, for every intent, a Retina-pitch display.

Of course. I would also argue that the Late 2014 and Mid 2015 5K iMacs should not be considered Early Intel. I was just pointing out that they ticked 4 of the 7 proposed 'Early Intel' check boxes. (Retina along with Thunderbolt 2 and no Snow Leopard support are the three not-early votes).

I was also indirectly arguing that a simple "Thunderbolt 1 and earlier is Early" rule would be more accurate since this was the only example of a Thunderbolt 2 model I could think of that the 4-of-7 proposal would have labeled, (incorrectly?), "Early".

I would also vote that this be considered a long term Early Intel vs Late Intel distinction to be implemented 2-3 years from now when Apple announces MacOS will be Apple Silicon only. Until then I would vote in favor of only merging all USB 2.0 (2011 and older) models into Early Intel and leave the USB 3.0 Thunderbolt-1 posts in the laptop/desktop subforums.

 

[Longplays]

Just a thought... why have a distinction in the 1st place?

PowerPC Macs lasted from 1994-2005 and yet is their a division?

By 2028 the last Intel Mac will cease receiving its final Security Update.

 

[mectojic]

It's hard to be perfectly strict with the designation, since product lines are updated messily, so delineating based on software, a certain hardware feature, aesthetic, or processor just won't work. It's also hard to communicate to a non-nerd the ideological difference between early/mid/late Intel Macs, i,e. the mid-2012 Macbook Pro vs the retina MacBook Pro vs the 2016 touchbar Pro, but our job here should be to help people, first and foremost.

I think two Intel categories would be fine, if they were established soon. But the problem is that everyone else will keep using the current iMac/Macbook forums unless those are closed off to Apple Silicon only- not a realistic possibility until all Intel Macs are declared "vintage" by Apple, all official OS support is over, and even hacks like OCLP no longer work. Even then though, we may still see people with a 2017 Macbook looking for Ventura help in 2028, so... yeah. I guess the PPC forum's existence eventually got most people on board though.
But that's what makes the current transition messier than PowerPC: PPC was hard-locked at Leopard (or SL beta). Intels could feasibly still be supported for another 7-8 years. When Apple ditched PPC, it basically disappeared from mainstream PC application; Intel on the other hand will remain relevant indefinitely, thanks especially to BootCamp. Some day, 2019 Mac Pro buyers, disillusioned with the 2023 Pro, will resign to installing Windows 13 to maintain a modern OS, and they'll probably outlive the collapse of society and heat-death of the universe in 2036.

Anyway...
With 2 forums (early/late) I'd consider the minimum MacOS as a consideration, rather than get too strict on features. Anything that natively supports 10.7.5 or lower is Early; anything 10.8 or above is Late. That gives us a split around 2012, and essentially splits Intel around the final Steve Jobs / Bertrand Serlet OS, as well as being the effective transition from iOS-ified hardware supporting modern features.
To simplify even further, so that absolutely no-one would be confused, it should just be by year: 2006-2012, and 2013+. They're called "Classic" Mac Pro for a reason!

 

[B S Magnet]

Of course. I would also argue that the Late 2014 and Mid 2015 5K iMacs should not be considered Early Intel. I was just pointing out that they ticked 4 of the 7 proposed 'Early Intel' check boxes. (Retina along with Thunderbolt 2 and no Snow Leopard support are the three not-early votes).

Three, not four:

late 2014 iMacs (using base model 27 here): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (total: 3)
mid 2015 iMac (education): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (total: 3)

I was also indirectly arguing that a simple "Thunderbolt 1 and earlier is Early" rule would be more accurate since this was the only example of a Thunderbolt 2 model I could think of that the 4-of-7 proposal would have labeled, (incorrectly?), "Early".

I’m still not sure which of the above two meet the 4-or-above threshold for “Early Intel” using the rubric in the original post. I count 3 for both of these, making them both “Late Intel”.

I would also vote that this be considered a long term Early Intel vs Late Intel distinction to be implemented 2-3 years from now when Apple announces MacOS will be Apple Silicon only.

Of course. I’m not in any kind of rush.