Most collectible early Intel Mac

[VivienM]

So... last year, I acquired a refurb 27 mid-2020 iMac, which is likely the last (and arguably best?) 'late Intel' Mac.

Then, I picked up an MDD Power Mac G4, which is the last (and arguably best?) OS 9 machine and... a reasonable machine for the early-OS X, late PPC era. Really, the G5s may be faster, but the MDD will run Leopard and the last PPC software more than fine enough for collecting purposes.

One thing I discovered while browsing around Macintosh Garden, etc looking for software for the G4 is that a lot more software than one might have expected ended up making the jump to Carbon/Intel but never made it to 64-bit Cocoa Intel.

So... that makes me think, if I wanted to add another machine to my collection along the same theme as those two, what would be the best representative of that early Intel 32-bit Carbon era? (Sadly, I think it's too late to do the same with the equivalent for the 68K era, likely the Quadra 840av I lusted after in my youth... I'm probably about two decades too late trying to get one of those. And 68K machines with ADB, DB-15 monitors, etc require much more peripherals to be operational... not to mention potentially some soldering skills to deal with capacitor issues)

My thinking was the 2011 Mac mini with the 6630M GPU, probably running High Sierra (or dual booting a much earlier version of OS X). Desktops are preferred over laptops because, well, laptops tend to have batteries that swell, go bad, etc. Mac Pro might be nice, but majorly bulky...

Thoughts?

 

[theMarble]

I'd say either the 5,1 Mac Pro, which supports up to 12 cores at 3.46GHz and the 2011 Sandy Bridge Macs. The 5,1 is without a doubt the single fastest machine that can run Snow Leopard (which is the best Early Intel OS, and represents this era very well). I have a liquid-cooled G5, while it is big, it's not that big and bulky compared to a regular PC tower, plus it looks awesome.

The 2011 MBP, Mac mini and iMacs are probably the fastest non-tower systems, especially if you get one that doesn't have a dead GPU. Even the base 13" i5 MBP feels a lot snappier than my 2010 13" MacBook. A 27" iMac with the 2600K, 32GB of RAM, SSD and a working 6970M would be very fast.

 

[GMShadow]

Idly, a Quadra 900 or 950 would be a better 68k pick than an 840AV. 7MHz isn't worth a far worse case and the 840's temperamental nature.

The 4,1 and 5,1 Mac Pros were still overpriced for what they are, last I checked - they're also...not exactly ideal hardware.

As long as running 10.6 isn't important to you, I'd say just get a 2012 Mac mini. That gives you some niceties over the 2011s, it'll still run High Sierra if that's where you want to sit, and they're dirt cheap because Apple sold so many of them. OWC will sell you a base i5 model for $69.

If 10.6 is important, a 2010 Mini will do the job, and can be had with an internal optical drive should you desire.

 

[Amethyst1]

My thinking was the 2011 Mac mini with the 6630M GPU […]

That GPU is known to drop like flies. If you want a 2011 mini, get one with the Intel iGPU.

 

[theMarble]

That GPU is known to drop like flies.

Does it fail as often as the higher-end (and hotter running) chips used in the MBP and iMac or were they all the same?

 

[VivienM]

Idly, a Quadra 900 or 950 would be a better 68k pick than an 840AV. 7MHz isn't worth a far worse case and the 840's temperamental nature.

I think the 840av just has that sentimental value, at least for those of us who were 10 or 11 or whatever back when it was new and wished we could have one... (although, it's funny, with the benefit of hindsight... boy would that have been a dumb purchase for someone who didn't need its performance for immediate work purposes - only stayed top of the line for about 9 months)

... but yes, objectively, the case design is certainly an issue. The built-in CD-ROM is probably not that huge an asset in an era of funky SCSI things.

And there's a case to be made that the better 68K collector system would be something that can be switched back to 24-bit addressing mode. Lots and lots of early Mac software will crash real quick with 32-bit addressing on...
(This is where I regret having left behind a IIsi I had for a while...)

 

[B S Magnet]

So... last year, I acquired a refurb 27 mid-2020 iMac, which is likely the last (and arguably best?) 'late Intel' Mac.

Then, I picked up an MDD Power Mac G4, which is the last (and arguably best?) OS 9 machine and... a reasonable machine for the early-OS X, late PPC era. Really, the G5s may be faster, but the MDD will run Leopard and the last PPC software more than fine enough for collecting purposes.

