I have a 2012 iMac 27" and 2019 MBP 16". I'd ahve replaced them with a 2021 iMac 32" M1 Pro and 2027 MBP 16 M7 Pro when they become available.
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.
Let's talk about Intel MacBook Pro and buying them in 2025
- Thread starter Aoligei
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hard to call an Intel Mac a good value when the end of OS support is in sight. Even an 8GB M1 MacBook Air would run circles around most Intel Macs, and do so while having significantly better battery life and a longer window of OS support. If you're still running software in 2025 that requires an x86 based Mac, then either the developer needs to play catch up or you need to look for newer software.
I don't want repeat myself again, I see a $270CAD (roughly $200) 13" 2017 with upgraded 1TB storage (user replaceable SSD), is better value than over $700CAD ($500USD, if you can find one) M1 MacBook Air for average folks.
OCLP to MacOS Seqoia, you gets 2 more years of updates.
You can't install Windows natively on Apple Silicon Mac, as there is absolutely no driver support. Good luck installing Windows 11 on a virtual machine with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD. You will run out of storage and RAM pretty quickly.
If my software runs fine on x86 Mac, why would I need to look for newer software.
The thing is, Intel Mac provide significantly more value than Apple Silicon Mac for light usage. People here also mentioned that you can still do heavy workload, it just take longer.
I still can't understand why Apple fans dismiss Intel Mac. I am perfectly happy with my Intel Mac and I do have bunch of Apple Silicon Mac as well.
And I can't understand why you insist Intel Macs are still just fine, when they're rapidly running out of life. My friend is still getting along fine with a 2019 i9 16" MacBook Pro, and if you are given one, then great! I just had a look at what's going second hand around where I live. You could get an i9 Toaster for AU$1200, or an M2 MacBook Air for AU$1100, which would run rings around it in all circumstances except possibly sustained loads.
Or do you want to compare a 2014 i5 Mac mini for AU$300 with an M2 Mac mini for AU$600? That '14 is going to struggle to do much of anything useful, and the M2 is going to be great for years. If you only have $300, and you need something NOW and can't wait however long it would take to save up another $300, then sure. The i5 would be functional, and get you out of a pickle for basic office tasks, but the M2 would be incomparably better!
If Intel machines are a LOT cheaper than M series machines where you live, then Intel makes a little bit more sense.
Anyway, I need to get back to work.
So you'd rather spend $270 now and have to spend at least that much again in two years once there's no more updates via OCLP. In comparison, a $700 M1 could easily last 7+ years - over 3x as long as a 2017 machine. So your cost analysis is actually misleading when you factor in total cost of ownership (TCO).
The Windows argument is specious at best given that even Windows 11 running natively wants 16GB RAM at a minimum, especially given all the junk Microsoft is forcing on its users. For me personally, I have a custom built gaming PC that I can run Windows on, so I could care less if I can install Windows natively on my Macs.
You say that Intel provides "significantly more value", yet it takes longer to do the same workloads. Between the two years of OCLP support and having to replace the machine then and less work being done due to workloads taking longer, it's safe to argue the opposite. If you have to replace the machine sooner AND also get less work done in a given timeframe, the value proposition you allege goes out the window.
Where is the 7+ years support comes from? M1 is already 5 years old, if we go by history, Apple drops new OS updates around 6 years mark. Means if history repeats, macOS 27 would be the last release for M1 Mac. This gives you 4 more years of support.
$270 for two year equals to $135 per year. $700 for 4 years means $175 per year, if you stop using the computer the day support drops out. And people are using their Macs well pass support drops out day.
The bar minimum RAM is 4GB on Windows 11, 8GB is fine for Windows 11.
That’s on you. Not everyone can afford a Mac and custom build gaming PC at same time. Not lot people know how to build a gaming PC at all. So you can’t apply your logic to average people like dad and mom.
AS Mac doesn’t provide significant faster web experience, nor it offers better video experience on the web. It isn’t like you can write word documents faster on AS Mac. There are loads of things that AS doesn’t provide materially faster experience than Intel.
If you are using computer to compile million lines of code, editing video with many tracks, effects etc, yeah, AS Mac is better.
But for average folks, who need for computer for basic tasks, Intel Mac is good enough and better value.
