I've spoken before about justifying an expensive computing environment. If I can get 'added value', otherwise described as the ability to use a product beyond it's intended uses, then paying a premium on components is worthwhile. If I can get longevity beyond the manufacturers intended lifespan, then that too is worthwhile.

Mar 12, 2018  Despite its 'pro' marketing, the iMac Pro still has a Vega 56 inside - Can it possibly hope to drive that beautiful 5K display? And can we do better? Get iFixit's Pro Tech Toolkit now for only $59.

• Jun 12, 2019  What do you think of the Mac Pro 2019 and gaming with the Radeon Pro Vega II Duo? Do you all think it can play game reasonably well with the 6K monitor? Got a tip for us? If you are buying it for work though and also want to enjoy occasional gaming, it will most likely be a rather decent gaming PC.
• Jun 11, 2019 For Radeon Pro Vega II duo as gaming GPU. Reminder that there aren't that many games supporting dual GPU, so most of the time, it would be as good as Radeon 7 in terms of gaming performance, which is about as good as RTX 2080. So will it play games well, yeah, since it would be as good as 2nd best GPU in the market right now.

I've recently was given a 2009 Mac Pro. At one time it was the pinnacle of workstation prowess in the Apple ecosystem. I was asked to see if such an old system can cut it for today's computer workloads. Close to a decade old and comparing it to my 2014 Retina iMac, I didn't expect much from it outside of being able to use it for simple office tasks or web surfing.

My goal, however, was much more ambitious. I wanted to be able to use it as a daily driver for all of my needs. How did it fair for transcoding HD video? How well does it render and run Final Cut projects? How about gaming in VR? Can it game at all? Let's find out!

One last thing. I want to preface this retro review and state out front that during my usage, I purposely tried to update and upgrade components that I had readily available to bring the system closer to today's needed specifications for various workloads. This is not a review of a machine frozen in time. This is also review about the expandability, the adaptability, and the relevance of such a system from 2009 in today's world.

Specifications

My 2009 Mac Pro came with the following components.

• Early 2009 Mac Pro running OS X El Capitan
• 2 x 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors
• 12GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
• ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 MB
• 160GB SSD, 640GB SATA HDD

Software updates

Having an older OS wasn't an issue per se, but my preference would be for it to be able to run macOS High Sierra so that I can definitively say or not say that it's a viable system in 2020. And Apple says that High Sierra is not supported on the 2009 Mac Pro.

macOS High Sierra

However, thanks to brilliant hackers who document their knowledge on various web forums, this limitation is easily by-passed with a firmware upgrade. The default firmware on the 2009 Mac Pro is 4,1. The needed firmware to run macOS High Sierra is 5,1 (the firmware for a 2010 Mac Pro). Upgrading the firmware couldn't have been easier. Once upgraded, the limitations were removed and I managed to install first macOS Sierra, and then macOS High Sierra. The firmware upgrade in essence turned my 2009 Mac Pro into a 2010 Mac Pro. With that firmware upgrade, other benefits also manifested. So with the OS smack dab in the modern age, I was set to look at the hardware.

Windows 10 via Boot Camp

As I stated, I wanted this Mac Pro to be my daily driver so to speak. I try to be OS agnostic, and as such, I use the Apple ecosystem for my daily computing and workflow, I use Windows for gaming, and finally, I use Linux for services.

Installing Windows 10 via Boot Camp should be a straightforward affair. It was not. I won't get into the drawn-out process but I managed to get Windows 10 installed on the HDD and I managed to do it in such a way that Windows 10 ran like a regular install would normally run rather than Windows 10 'know' that it was a Boot Camp install. The benefit to me was that I could download the latest manufacturer driver for my GPU upgrade described below. Otherwise, you'd be limited to using Apple Boot Camp specific drivers that tend to be older and missing features.

Hardware updates

Now that I had a modern OS, I began to wonder how capable of a machine I already had without other upgrades. Looking at my requirements for transcoding, rendering video and gaming, I was anticipating decent enough abilities in transcoding and video rendering, but I had no expectations of it being able to game. However, as I stated earlier, if I could readily upgrade something, I would do so.