One thing I discovered while browsing around Macintosh Garden, etc looking for software for the G4 is that a lot more software than one might have expected ended up making the jump to Carbon/Intel but never made it to 64-bit Cocoa Intel.

So... that makes me think, if I wanted to add another machine to my collection along the same theme as those two, what would be the best representative of that early Intel 32-bit Carbon era? (Sadly, I think it's too late to do the same with the equivalent for the 68K era, likely the Quadra 840av I lusted after in my youth... I'm probably about two decades too late trying to get one of those. And 68K machines with ADB, DB-15 monitors, etc require much more peripherals to be operational... not to mention potentially some soldering skills to deal with capacitor issues)

My thinking was the 2011 Mac mini with the 6630M GPU, probably running High Sierra (or dual booting a much earlier version of OS X). Desktops are preferred over laptops because, well, laptops tend to have batteries that swell, go bad, etc. Mac Pro might be nice, but majorly bulky...

Thoughts?

I think this thread title would be more fitting to be described as “most versatile”, rather than “most collectible” — as the former is really the question you seem to be asking here.

I’m going to concur with @theMarble and @Amethyst1 here: the MacPro5,1 is remarkably versatile and was designed by Apple to run everything between Snow Leopard (10.6.4+) and Mojave; with the OpenCore Legacy Project, that Mac Pro can go well beyond Mojave. But sticking with Mojave on at least one boot partition will afford you access to 32-bit applications which were never ported to 64-bit (and there are quite a few!). In addition, the Mac Pro is extremely modular in the spirit of classic towers/desktops, so upgrading the CPU(s), the GPU, and adding in a bunch of other PCIe cards is very much doable.

The Mac mini is also another decent option without a dependency for batteries. You might find remarkable versatility (and better prices) on editions earlier than the 2011 Sandy Bridge — namely, the mid-2010 Core 2 Duo models which, much like the MacPro5,1 (which went on sale at about the same time), runs everything from 10.6.4+ up to High Sierra, out of box (and higher with OCLP patching) — without the same kind of risk of Radeon GPU issues plaguing most of the 2011 models. The main trade-off: the mid-2010 lacks Thunderbolt, whereas the 2011s lack SuperDrive (all but the Server edition of the mid-2010s have a SuperDrive).

 

[Amethyst1]

The main trade-off: the mid-2010 lacks Thunderbolt, whereas the 2011s lack SuperDrive (all but the Server edition of the mid-2010s have a SuperDrive).

The 2011s are also quite a bit faster than the 2010s, especially the quad-core Server model. Their Intel HD Graphics 3000 iGPU is arguably worse than the 2010’s NVIDIA GeForce 320M though.

 

[GMShadow]

The 2011s are also quite a bit faster than the 2010s, especially the quad-core Server model. Their Intel HD Graphics 3000 iGPU is arguably worse than the 2010’s NVIDIA GeForce 320M though.

There's a lot of trade-offs, yes. The 2011's also have SATA 3 and BT 4.0 as well as faster wireless, and the 2012s get USB 3.0, etc.

The need/desire to run 10.6 really is the main decider here, I think.

 

[esbardu]

So... last year, I acquired a refurb 27 mid-2020 iMac, which is likely the last (and arguably best?) 'late Intel' Mac.

Then, I picked up an MDD Power Mac G4, which is the last (and arguably best?) OS 9 machine and... a reasonable machine for the early-OS X, late PPC era. Really, the G5s may be faster, but the MDD will run Leopard and the last PPC software more than fine enough for collecting purposes.

Thoughts?

My approach is slighly different, our objective is the same.
I have a Power Mac Quicksilver 2002 DP 1Ghz 1,5Gb (indeed I have two QuickSilvers, second one it's a 866Mhz for spare parts in the near future), this would cover Mac OS 9 and Tiger, but I have also two Mac Mini G4s for the same purpose (1,5 and 1.42Ghz) both with Mac OS 9 and Tiger.
As for Intel my goal was to have one of the first models, Mac Mini 2006 but I also have a Mac Mini 2009 for Snow Leopard. iMacs are more difficult to collect (I just sold a 2011 iMac).
So now I'm thinking which late Intel I should buy and use as main computer before switching to an Apple Silicon model, maybe a 2019 21,5 iMac, I don't like the 2018 Mac Minis and they are still quite expensive second-handed in Spain.

