It is clear from all of the activity on this forum that many are still using the Mac Pro 5,1 and earlier. The main reason for me is to use video software that won't run on later models. There is also the nostalgia factor for the aluminum tower desktop.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 1,1-5,1 Why is the Mac Pro (5,1 and earlier) still being used?
- Thread starter cinclodes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 5,1 some of us purchased new in the old day and have been able to upgrade them to much newer GPUs like 6800XT or 6600XT Radeons, 3.46ghz X5690 processors, WIFI/Bluetooth upgrades and running Monterey 12.7. They are still useful and fast enough for a lot of things.
One of them I have (a 6 core model with 32GB RAM and 6600XT) is permanently running Monterey 12.7 and is used in my cycling trainer cave for Zwift and Fulgaz. It runs both of those perfectly connected to a 55" 4K TV screen.
My other 5,1 is a backup work machine but I prefer the 6,1 and 7,1 as they are both newer and the 7,1 is very fast.
One of them I have (a 6 core model with 32GB RAM and 6600XT) is permanently running Monterey 12.7 and is used in my cycling trainer cave for Zwift and Fulgaz. It runs both of those perfectly connected to a 55" 4K TV screen.
My other 5,1 is a backup work machine but I prefer the 6,1 and 7,1 as they are both newer and the 7,1 is very fast.
While I do not know exactly why people still use the older Mac Pros (probably a thousand reasons why), I think most it is because it fills a need for them.
I still daily use the now really old Mac Pro 1,1. It has basically been running non-stop, with the exception of upgrading it, and when I moved twice since I owned it.
The Mac Pro was upgraded multiple times, adding RAM multiple times until I got it up to 11GBs (this was really expensive RAM with the giant heatsinks), upgraded the GPU twice, now with the ATI Radeon HD 5870, and updated the internal drives so many times that I lost count. It is currently running El Capitan.
It was my main Mac from 2007 until I got my maxed out BTO Late 2012 iMac in Dec 2012.
After replacing the Mac Pro with the Late 2012 iMac, my kids where the primary user, but I still used it as a media server, and a secondary computer for myself.
My children eventually got newer Macs, and the old Mac Pro is primarily used for my Plex server.
I have plans to retire it completely, as it uses a lot of energy to be running 24/7 just for a Plex server.
I still daily use the now really old Mac Pro 1,1. It has basically been running non-stop, with the exception of upgrading it, and when I moved twice since I owned it.
The Mac Pro was upgraded multiple times, adding RAM multiple times until I got it up to 11GBs (this was really expensive RAM with the giant heatsinks), upgraded the GPU twice, now with the ATI Radeon HD 5870, and updated the internal drives so many times that I lost count. It is currently running El Capitan.
It was my main Mac from 2007 until I got my maxed out BTO Late 2012 iMac in Dec 2012.
After replacing the Mac Pro with the Late 2012 iMac, my kids where the primary user, but I still used it as a media server, and a secondary computer for myself.
My children eventually got newer Macs, and the old Mac Pro is primarily used for my Plex server.
I have plans to retire it completely, as it uses a lot of energy to be running 24/7 just for a Plex server.
I use my 5,1 Mac Pro because it is still, easily, the best ram to price ratio with expansion in the Apple ecosystem. I need lots of ram for my music software (64gb). I also like playing the occasional game – and the 5,1 runs Windows 10 like a champ, and can play modern games perfectly with the RX580 GPU upgrade.
The 5,1 also can stream using OBS, no problems.
You'd be paying a factor of 10x more to get some of those features in a newer Mac – and of course Apple Silicon can't play DirectX 12 games, which the 5,1 can.
And technically, all these things could be accomplished on a Windows PC, but I don't know anything about those, nor care about them to start the painful research of working out what to buy. The 5,1 works for me. It's a work of art, too.
The 5,1 also can stream using OBS, no problems.
You'd be paying a factor of 10x more to get some of those features in a newer Mac – and of course Apple Silicon can't play DirectX 12 games, which the 5,1 can.