Storage

The system came with a 160 GB SSD drive and a SATA 640 GB HDD. Frankly, these are fine for my purpose but note that the standard SATA connections on the motherboard of the Mac Pro would make getting a larger SSD an easy upgrade.

GPU upgrades

Luckily for me, I have two eGPU enclosures both housing AMD RX 580 GPUs. Recently, I noticed that although the eGPUs allowed for my MacBook Pro to have access to a full-fledged GPU, the performance was nowhere near that of a GPU that is housed on a regular PCIe slot. The reason I suspect was due to the fact the the bus speed of the Thunderbolt 3 connection to the eGPU enclose is only 1/4 of a full PCIe x16 bus. The 2009 Mac Pro has two PCIe x 16 slots. Was the 2009 Mac Pro capable of housing my pretty decent and modern GPUs? I decided to find out.

I put both of my AMD RX 580 GPUs into the Mac Pro to hopefully get higher fidelity for gaming and hardware encoding. Since I was able to already install macOS High Sierra, the upgrade was literally plug and play (with some caveats I'll detail in another article). At this point I was amazed with how I could reasonably upgrade hardware components such as a modern GPU (let alone two of them!) in such an aging system. Truly a testament to the engineering that went into designing the 2009 Mac Pro. I went from 1 GB of onboard VRAM to 2x8 GB. The system worked surprisingly well. In fact, as I mentioned previously, since I was able to install the latest AMD 'Adrenaline' drivers, I knew I had the latest and greatest software those GPUs could offer. Yes crossfire worked (mostly, but I'm not certain if the issues I had were due to the Mac Pro or due to crossfire itself).

Don't get me wrong. Although I was able to install two modern GPUs in this machine, there are a couple of allowances I had to accept. Firstly, the Nehalem CPUs aren't nearly fast enough to properly feed one let alone two of the RX 580 GPUs. In fact, in order for me to have stability, I had to reduce the power draw on the GPUs so that it didn't shut off my Mac Pro since the power draw was too high. Benching between various tests the difference was only a few percentage points lower when using reduced power but the benefits of having both GPUs was still apparent. Remember, I'm not looking to see if the 2009 Mac Pro can best a modern equivalent. I'm seeing if along it's lifespan, various upgrades and updates can keep it within an acceptable performance level. So far, it seems like it can.

Another issue, while gaming specifically, is that due to the relatively weak single thread capabilities of the CPUs, is that although average frame rates were decent, the fluctuation of the highest frame rates to the lowest frame rates in a single game could vary wildly causing jarring stuttering at times but not enough for me to state that the game was unplayable. Especially considering the age of the system it was running on. If you're hard pressed and can't afford the newest system, you can STILL get by on this machine from 2009.

Memory and CPU upgrades

So far I have not spent any extra cash on updating the 2009 Mac Pro. Up until I actually tried using the machine, I never even really considered upgrading the CPU or memory. However, seeing how promising the dual GPU upgrade went, I started researching the possibility of purchasing an upgraded CPU and memory.

The firmware upgrade that I performed taking the system from 4,1 to 5,1 made this CPU and memory upgrade an even better proposition. Memory wise, I could now install faster 1333 DDR3 memory. Up to 128GB of it if so inclined. On the CPU front, the firmware update now supports the considerably faster Westmere Intel Xeon chips. Not only do they have faster clock speeds, but they also have more cores per chip. The system could be upgraded to 12 cores running at 3.06 GHz. The most amazing part is that would bring the 2009 Mac Pro on par with the Mac Pros sold up until the release of the 2013 'trash can' Mac Pro and in doing so, giving the 2013 model a run for it's money.

And it's this ability to upgrade it to Westmere that again shows that although not the fastest, not even the most efficient, but still is relevant for today's workloads. With the bulk of the cost of the machine already paid for, these incremental upgrades offer excellent cost benefit over buying a similarly or slightly better spec'd workstation. Remember value added over time.