As for your question I really like 2011 Mac Minis, in your case I would try to find the Mac Mini i7 2Ghz server, it's quite fast (4 cores, 8 threads) but has got an Intel GPU (AMD's GPU were not reliable as already highlighted in other answers).

 

[MBAir2010]

My thinking was the 2011 Mac mini with the 6630M GPU, probably running High Sierra (or dual booting a much earlier version of OS X). Desktops are preferred over laptops because, well, laptops tend to have batteries that swell, go bad, etc. Mac Pro might be nice, but majorly bulky...

Thoughts?

the 2012 Mac mini sports a much better graphics card than the 2011 version
and something else Utubers marveled over 2 years ago.
(edit added this)
im streaming Peacock English football to a TV and speaker
without a fan! im an idiot!
whew I forgot about the fan port falling off and using an USB one to cool the mini
boy, was that HOT!
now it's cooling down......
and:
if the 2012 unibody MacBook Pro is early, that has to be the best MacBook ever.
im typing this on one now. Monterey.

 

[B S Magnet]

the 2012 Mac mini sports a much better graphics card than the 2011 version
and something else Utubers marveled over 2 years ago.
if the 2012 unibody MacBook Pro is early, that has to be the best MacBook ever.
im typing this on one now. Monterey.

If only it ran Snow Leopard flawlessly and it was available as a 17-inch model…

 

[MBAir2010]

If only it ran Snow Leopard flawlessly and it was available as a 17-inch model…

Snow Leopard is worth the older model!

 

[B S Magnet]

Snow Leopard is worth the older model!

If only the older model wasn’t saddled with a terminally faulty GPU. D:

Moreover, a 2012 17-inch model would have had all of USB 3.0, ExpressCard, Thunderbolt, and a rock-solid GPU.

 

[Amethyst1]

There's a lot of trade-offs, yes. The 2011's also have SATA 3 and BT 4.0 as well as faster wireless, and the 2012s get USB 3.0, etc.

USB 3.0 at least can be added to a 2011 Mac using a Thunderbolt dock or dongle (yay!).

The need/desire to run 10.6 really is the main decider here, I think.

Agreed. If that is of no concern, the 2012 also brings a Metal-capable GPU to the table.

If only the older model wasn’t saddled with a terminally faulty GPU. D:

There's the 2010 17" which is kinda reliable but it has to make do without quad-cores and Thunderbolt.

 

[B S Magnet]

There's the 2010 17" which is kinda reliable but it has to make do without quad-cores and Thunderbolt.

I’ve long been on the fence about the 17-inch mid-2010s. Thunderbolt very helpful to have, as is four cores.

Also, whatever I can do to minimize/eliminate dongles is something I consider a laudable goal.

(Also, there’s that one aftermarket USB 3.0 ExpressCard on MBPs running 10.6.8 and later.)

 

[VivienM]

the 2012 Mac mini sports a much better graphics card than the 2011 version
and something else Utubers marveled over 2 years ago.
(edit added this)
im streaming Peacock English football to a TV and speaker
without a fan! im an idiot!
whew I forgot about the fan port falling off and using an USB one to cool the mini
boy, was that HOT!
now it's cooling down......
and:
if the 2012 unibody MacBook Pro is early, that has to be the best MacBook ever.
im typing this on one now. Monterey.

I thought the 2012 Mac mini was only available with integrated Intel graphics, but maybe I misread the specs or Wikipedia was wrong? Or is the Intel 4000 better than the AMD 6630?

The 2012 unibody MacBook Pro is an interesting idea. I actually have a friend who has a 13", hasn't used it for years and years, I could probably make her an offer she can't refuse and get it from her. But... I guess I worry about swelling batteries being a problem for a collector item (I had a mid-2014 retina 15" MBP, great machine, but the battery swelled once, was repaired, then was starting to swell again when I traded it in for the M1 Max MBP).

After reading some of you guys' comments, I started vaguely looking for 27" iMacs with 69xx video cards. Though unibody iMacs kinda scare me...

 

[theMarble]

I thought the 2012 Mac mini was only available with integrated Intel graphics, but maybe I misread the specs or Wikipedia was wrong? Or is the Intel 4000 better than the AMD 6630?