And technically, all these things could be accomplished on a Windows PC, but I don't know anything about those, nor care about them to start the painful research of working out what to buy. The 5,1 works for me. It's a work of art, too.
One major reason: Basically, it runs Mojave (and even High Sierra for DVD Studio Pro if needed) and almost all of my 32-Bit Mac software library (lots of games included). If the 7,1 would have come with that ability, it would be a no brainer and many more people would have upgraded but it doesn't and therefore the 5,1 will always be the only expandable desktop Mac that can run 32-bit software. Even if I had all the money to buy the latest and greatest, it still doesn't solve that big issue for me. I would still have to have either a 5,1 or a 6,1 (with potentially defective GPUs).
What is this about "potentially defective GPUs"? From the context, it appears that you might mean that the 6,1 is prone to this problem. The current generation of laptops (mine is a 2019 MacBook Pro) apparently has a serious design flaw in the GPU. If you connect to a Thunderbolt Display (which worked with no problem with my previous MacBook Pro), the lap top will quickly and severely overheat. I am using an external GPU to get rid of this issue, which seems to suggest that the folks who design computers at Apple have lost their way in recent years. I have been using a 6,1 hooked to a Thunderbolt Display, fortunately with no problems so far.
I've got one fully working 5,1 running Monterey/OLCP and just the ability to add ram and disks as needed is what keeps it around. I love my M2 Mini Pro, but there's just something substantial about the 5,1. My other 5,1 is a project in the works, gotta get a working GPU, then it should be good to go. I've already added upgraded CPU's and PCIe M.2's.
My Mac pro 5.1 run's linux mint, with dual 1tb 980pro M2 drives via a PCIe startech dual M2 card giving 3000mb read and write speed. with an AMD 6950xt with Pixlas mod. dual 5690 CPU's 96g of ram. 4 x 1tb SSD's for storage. upgraded bluetooth and It run's as sweet as can be,
There have been a lot of failures with D500's and D700's, which is what I would be referring to. It has been all over the forums throughout the years. I assumed everyone in the Mac Pro forum would know about that. It wouldn't stop me from getting one but I do know to give the fan a boost if you are going to be hitting the GPUs hard. You just can't replace them easily like on the 5,1.
On the 2019 MBP, the 5600m solved a lot of the issues with external displays that the 5500m experienced. It has to do more with AMD than Apple with these GPU issues on the Intels.
The MP4,1 / MP5,1 machines are still good enough for the most tasks.
They run almost every MacOs from the last 15 years (with some tricks).
They are nowadays dirt cheap. So cheap you can easily afford a backup machine.
We have almost full control of everything what happens in this machine.
Repairing is (with experience of course) a simple task compared to the other Macs, especially that glued ones.
They are flexible as hell, from a computing monster to a silly office machine could all happen.
It is fun to use such an old piece of hardware.
The only downside is heat and energy cost. So I use the iPad and the MacBooks whenever I dont need the big machine.
And especially for me: I am so focused on the Mac Pros that it would be silly not to use them for myself :-}
They run almost every MacOs from the last 15 years (with some tricks).
They are nowadays dirt cheap. So cheap you can easily afford a backup machine.
We have almost full control of everything what happens in this machine.
Repairing is (with experience of course) a simple task compared to the other Macs, especially that glued ones.
They are flexible as hell, from a computing monster to a silly office machine could all happen.
It is fun to use such an old piece of hardware.
The only downside is heat and energy cost. So I use the iPad and the MacBooks whenever I dont need the big machine.
And especially for me: I am so focused on the Mac Pros that it would be silly not to use them for myself :-}
If you bought one and still have it, it's generally fast enough to justify a little cash to keep it going. I'm daily driving a 6,1 for that reason. It's a great machine to me, and the cost to replace just isn't justifiable as long as it can do what I want. I don't think anyone should be going out and buying a 5,1 today to use as their primary rig, but I'm sure people do that too not realizing that the same computing power can be had in a much smaller and efficient machine with newer/faster IO.