Although I have yet to perform the upgrade of memory and CPU, I've found some vendors selling the whole CPU and memory tray on eBay at the cost of around $1000 where you can simply swap out the old one and put in the new one. Or if you just want to upgrade only one of the components, you can do so for considerably less. You simply need to make certain that you buy CPUs that are compatible with your current CPU and memory tray. A single core tray cannot be upgraded to a dual-core tray for example. So you need to buy either a single core chip or two dual-core chips. I'm looking out for deals so if you spot any, leave me a comment to let me know!

Final configuration

So after all of the updates and upgrades I performed, the 2009 Mac Pro now looks like this:

• Early 2009 Mac Pro running macOS High Sierra
• 2 x 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors
• 12GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC SDRAM
• 2x Radeon RX 580 8 GB GPUs
• 160GB SSD, 640GB sata HDD

Performance

Although I'll be showcasing some metrics here it is not intended as a scientific comparison between systems. In fact, I'll be using a variety of more modern hardware to compare the various workloads to the 2009 Mac Pro. Again, the purpose of this retro review is to see if the venerable 2009 Mac Pro still has it in this day and age if you were to have upgraded components over the years instead of buying a whole new system. Or perhaps if you like the idea of repurposing older hardware.

The three areas that I'll focus on are Transcoding HD video, rendering video in Final Cut Pro, and finally, VR and regular gaming.

Transcoding HD Video

For my transcoding comparison, I converted Star Trek VI: Undiscovered country from a Blu-ray dump I made a while ago. The starting file size is 22GB in size. I'm using the HandBrake Fast 1080p30 preset and I'm placing the 22GB file onto the desktop so each machine reads and writes to their respective SSDs.

I ran the 2009 Mac Pro against my current work computer, a 2014 Retina iMac with an i7 4970k 4 core 8 thread 4 GHz CPU and 16 GB of 1600 MHz DDR3 memory. I also had access to a 2017 iMac Pro with a 3.2 GHz Intel Xeon W 8 core 16 thread CPU and 32GB of 2666 MHz DDR4 RAM.

• 2009 Mac Pro transcode time: 42 minutes
• 2014 Retina iMac transcode time: 35 minutes
• 2017 iMac Pro transcode time: 16 minutes

The 2009 Mac Pro is not the fastest and yes it's 7 minutes slower than the 2014 iMac but it's far from being outclassed. In fact, I'd even deem it pretty good even if not considering it's age. This is also using the slowest available processors for the Mac Pro. An upgrade to the CPU and memory is looking more and more enticing rather than getting a completely new system. Expectedly, the 2017 iMac Pro is far ahead.

Final Cut Pro

Although we've seen that the 2009 Mac Pro can still keep up with more modern hardware when encoding using the CPU, can it feed the GPUs hardware encoding via OpenCL?

A 10-minute 1080p video was edited with transitions and other effects. The export of the edited video was encoded in h.264.

• 2009 Mac Pro with 2x RX 580 8GB GPUs: 9 minutes 45 seconds
• 2014 Retina iMac with M295x 4GB GPU: 1 minute 36 seconds
• 2017 iMac Pro with AMD VEGA 56 GPU: 1 minute 14 seconds

I can't be certain if I was pegging either or both GPUs on the Mac Pro during encoding using OpenCL.

If FCP is your thing, then as of this writing, the 2009 Mac Pro seems to fall flat. However, I'll keep on researching to see if I've set up everything so that the OpenCL capable GPUs are being properly utilized.

This being said, the 2009 Mac Pro not unusable for FCP by any means. If finances are a thing and upgrading to the latest and greatest is not an option then this will do your editing and rendering just fine. When doing actual editing pre-export, things such as the scrubbing, the adding of effects and transitions, importing files drawing clips, etc…I could detect no discernible difference in these aspects from any of the machines. And if we get the OpenCL issue ironed out, it'll likely be way superior to the 2014 iMac in this regard.

LuxMark OpenCL test

As a result of the poor FCP performance, I decided to test OpenCL capabilities using LuxMark to see if the system is actually using the GPUs.

