Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Core 2 Duos don't have quicksync. Which may turn out to be important.

At one time, I had a Core 2 Duo imac (early 2009, 20 inch). I also had a appleTV, connected to my HDTV. Could I use the appleTV to watch the HDTV recordings on my iMac, given that the AppleTV likes mpeg4, not mpeg2?

Not a chance. Well, if I put in more memory, and waited a day for the clips to transcode.

On a mac with Quicksync, it's realtime, or better. You can even share a screen over wifi.

Of course, now that it's 2017, my imac has a better screen than my tv, and streaming has mostly replaced off air recording.

But still. Things that apple takes for granted nowadays aren't there in the 2009 imacs.

Also, the 9400 graphics chipset is thoroughly obsolete. USB3 is actually quite nice to have for connecting drives. And, a whole host of other gotchas await.
For the Apple TV, your experience years ago is irrelevant today. These days, all you need to do is install Infuse on your Apple TV. Infuse will play the native files. It's a complete waste of time to transcode the files.

Intel Quick Sync is not necessary in these models for video playback either, because they come with discrete nVidia GPUs, that support h.264 decode in hardware. Anything from the nVidia 9400M or later is perfectly fine unless you want to game or something like that. That means that they can play Safari video and Netflix HD just fine, with low CPU usage.

Now, you will need Intel Quick Sync for hardware HEVC, including 10-bit 4K HEVC, but to get that support, you actually need a 2017 model. Essentially, the ideal video support cutoffs are 2009 and 2017. Hence, I bought Macs in 2009 and 2017.
 
Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker, and I have the opportunity to buy an iMac from around 2009 at a fairly discounted price, but I'm curious about how long it will stay functional as hardware and software progresses.

I'm looking at a one of the following 3 options:

20" iMac, 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB or 750 GB HD
24" iMac, 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, 8 GB RAM, 640 GB HD
27" iMac, 2.7 GHz i5, 8 GB RAM, 1000 GB HD

Thanks for your help!

Honestly, if I were you I'd go with the 24" and put a small SSD in it (256GB or less). If you can do the swap yourself (it's not that hard, just take your time) you are looking at a total cost around $200. That's a great deal on a computer that's just doing the usual consumer tasks. Even if it only lasts a year, that's still less than the typical computer depreciates. Seems like a worthwhile gamble to me.

Disclaimer: I own a 2010 21.5" iMac with SSD and 8GB RAM; still running strong.
 
...Intel Quick Sync is not necessary in these models for video playback either, because they come with discrete nVidia GPUs, that support h.264 decode in hardware. Anything from the nVidia 9400M or later is perfectly fine...

No nVidia GPU supported H264 hardware decoding until Kepler in 2012. The 9400M was long before that. Even though some nVidia GPUs today have hardware called NVENC for H264 encode/decode, I don't think this is widely supported.

A 2009 iMac might be able to play back 1080p Youtube or Netflix video, but it's not because of the nVidia GPU. It is doing it all in software. Youtube videos are usually encoded using VP9 not H.264. To my knowledge the NVENC hardware on nVidia GPUs did not support hardware decode of VP9 until recently, and only if the system and application software layers also supported this.
 
No nVidia GPU supported H264 hardware decoding until Kepler in 2012. The 9400M was long before that. Even though some nVidia GPUs today have hardware called NVENC for H264 encode/decode, I don't think this is widely supported.

A 2009 iMac might be able to play back 1080p Youtube or Netflix video, but it's not because of the nVidia GPU. It is doing it all in software.
That is simply incorrect.

Snow Leopard H.264 Hardware Acceleration and OpenCL Requirements

MacRumors had previously reported that the latest MacBook Pros offered hardware acceleration for H.264 video playback. While Apple has previously included graphics cards that have contained hardware support for H.264 decoding, the company has only recently taken advantage of this hardware acceleration. Mac OS X Snow Leopard's specs officially acknowledge this support but it appears to be limted to the NVIDIA 9400M graphics processors found in recent Apple laptops and desktops. Unfortunately, it does not appear that this support will extend to older video cards. Hardware decoding of H.264 video improves the performance of video playback while leaving your computer's CPU free for other tasks.