Mine simply does everything I need it to, for a lot less money (sans power bill) than a new Mac with equivalent RAM and storage, and I can fix it if it breaks.
For me it's because Apple (purposely) haven't offered a viable alternative since.
My Mac Pro 4,1 (flashed to 5,1) I have two optical drives including a Blu Ray burner (rarely used now), 4 internal Hard drives and a couple of USB 3 cards - none of which were transferrable to the abomination that was the 2013 Mac Pro (a Mac Pro in name only).
Over the years I've also upgraded the CPU (12 core 2.93Ghz) and graphics card and added a couple of NVME SSDs via a Pcie card.
If apple had continued the Tower Mac format for the Mac Pro, my 4,1 tower would be long gone.
Instead, in 2013 they tried another Cube (which had already flopped), but instead of making it square they made it cylindrical and called it a Mac Pro.
It was however a Mac Pro in name only and it too bombed.
In 2017 Apple apologise, say they've listened and promise a Modular Mac Pro is on the way.
They then make you wait a further two years before announcing a new Tower Mac in 2019...at THREE TIMES the cost of the 2009 model at £5499 - so sorry, but they can f**k right off!
It was a total piss take and a big F**K YOU to people like myself who had waited patiently for over a decade for a replacement tower Mac.
It's frustrating to me when others claim I am simply not the target market...I should be.
I've owned every tower Mac from the Beige G3, Green G3, every model of G4 tower, every G5 tower and every Mac Pro up until 2009, so **** them if I'm 'not their target market'.
I didn't abandon Apple, they abandoned me.
So I still use my Mac Pro not because I want too, but because Apple have simply refused to release a like for like modern day suitable replacement and I wouldn't buy one now on principle.
The recently announced new Mac Pro where you can't even upgrade RAM is well...disappointing and ridiculously expensive. Someone who paid £2049 for a Mac tower in 2012, shouldn't be asked to pay £7399 in 2023.
It's simply not like for like. Allowing for inflation the price would be circa £3100 - so I'd accept £3999 or maybe even £4499 - but £7399 is a joke.
So your choice of Mac desktops now are..
Unexpandable Mac Mini.
Unexpandable iMac
Unexpandable Mac Studio
Unexpandable (in any meaningful way) Mac Pro
So I still use my 5,1 Mac Pro in my studio, but it's getting harder to do as obsolescence creeps in.
I'm thinking its replacement will likely be a PC tower and I'll move from Logic to Cubase or Pro Tools (both of which I already have).
Changing platforms would have been unthinkable to me 15 years ago, but Apple have dropped me leaving me no alternative but to drop them in return.
Mac Pro 5,1 isn't worth a lot these days, so I'll keep it around as a backup and for legacy compatibility.
PC workstations are also very, very expensive - I looked at them, but you have options to upgrade them.. If you should need it, you can have some of them up to 4x Nvidia A6000 GPUs and dual CPUs with RAM to match. That's serious power. And Windows 11 Pro for Workstations is really decent. I am running it here on my 2019 Mac Pro and it always runs quickly and never, ever crashes.
You are right to ditch Apple. The only M powered Mac I have is the Macbook Air which was a purchase of necessity - it doesn't have to do much other than being a computer for general use while I'm on my travels. I figured Apple surely couldn't be so dumb as to stuff up such a basic requirement as that.
I hope someone from Apple with anything to do with future product planning might stumble across this - if it sounds harsh, it is meant to be that way. Long time Apple user here who won't be buying any future high end machines from Apple.