One of thing I just realized is that, some older devices drivers were written with x86 only. Like my two of my Brother printers and one HP color printer. None of them have updated printer drivers for newest release of macOS or the manufacture provided drivers for Apple Silicon based Mac.
As far as driver goes, current Apple Silicon able to run x86 drivers with Rosetta translation layer, which would be not possible after macOS 28.
I have no intention to replace my printer, as they are functional and does printing job.
As far as driver goes, current Apple Silicon able to run x86 drivers with Rosetta translation layer, which would be not possible after macOS 28.
I have no intention to replace my printer, as they are functional and does printing job.
Unless you mean a 2017 13" MBA, the 13" 2017 MBP does NOT have a user replaceable SSD. It will also have a time bomb of a keyboard. If you mean a 2017 MBA, well then it's really just a 2015 computer with a mediocre screen.
For light usage a random off lease ThinkPad will get you something much newer for the same price, can easily have the SSD actually upgraded without requiring some weird adapter with compability issues, probably let you upgrade the RAM too. Plus it will run Linux like a champ which will let you be supported for like 20 years. New distros run well on my 2012 W520.
And if you need a new keyboard they're like $30 off AliExpress and take 15 minutes to swap instead of hundreds and hours for a 2017 MBP.
The ONLY reasons to get Intel Macs at this stage is you have some mission critical app/device that somehow ONLY works on x86 Mac. Or you're a collector. Otherwise it's just throwing away money on unrepairable, slow hardware.
For 2016-2017 release year, Apple released two versions of MacBook Pro 13". One is with the Touch Bar and one is without Touch Bar (with row of function key). These were the base configuration, came with 128GB SSD.
The non-touch bar version, has user replaceable SSD.
The $270 MacBook Pro is pretty reasonable, for people who wants entry level of MacBook Pro. But of course, you would have your expectations right.
The idea of buying a cheap intel mac sounds good until you see comparisons like these
.
Unless you need the intel architecture or specific hardware spec, it's better to get a base M1 Air.
Unless you need the intel architecture or specific hardware spec, it's better to get a base M1 Air.
Last edited:
The problem is that you can't necessarily go by Intel history as a template for how support will be handled for Apple Silicon Macs going forward. Furthermore, even if Mac OS 27 is the last OS for M1 Macs, there would still be a yet undetermined amount of time between then and when software starts requiring newer operating systems. You also miss a very critical element of the end-of-support and end-of-life windows, which is they are calculated based on when the products are no longer sold as new devices. That countdown has not even started yet as you can buy a new M1 MacBook Air from Walmart today for $599.
Are we sure Apple is going to treat the Wal-mart only M1's the same as other products? They make no support guarantees. It used to seem like products they stopped selling got at least 1 more year of software updates but they broke that rule with the last iPod Touch being stuck on 2021's iOS 15 despite being discontinued May 2022.
Do we know if Apple is even producing new M1s? Is it just leftover stock? AFAIK only Wal-mart in the US has them new which is odd.
Apple hasn't always discontinued OS support based on last sale date, especially for products that have had unusually long lifecycles. The Trash Can Mac Pro wasn't discontinued until December 2019 but lost OS support with Ventura in 2022, less than 3 years later. The 2018 Mac mini wasn't officially discontinued until January 2023 but is losing OS support with Tahoe, again less than 3 years later. Intel Mac Pro discontinued 2023 and will lose OS support with macOS 27 in 2026, 3 years again. iMac Pro had 4 years.
The M1 MBAs being sold by Walmart aren't a great example since they were technically discontinued in March 2024. It's very likely Walmart simply bought all of Apple's remaining stock and will stop selling them when they're gone.
Count down starts when Apple removes product from line up. Third party sellers don’t factor in.
All the thises. This is the first time in history Apple has not had to factor into their support strategy the vagaries of their CPU supplier’s roadmap. They have complete control of the platform.
Honestly, I think the thing that will EOL the M1 MBA is when macOS cannot boot in 8GB RAM. And setting aside that whole debate, I think it’s probably a good way off yet.
Maybe question 1 is poorly worded. If an Intel MacBook Pro user is still able to do the work they need and want to do on their laptop (like myself), what reason is there to abandon ship and upgrade? To me, there's none! I won't be spending more money on maintaining the laptop, so if I need to get a new battery for this laptop, instead of doing that I will put the money towards a new Mac. That's when I'll upgrade.