To demonstrate this, I tested two similar machines tonight for comparison. The main difference is the GPU.

Here is my 2009 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 9400M decoding a 1080p h.264 video (in hardware):

2009MBP_h264-noserial.png


And here is my 2008 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook with GMA X3100 decoding a 1080p h.264 video (in software):

2008MB_h264-noserial.png


The video is a 1080p h.264 movie trailer that is 9.35 Mbps 24 fps. Hobo With A Shotgun

On the nVidia 9400M endowed MacBook Pro, total CPU usage is 14%.
On the Intel X3100 endowed MacBook, total CPU usage is 46% (despite having a faster CPU).

Youtube videos are usually encoded using VP9 not H.264. To my knowledge the NVENC hardware on nVidia GPUs did not support hardware decode of VP9 until recently, and only if the system and application software layers also supported this.
YouTube video is VP9 in Chrome, but it is h.264 in Safari. On my 2008 white MacBook, 1080p YouTube puts the machine in vacuum cleaner fan mode, and it gets hot and eats battery. Plus, it sometimes stutters. In contrast, on my 2009 aluminum MacBook Pro, 1080p YouTube is smooth, and the machine stays quiet and cool.

Furthermore, Netflix HD is h.264, so that works perfectly on 9400M Macs too.
 
Last edited:
I have a late 2009 27" i5 in one of my offices being used now. The people that use it have zero idea that it's 7 years old.
I did put an SSD in it in Dec '09. It is still going strong today.
Mileage may vary, also depends on your particular usage.

Thank you for posting that! I bought an iMac this year (2017 one) and am happy to know it will be useable for the next 10 years! :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacFather
Snow Leopard H.264 Hardware Acceleration and OpenCL Requirements

...While Apple has previously included graphics cards that have contained hardware support for H.264 decoding, the company has only recently taken advantage of this hardware acceleration. Mac OS X Snow Leopard's specs officially acknowledge this support but it appears to be limted to the NVIDIA 9400M graphics processors found in recent Apple laptops and desktops.....


To demonstrate this, I tested two similar machines tonight for comparison. The main difference is the GPU....
On the nVidia 9400M endowed MacBook Pro, total CPU usage is 14%.
On the Intel X3100 endowed MacBook, total CPU usage is 46% (despite having a faster CPU)....

Thanks for that correction. To clarify this, both AMD and nVidia have separate logic on their GPUs for encoding vs decoding. nVidia's decoder was called PureVideo, now NVDEC. Their encoder is NVENC. AMD's decoder is Unified Video Decoder (UVD), their encoder is VCE (Video Coding Engine). By contrast Intel's Quick Sync is on the CPU and does both encoding and decoding. All off these have evolved through the years, going through many different versions and capabilities.

While NVENC only became available in 2012, PureVideo (aka NVDEC) has been available since the GeForce 6 series around 2004. Likely due to the many versions with differing capabilities, Snow Leopard only supported NVDEC aka PureVideo on the 9400M, even though other nVidia GPUs of that era had the hardware. The situation is probably similar with AMD's UVD and VCE.

This may also explain why even today the latest macOS does not support NVENC or VCE encoding, forcing the Mac Pro to software encode since Xeon doesn't have Quick Sync. There is video encoding hardware on the GPU but macOS doesn't use that.

Even back with the 2009 models, only those with the 9400M supported hardware video decode. Even though the hardware was present on other contemporary nVidia GPUs, macOS did not support that.

The 2009 iMac 27 mentioned by the OP definitely did not have this since it had an ATI Radeon HD 4670 or 4850. So my statement about a 2009 doing software-only decoding of video playback is partially correct -- it was software-only with the single exception of models with the 9400M.

This implies she should mainly consider the 20" or 24" models, if video playback is important. This shows how complex such decisions are when considering such old machines.
 
TThe 2009 iMac 27 mentioned by the OP definitely did not have this since it had an ATI Radeon HD 4670 or 4850. So my statement about a 2009 doing software-only decoding of video playback is partially correct -- it was software-only with the single exception of models with the 9400M.