• 2009 Mac Pro OpenCL GPU score: 5316
• 2017 iMac Pro OpenCL GPU score: 3600
• 2014 Retina iMac OpenCL GPU score: 1419

• 2009 Mac Pro OpenCL CPU+GPU score: 5982
• 2017 iMac Pro OpenCL CPU+GPU score: 4467
• 2014 Retina iMac OpenCL CPU+GPU score: 1862

Wow. The 2009 Mac Pro blows all of the competition away with its dual GPU setup. As you can see the two RX 580s in the 2009 Mac Pro have beastly OpenCL compute capabilities. Why FCP didn't take advantage of the GPUs is as of yet unknown. But if you use OpenCL, then the dual RX 580s in the 2009 Mac Pro have much better performance than the mobile GPU in the newer iMac or even the 'entry level' iMac Pro. The simple fact that I can upgrade the GPU in the Mac Pro makes the older machine the much better performer over time.

Gaming and VR

Being OS agnostic I've run some quick graphics benches on macOS and Windows 10 using a variety of hardware. This is not to be an apples to apples comparison but to give you an idea of how the 2009 Mac Pro with its updates compared to other more modern machines.

Mac graphics scores at 1080p

I'm not a big Mac gamer, but I wouldn't mind being one if the hardware is capable and the games exist. In any event, here are some synthetic results for the GPUs in a few macOS running systems. Please note that under macOS the tests did not utilize both RX 580 GPUs in the 2009 Mac Pro. List is from best to worst:

• 2017 iMac Pro with Radeon Pro Vega 56 8GB GPU Valley benchmark OpenGL: score 2444 FPS:58.4 avg/30.8 min/103.3max
• 2009 Mac Pro with 2x RX 580 8GB GPUs Valley benchmark OpenGL: score 1625 FPS:38.8 avg/16.9 min/62.5 max
• 2014 Retina iMac with M295x 4GB GPU Valley benchmark OpenGL: score 1085 FPS:25.9 avg/14.3 min/44.7 max

• 2017 iMac Pro with Radeon Pro Vega 56 8GB GPU Heaven benchmark OpenGL: score 1423 FPS 56.5 avg/10.8 min/115.2 max
• 2009 Mac Pro with 2x RX 580 8GB GPUs Heaven benchmark OpenGL: score 891 FPS 35.4 avg/7.8 min/76.0 max
• 2014 Retina iMac with M295x 4GB GPU Heaven benchmark OpenGL: score 512 FPS 20.4 avg/7.5 min/42.6 max

The Mac Pro outperforms the 2014 iMac. Had both GPUs been utilized during the graphics test under macOS then I'd also suspect that the 2009 Mac Pro would also have bested the brand new iMac Pro. These are not great numbers for any of the systems other than the 2017 iMac Pro having passible scores. However, most gaming is done using Windows with Crossfire support (both GPUs running in tandem to display 3D graphics) so I continued my gaming tests in Boot Camp.

Windows graphics scores at 1080p

Pros And Cons Of Gaming On A Mac And Pc

For this test I'll be comparing the 2009 Mac Pro to a completely Windows 10 only computer with some powerful specs. It has an Intel I7 6700k with 16GB of DD4 2133 RAM and a Nvidia FE GTX 1080ti. Graphically, the components in the 2009 Mac Pro (nor the graphics components in the iMac Pro) cannot come close to matching the performance of the Windows 10 system. Once again, this comparison is only to demonstrate how the 2009 Mac Pro performs relative to more modern systems.

• 2009 Mac Pro Valley benchmark Direct X 11 crossfire with 2x RX 580 8GB GPUs: score 2100 FPS:50.2 avg/20.0 min/84.0 max

• Windows PC Valley benchmark Direct X 11 with GTX 1080 ti GPU: score 4788 FPS:114.4 avg/32.8 min/200.5 max

• 2009 Mac Pro Heaven benchmark Direct X 11 crossfire with 2x RX 580 8GB GPUs : score 2203 FPS:87.5 avg/14.2 min/169.9 max

• Windows PC Heaven benchmark Direct X 11 with GTX 1080 ti: score 3564 FPS:141.5 avg/30.3 min/283.7 max

• 2009 Mac Pro Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor Direct X 11 crossfire RX 580 ultra preset 1080p: FPS:73.89 avg/33.55 min/122.03 max

• Windows PC Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor Direct X 11 GTX 1080ti ultra preset 1080p: FPS:188.00 avg/83.58 min/322.07 max

Now these results show some promise but there are some issues with the wildly ranging frame time minimums and maximums. This will lead to stutter in games. However, once again, it's not a complete dud by any means. Can you get a better gaming system? Of course. But if you have this machine and want to still game with it, it's quite capable. I'd even say it's pretty good. You can easily play games at 1080p on the 2009 Mac Pro if you can ignore the occasional hiccup.