I was lucky enough to get a 2019 mac pro very cheaply. Its fantastic and should last me a while. Its overkill but I have always had a towermac and wanted one. (G4, G4, G5, 1,1, 3,1 5,1, 7,1). BUT I also have a free water damaged M1 MBP here. (No screen,keys, works fine with external screen just like a mac mini) and its speed, particularly its disk access and native app speed is awesome) So overall I would say the future is pretty bright, so long as you dont want to upgrade ! (apart from upgrading by buying a whole new machine)
Last edited:
I'm no Apple apologist, but realistically the market has changed. The PowerMac was a quality desktop computer, and it was priced that way for along time. When we were buying G3 and G4 PowerMacs they were $1600 (about $2500 in today's money) and your only other option was iMac or eMac. When they made the switch to Intel, Apple quit marketing the Mac Pro as desktop, but as a high end workstation. Thats when prices started to get a little crazy and the entry level machine basically went up $1000. Obviously the gap between the 2013 Pro and iMac Pro was far too long, but realistically the CPU technology basically plateaued during that period. Shame on Apple for not discounting the machine, but the 6,1 was still a solid workstation in 2016. I think it's a computer that makes more sense today than it did in 2013 because fast external expansion is more acceptable today. Had Apple offered speed bumps of the 2013 to give it newer GPUs and CPUs I think it would have aged even better. Mac Studio is basically the exact same machine minus the upgradability. You can't possibly consider Mac Pro 2019 and 2023 to be the same class of machine your old PowerMac and Mac Pro were. It probably shouldn't have kept that name. They just aren't in the same league anymore. Apple knows this and has offered Mac Studio for that reason. If a 10 year old Mac Pro can carry your workload, you don't need a Mac Pro, you need a Mini or Studio. Same price point as what you'd have paid for a 2006 Mac Pro and offers pretty handsome specs for the money. Fact is, we have more Mac desktop options now than in 2004 which is absolutely wild to think about.
I wholeheartedly agree that inability to expand/replace RAM and SSD is awful. The way Apple has locked down those "consumable" components in high end desktops is borderline criminal, but they don't want you keeping your Mac around for 12 years. Why would they? They make nothing of old machines. They don't sell the OS anymore, so they want you to spend money on iCloud and a new machine every few years. It's a major bummer for us old guys who love pushing things to the limit and really feeling good about making that initial investment, but times have changed. Nobody is going to push Apple back to socketed CPUs ever again. Maybe there is some hope of socketed GPUs again, but if Apple could at least give users replaceable storage down the road, I'd consider that a win.
I think two words that fit all of these reasons is "upgradable specs". If Mac Pros could only be set at the parts it shipped with, they would become obsolete a lot sooner, only being used by the most desperate users. (PowerPCs are less upgradable, hence why their userbase is a lot smaller and more focused on just seeing how far they can go for fun, and not using them unironically.)
But from what I've seen, you can extend the lifespan of those heavy hitters by quite a large margin. All Macs of the time let you boost the RAM, but the Mac Pros did it to an extreme amount (some over-a-decade-old Pros find themselves with 64GB ram, which is a ton even by today's standards), and also upgrade CPU and graphics cards, meaning, if you're dedicated, you can help the old beast rival some relatively recent professional PCs.
As a bonus reason, the latest Mac Pro is... barely upgradable. Sure, you can bump up the storage by an amount (I think?) and add some miscellaneous parts, but RAM and CPU and graphics (no, literally, RAM-and-CPU-and-graphics) are stuck right where you paid for, so some Mac Pro users might be so angry about this change that they switch to a much older Mac that can somehow do more than the latest model. And for a ton cheaper.
For someone who's opening line is "I'm no Apple apologist', you're sounding a lot like one.
The market didn't change, Apple did.
There was then (and there still is now) a plethora of tower PCs available, but the only tower Mac was the Mac Pro.
Apple abandoned that form factor and in so doing abandoned everyone who used the tower (which was mostly pro and power users) and that's why the 2013 Mac Pro bombed. Users couldn't port their storage, couldn't port graphics cards or their PCIe cards - so it was totally unsuitable for most prior Mac Pro users.
Your assertion that Apple don't want you to keep your Mac for 12 years is based on a false premise.
I didn't keep my Mac Pro 4,1 for 12 years because I wanted to, I kept it because I had to. There wasn't another tower Mac I could upgrade to.