This implies she should mainly consider the 20" or 24" models, if video playback is important. This shows how complex such decisions are when considering such old machines.
That is not correct either. AFAIK, all of the iX iMacs support hardware h.264 decode, including the ATI models.

My 2009 i7 860 did with its Radeon HD 4850, and so does my 2010 i7 870 with its Radeon HD 5750.

(I still have my 2010. It's now being used as an external monitor to my 2017. And the only reason I got the 2010 was because my 2009 had serious problems. The 2010 was an AppleCare replacement for my 2009.)

As mentioned elsewhere, I tend to buy my Macs based on their video decode support. That's why I bought both an iMac and MacBook Pro in 2009 (for hardware h.264 HD decode), and that's also why I bought both an iMac and MacBook (non-Pro) in 2017 (for hardware 10-bit 4K decode plus DRM).
 
Last edited:
That is not correct either. AFAIK, all of the iX iMacs support hardware h.264 decode, including the ATI models....

I think you may be correct about the Radeon 4670 and 4850, but there were many models of that era which were not supported, including reportedly the HD 5750. The discussion thread here includes a test utility to inspect this: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/261104-check-for-hardware-video-acceleration-capabilities/

This is why in more recent years Apple has focused their attention on Quick Sync vs the splintered GPU-hosted video acceleration methods.

However you are right it appears any of the iMacs the OP mentioned would support hardware-accelerated H264 decoding. Whether those old decoders support the current H264 profiles used by Netflix and Hulu might be another thing, but in principle it should work.

If those '09 iMacs were her absolute inclusive list, she is OK, but picking a different model of that era could easily result in non-support of hardware video decoding. So then in addition to taking the old iMac apart to replace a worn-out HDD, she also has to figure out before the purchase whether it supports hardware video decoding.

With any iMac 2012 or later that's built-in via Quick Sync. Anything with a Sandy Bridge CPU has that but 2012 was the first iMac year with USB 3, so IMO 2012 is a good cutoff year.
 
I think you may be correct about the Radeon 4670 and 4850, but there were many models of that era which were not supported, including reportedly the HD 5750. The discussion thread here includes a test utility to inspect this: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/261104-check-for-hardware-video-acceleration-capabilities/
My 2010 iMac with HD 5750 is fully supported for h.264 hardware decode.

Judging by that thread you linked, that application is completely unreliable. It claims the 9400M doesn't work for this in a real iMac, which is wrong. Plus, most of that thread is Hackintosh anyway.

However you are right it appears any of the iMacs the OP mentioned would support hardware-accelerated H264 decoding. Whether those old decoders support the current H264 profiles used by Netflix and Hulu might be another thing, but in principle it should work.

If those '09 iMacs were her absolute inclusive list, she is OK, but picking a different model of that era could easily result in non-support of hardware video decoding. So then in addition to taking the old iMac apart to replace a worn-out HDD, she also has to figure out before the purchase whether it supports hardware video decoding.

With any iMac 2012 or later that's built-in via Quick Sync. Anything with a Sandy Bridge CPU has that but 2012 was the first iMac year with USB 3, so IMO 2012 is a good cutoff year.
I agree that USB 3 is a good cutoff, but she was saying the Core 2 Duo with 9400M and 8 GB RAM is $125. At that price, it's a steal, given that it's a turnkey machine for her usage with enough RAM and with full hardware h.264 decode support.

So, if you're willing to forego USB 3, 2009 is also a reasonable cutoff, because AFAIK all iMacs 2009 or later support hardware h.264 decode. The only ones I was not completely sure of were the nVidia GT120 & GT130 (partially because I've not owned those), but I believe both of those also support hardware h.264 decode.

It's the pre-2009 Macs that are the problem. Even though some of their GPUs support hardware h.264 decode, Apple hasn't implemented it, so for example, on a Radeon HD 2xxx or whatever there is no hardware h.264 decode.(Note, I don't think the Radeon 2xxx series has full hardware h.264 decode anyway, so there is a good reason Apple didn't bother with it.) But the hardware h.264 decode support is present for all of the HD 4xxx series, HD5xxx series, and HD 6xxx series GPUs you find in Macs. What this means is all the 2010 and 2011 iMacs have full hardware h.264 decode as well.
 