As to question 2, I say largely don't purchase an Intel MacBook at this point. There might be some edge scenarios where it makes sense. For example, maybe if you only have a few hundred dollars and an Intel MacBook that is gently used could tide you over for a few years, then sure. I think outside of edge scenarios, aim to get an M-chip Mac.
It won't be hard to estimate though.
Apple has complete control over iPhone hardware since Apple A4 processor. The longest supported iPhone was iPhone 6S and iPhone XS/XS Max/XR, both received total 6 version updates (6s from iOS 8 - iOS 15, XS/XS Max/XR iOS 12-iOS 18).
XS/XS Max/XR will gets two more years of security updates.
If we count Apple M1 has same support time from with iPhone XS series, then it will have two more years of macOS version updates plus two more years of security updates. So total 4 more years of updates.
Intel Mac which supports macOS Tahoe will gets three more years of security updates, one less years than M1. Intel Macs who are natively supported macOS Sequoia will gets two more years of security update. Any Intel Mac that can e patched to OCLP will have similar security update.
If price of a used Intel Mac is similar or close to base M1 Mac, you should go with Apple Silicon Mac.
If the price of Intel Mac is half or even 1/3 of M1 Mac, Intel might be a good buy. Especially you aren't doing too much on a computer.
If you need bigger screen, large RAM, larger SSD, but don't mind about slower performance, Intel Mac might be good.
As time goes by, there is lesser and lesser reason to buy Intel, as M1 Macs will be likely cheaper and cheaper on used market.
Intel Mac might be a good backup devices, if you have bunch of legacy x86 application that needed to run or if you have lots of devices that manufactures no longer updates drivers (i.e. printers), and macOS drops Rosetta with macOS 28.
OK, you win, Intel Macs definitely aren’t EOL thermal-throttling hot garbage with butterfly keyboards that will definitely fail, and if you’ve got no money, you definitely shouldn’t save a few more quid to get an M1 MBA.
Last edited:
Also hard to call an Intel Mac good value when for under $1000 you can get a brand new MacBook air with an M4 in it which will obliterate anything on the market in terms of single core performance (up to and beyond desktop intel 14900k or Ryzen 9950X) and outperform almost any other portable in multi-core CPU performance.
You really have to ask how much your time is worth to consider buying into an intel machine in 2025. Unless you have some very specific niche use case - in which case you do you.
But for most "normal end users", it just doesn't make sense.
I have: 2016 MacBook Pro, 2017 MacBook Pro 13” without touchbar, 2017 MacBook Pro 15”, 2015 and 2016 MacBook 12”, 2019 MacBook Pro, 2019 MacBook Air, which all have butterfly keyboard. None of them have failed butterfly keyboard.
All of them, runs pretty cool under normal load, yes of course it will sound like jet engine when you put it on heavy load, but no usage, it isn’t as bad as some people think.
Every single Intel MacBook Pro (not Air nor 12” MacBook Pro) handles 4K video play back just fine, browsing websites just fine, video conference just fine, opening multiple page word docs just fine, opening PowerPoint presentation just fine etc. I don’t know why people think Intel Macs are hot garbage which nothing can be done.
Lots of normal computing usage is fine under Intel. It isn’t like Intel Mac all the sudden can’t do anything.
That's missing the point a little bit. None of us think that an Intel Mac can't be used for anything! The point is, if you're on a limited budget, 9 times out of 10, you'll be better served by saving up a little bit longer, and getting an M1, which is much more capable.
Agreed. I am loving my Mac mini but I need a monitor to take that anywhere with me. Going portable for the same or a lower price comes a hit in performance.
I truly think unless you NEED Xcode then you’re fine with an Intel MBP so long as you get it for $300 or less. Even with the better options for RAM, you’re stuck at Tahoe which will remain relevant and targeted likely for another 3-4 years which can get you through college, and if that doesn’t happen **you can still switch to Linux or even Windows** which will definitely keep the machine supported. 2019 16” is the best value by far and meets min spec for Win11. It’s a seriously quality machine.
Also the support for Intel depends on the userbase of still existing Intel machines on Tahoe. Does anyone have those numbers?