All the prior model of Mac Pro's (and the Power Macs that proceeded them), were ALL expandable, yet I purchased every one. Apple received far more money from me at that time than they ever have since, so it's a complete red herring to suggest that upgradability harms sales by prolonging life...it does not.
In 2017, 4 years after the 2013 fiasco, Apple publicly apologise and promise a new expandable Mac which they bring out two years later in 2019.
Which brings us to the next kick in the nuts...price.
I'll use US dollars to keep it simple...
In 2006 when Apple introduced the Mac Pro, it started from $2499.
Six years later in 2012 it started from...$2499.
So amazingly there was no price increase in 6 years and when adjusted for inflation the Mac Pro actually got cheaper in price!
In 2013 when Apple produced the totally unfit for purpose Trashcan Mac Pro it started at $2999 - a $500 increase, but it was still only $100 more in real terms in 2013 than the 2006 model was at $2499 when adjusted for inflation .
So in 7 years the Mac Pro had a real terms increase in price of just $100. In fact, as the 6,1 wasn't discontinued until 2019, you could argue the Mac Pro from 2006 - 2019 had a real terms decrease.
In 2019 That all changed. The 2019 Mac Pro (the first Apple tower since 5,1) and the replacement for the 6,1 started at a whopping $5999 - that's double the price of the model it replaced. Even allowing for inflation that still $2000 more than the 2013 model which would be circa $4000.
It also shipped with a pitiful 256GB storage (that's less storage than the base Mac Pro from 2008) I have more than that on my phone.
in 2023 it got even worse and Apple (again) increase the price to a whopping $7000!
So to reiterate...
When adjusted for inflation the last Mac Tower (5,1) in 2012 cost $2499 (approx $3800 in today's money). It offered user upgradable RAM, user upgradable internal storage and crucially PCIe for everything else (including graphics cards).
By 2023 the Mac Pro offers no upgradable RAM, non upgradable internal storage and non upgradable graphics and is priced at $7000. So all Apple have really done is offered another unsuitable option, they've just amended the reason for the unsuitability.
The Mac Mini, Studio, iMac are all unsuitable as none offer PCIe - something still very important for many in audio (one of the primary reasons we used a tower to begin with), so your assertion that "If a 10 year old Mac Pro can carry your workload, you don't need a Mac Pro, you need a Mini or Studio" is again flawed.
I also disagree that "fast external expansion is more acceptable today".
It's simply that if you use any Mac you have no choice for your storage to be anything but external...unless you're prepared to spend $7000!
Last edited:
The market did change. More people do audio and video work on their own hardware now than ever before. Apple sells their highest end workstation at corporate prices, and the rest is a plethora of "prosumer" equipment that suites the needs of their content creator market. Apple can sell a really good Mac mini, iMac, or Studio that is blisteringly fast, offers truly capable external expansion though TB4 & USB, at quite a variety of prices.For someone who's opening line is "I'm no Apple apologist', you're sounding a lot like one.
The market didn't change, Apple did.
The technology has changed allowing more integrated systems than ever before. You can't think of integrated graphics like its 2006 anymore. You can't look at I/O like it's 2010 anymore. The days of FireWire, eSATA and USB 2.0 are long in the rearview mirror. Be honest, USB 3.1 and ThunderBolt offer more than enough bandwidth to run any audio equipment you have, AND still backwards compatible with your legacy devices. That backward compatibility includes FireWire and your PCI cards. So no, my logic isn't "flawed" at all since Thunderbolt PCIe expansion has been around for a long time and is even faster than the internal bus on your Mac Pro.
You basically just rehashed your gripes about the timeline of 2013-Present, and I mostly agree with you there. I'd argue that the 6,1 was a failure in that it was too early to market to give users the power of a mature ThunderBolt ecosystem and high capacity SSDs, but as the owner of a couple 6,1 Mac Pros, it is still a great rig. Apple should have lowered the price or at least speed bumped it at some point. I'm 100% on board with you that Apple absolutely dropped the ball on the Pro market during that period. iMac Pro was a very powerful machine to bridge the gap, but we all know AIOs are not the choice for most people in the market for workstations. I'd say iMac Pro was more of a failure than Mac Pro 6,1 was. It was literally the wrong form factor, way too late.