Last edited:
the imacs with retina are not good for long term because the screens deteriorate very quickly and even before apple care expires
 
Have two iMacs i7 16GB 512 SSD 21.5" May 2015.
Logic board went on iMac 'one' last year and iMac 'two' wont boot and appleCare are collecting tomorrow.

Looks like iMac 'two' will need a logic board replacement. If correct bill would have been £500 x 2 = £1000 without appleCare.

I love iMacs but two out of two dieing in year 2 (imac one) then year 3 (imac two), not good.

Get appleCare!

PS
OP macOS has a "six year rule" for iMac etc.
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

I'm a long time lurker, and I have the opportunity to buy an iMac from around 2009 at a fairly discounted price, but I'm curious about how long it will stay functional as hardware and software progresses.

I'm looking at a one of the following 3 options:

20" iMac, 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB or 750 GB HD
24" iMac, 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, 8 GB RAM, 640 GB HD
27" iMac, 2.7 GHz i5, 8 GB RAM, 1000 GB HD

Thanks for your help!
Stay away from the Core 2 Duos unless you're paying extremely little for them. I would only recommend them as intro devices or for kids. The third should be a decent option. I have a 2007 iMac, but it has been struggling for the last 4 years.
 
This may be in the wrong forum, but aside form upgrading to SSD. Is there a way to optimize a late 2009 iMac? Meaning, it is struggling with the 'beach ball' spinning quite often.
I have a 13 inch 2015 macbook air i am selling, i hate it.
 
This may be in the wrong forum, but aside form upgrading to SSD. Is there a way to optimize a late 2009 iMac? Meaning, it is struggling with the 'beach ball' spinning quite often.
I have a 13 inch 2015 macbook air i am selling, i hate it.
What are your specs for the iMac?

The late 2009 iMac is totally fine... except for the fact it has a hard drive in it. The only way to fix this is to ensure you have enough RAM for what you do, and to get an SSD into it. Or in the very least, run an SSD off Firewire.

The latter Firewire SSD option does actually work, and is significantly more responsive than the internal HD, but it's nowhere near as fast as an internal SSD. Also, if you do go the external Firewire SSD route, you need AC power. Bus power probably won't cut it. In addition, since there is no TRIM, you'll need to get a way bigger drive than needed and one with good garbage collection, to compensate for the lack of TRIM. Unfortunately, USB 2 SSD is way too slow, and it also doesn't get TRIM.

BTW, a clean install may help speed on the HD if you want to stick to using that as your boot drive, but as soon as you start adding applications and data, it will slow down.
 
What are your specs for the iMac?

The late 2009 iMac is totally fine... except for the fact it has a hard drive in it. The only way to fix this is to ensure you have enough RAM for what you do, and to get an SSD into it. Or in the very least, run an SSD off Firewire.

The latter Firewire SSD option does actually work, and is significantly more responsive than the internal HD, but it's nowhere near as fast as an internal SSD. Also, if you do go the external Firewire SSD route, you need AC power. Bus power probably won't cut it. In addition, since there is no TRIM, you'll need to get a way bigger drive than needed and one with good garbage collection, to compensate for the lack of TRIM. Unfortunately, USB 2 SSD is way too slow, and it also doesn't get TRIM.

BTW, a clean install may help speed on the HD if you want to stick to using that as your boot drive, but as soon as you start adding applications and data, it will slow down.


Maxed out RAM few years ago, Apple replaced HD last year. Was thinking a clean install would be easiest option for the time being. But I am reviewing the Macofalltrades website. May use this for future purchases.
 
Maxed out RAM few years ago, Apple replaced HD last year. Was thinking a clean install would be easiest option for the time being. But I am reviewing the Macofalltrades website. May use this for future purchases.
I'm actually just using my 2010 iMac 27" as an external monitor for my 2017 iMac 27".
 
  • Like
Reactions: hauntvictim
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.