The 6630M is marginally better than the 4000, however it fails just like every other Radeon 6xxx GPU used in Macs. The 2012 only came with the 4000.

After reading some of you guys' comments, I started vaguely looking for 27" iMacs with 69xx video cards. Though unibody iMacs kinda scare me...

Just remember that while the 6970M is very powerful (for Snow Leopard), it's almost guaranteed to fail. You can replace it either with an failing 6970M or replace it with a different GPU, but unless you want to lose performance (by going down to a 5670 or 5750) you will have to ditch Snow Leopard support.

 

[Amethyst1]

(@theMarble was faster )

I thought the 2012 Mac mini was only available with integrated Intel graphics, but maybe I misread the specs or Wikipedia was wrong?

Correct. HD 4000 or bust.

Or is the Intel 4000 better than the AMD 6630?

The point was that it’s much better than the HD 3000.

After reading some of you guys' comments, I started vaguely looking for 27" iMacs with 69xx video cards. Though unibody iMacs kinda scare me...

The 6970M GPU in particular was also subject to a replacement programme, and I wouldn’t count on the other 6xxx GPUs “magically” being much more reliable in iMacs after seeing them die in Mac minis and MBPs. I reckon it’s best to stay clear of them if you want a reliable machine.

 

[theMarble]

I reckon it’s best to stay clear of them if you want a reliable machine.

Well the GPU is mounted onto an MXM card, so it can be replaced with a different model GPU, but are there any that are both as fast or faster, and retain Snow Leopard support? The 5750 from the 2010 is a good bit slower.

 

[MBAir2010]

I thought the 2012 Mac mini was only available with integrated Intel graphics, but maybe I misread the specs or Wikipedia was wrong? Or is the Intel 4000 better than the AMD 6630?

The 2012 unibody MacBook Pro is an interesting idea. I actually have a friend who has a 13", hasn't used it for years and years, I could probably make her an offer she can't refuse and get it from her. But... I guess I worry about swelling batteries being a problem for a collector item (I had a mid-2014 retina 15" MBP, great machine, but the battery swelled once, was repaired, then was starting to swell again when I traded it in for the M1 Max MBP).

After reading some of you guys' comments, I started vaguely looking for 27" iMacs with 69xx video cards. Though unibody iMacs kinda scare me...

That Mac mini 2012 I own has a.....umm hold on....Intel HD 400 1536 MB graphics card.
which runs 2023 internet things very well!
im typing this on a MacBook Pro 2012 13" while the 2020 MacBook Air M1 sits idle for now.
I have no battery issues and now have 2 ssd drives one running Monterey, the other one running Mojave.
I replaced the DVD player last week, kinda easy and happy I did

unibody iMacs are safer than the 2019 ones, those have electrocuted several repair people,
even Lienus' tech guy ruined a logic board on episode, which they made into a mini series trying to get the part.

I think one month this year I will stick with either 2022 and box the 2012 things
just to quell my attachment for these older but still operable devices I really don't need.

 

[theMarble]

unibody iMacs are safer than the 2019 ones, those have electrocuted several repair people,

All of the "thin" iMacs (2014-2020) have the same method of opening as the 2019 and the iMac Pro. The reason for the risk of electric shock is for some reason Apple decided to not cover up the power supply, leaving components with a high charge (like caps) exposed.

 

[theMarble]

but are there any that are both as fast or faster, and retain Snow Leopard support?

It's possible that the Quadro 3000M and 5000M may work. The 5000M has the same chip as the Quadro 4000 for Mac Pro (GF100) and the 3000M use the GF104 chip, which was widely used in Snow Leopard-based Hackintoshes (GTX 460).

5000M has a 100W TDP while the 3000M has a 75W TDP, which matches with the 6970M in the 2011.

Obviously no boot screen, but there might be a chance of hardware acceleration on them, especially if Hackintosh drivers are used.

 

[Amethyst1]

[...] are there any that are both as fast or faster, and retain Snow Leopard support?

It's possible that the Quadro 3000M and 5000M may work.

They don't come close to the 6970M in terms of performance though.

 

[theMarble]

They don't come close to the 6970M in terms of performance though.

Still may be an option to try if a 27" iMac ever crosses my path. Did any of the Kepler or 7000 series chips work on Snow Leopard, even without full acceleration?