Pricing is basically enterprise. Home users aren't buying Mac Pro for $7000. Thats corporate money to spend. Apple sells you Mac Studio which is the same power, minus internal PCIe. Solution? Buy a Thunderbolt PCIe enclosure. Again, Apple should have named Mac Studio the Mac Pro and called the current Mac Pro system something else, because it doesn't resemble in features OR price the box you, I and so many others know as Mac Pro. Thats their bad for attaching the wrong branding to the wrong product.
Apple has always been awful with RAM and storage configurations. That isn't anything new. iMac shipping with 32MB back in 1998 was bad. MacBook Pro shipping with 512MB was bad in 2006, Mac Mini/Air shipping with 4GB in 2014 wa bad, and anything they send out the door today with 8GB is bad. I'd love to see them change their evil ways when it comes to memory and SSD capacity, ESPECIALLY since failure essentially dooms the machine. Not a fan of that. Not a fan of "new" OS versions every 12 months either. I much preferred the days of Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard when 18 months or more was typical for a major release that would obsolete some systems.
I get your frustrations, but the world of computers just isn't what it was 20 years ago. Personally, I LOVED what Apple was doing until about 2008. Apple under Tim Cook Apple is exactly what it looks like. Finance man wants to make money. They try and get you any way they can, BUT their product lineup today actually does offer plenty of options at multiple price points. Just because a product named Mac Pro exists doesn't mean it needs to, and it sure doesn't mean you have to pay the sticker price for just because you used to buy the flagship machine they sold in the past.
If you consider the 2013 Mac Pro 'a great rig' that simply means you didn't need a tower Mac.
However, I (and based on 2013 bombing and the amount of users who still use a 5,1) would argue many Mac Pro users did.
It is simply untrue to tell me that a Mac Studio suits my needs...it does not.
It didn't matter if Apple were (as you claim) awful with RAM and storage in the past, as you could add, replace or upgrade the storage and RAM yourself later, something you cannot do now...even on a $7000 Mac Pro.
I'm not against Apple modernising the connectivity - I'm completely for that...if it's the right connectivity.
For example Mac Pro 1,1 USB1 & Firewire 400, Mac Pro 3,1 USB2 & Firewire 400, Mac Pro 4,1 USB2, Firewire 800.
That's a natural and sensible progression as they updated components to latest iterations, like moving from PCIx to PCIe, Sata to Sata 2 etc.
However dropping PCIe and replacing it with Thunderbolt...not good. It's not a like for like replacement.
Demands on graphics (even today) is constantly evolving, so a solution with no expandable graphics like the entire Mac range...not good.
The original poster asked why I still have my 5,1 Mac Pro and I've given my answer, I'm yet to hear yours.
However, I (and based on 2013 bombing and the amount of users who still use a 5,1) would argue many Mac Pro users did.
It is simply untrue to tell me that a Mac Studio suits my needs...it does not.
It didn't matter if Apple were (as you claim) awful with RAM and storage in the past, as you could add, replace or upgrade the storage and RAM yourself later, something you cannot do now...even on a $7000 Mac Pro.
I'm not against Apple modernising the connectivity - I'm completely for that...if it's the right connectivity.
For example Mac Pro 1,1 USB1 & Firewire 400, Mac Pro 3,1 USB2 & Firewire 400, Mac Pro 4,1 USB2, Firewire 800.
That's a natural and sensible progression as they updated components to latest iterations, like moving from PCIx to PCIe, Sata to Sata 2 etc.
However dropping PCIe and replacing it with Thunderbolt...not good. It's not a like for like replacement.
Demands on graphics (even today) is constantly evolving, so a solution with no expandable graphics like the entire Mac range...not good.
The original poster asked why I still have my 5,1 Mac Pro and I've given my answer, I'm yet to hear yours.