VR gaming

I don't have any metrics when it comes to VR. VR games have a high bar when it comes to system requirements. Technically, the GPUs in our 2009 Mac Pro are slightly above the minimum needed for decent VR gaming. The CPUs are not considered capable enough.

That being said, I still tried my HTC Vive on the Mac Pro with Windows 10. Incredibly, the system was quite capable of running VR applications at their minimum requirements. A machine that was born nearly a decade ago (with a little bit of help from hardware I had at my disposal) still has the chops to run VR. Color me impressed.

For those of you who bought the Mac Pro in 2009 and are still using it for your main computing, I say kudos to you for buying a system that has such amazing value. The entry level iMac Pro costs around $5000. When the 2009 Mac Pro came out it cost around $3200. Add to that around $1000 for the GPUs I added to the system and we hit $4200. You could argue that the two machines are around the same price when factoring for inflation. Can someone who buys an iMac Pro today say that they'll be able to still hang with the latest revisions of the Pro line in 9 years time? Without the ability to upgrade components like we can in the 2009 Mac Pro, I sincerely doubt it.

And yes I say that it can hang with the latest and greatest systems. In some areas, like with OpenCL computation, we made it insanely fast. Much faster than an iMac and an iMac Pro. It some areas it plays in the ballpark like when transcoding videos. Others seem to show it's age like when exporting Final Cut Pro videos but it does not show it's age when using a FCP workflow like editing, transforming and scrubbing.

Is it the fastest all-round? No. Does it have the latest hardware ports and technologies? Nope. Can it make a good work/play station without the need to drop another 5 grand for the latest iteration? Definitely. If you happen upon a 2009 Mac Pro that's in working order for a decent price, snatch that baby up. You'll get a lot more out of it than you have to pay into it. So to answer the question 'Is a 2009 Mac Pro is still relevant in 2020?' You're damned right it is.

Do you have and old Mac that you still use on a daily basis? Is there a retro review you'd like to see on iMore? Tell us about it in the comments!

We may earn a commission for purchases using our links. Learn more.

Apple is now redirecting (PRODUCT)RED purchases to COVID‑19 relief fund

Now through September 30, Apple is redirecting 100% of a portion of (PRODUCT)RED purchases to the Global Fund’s COVID‑19 Response.

BestMacBook for GamingiMore2020

Apple MacBooks have never been designed to perform solely as gaming laptops. Despite this, some models are better than others for this type of use. Our favorite current model, the 16-inch MacBook Pro (2019) i7 processor, includes numerous features that make it a terrific device for casual gamers. There are other noteworthy models we've gathered to help you choose the one that fits your needs best.

Best Overall: 16-inch MacBook Pro (2019) i7 processor

For gamers, we're recommending the least expensive of the two 16-inch models, which includes a 9th-generation Intel Core i7 processor with Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz. We're picking this one because it offers a nice mix of features at a price that's far more affordable than the premium offering we highlight below.

The base 16-inch MacBook Pro comes with 16GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory, 512GB SSD storage, and four Thunderbolt 3 ports. The model comes standard with an AMD Radeon Pro 5300M with 4GB of GDDR6 graphics processor that you can upgrade to an AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 4GB of GDDR6 or an AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 8 GB of GDDR6 for better performance.

On the obvious downside, this is still an expensive laptop. Plus, you'll need to recharge this laptop more often than the MacBook Air. And like all MacBooks, it isn't usually on sale at a discount.

Pros:

• The least expensive 16-inch model
• Pay extra for a graphics boost
• Biggest MacBook Pro display to date

Cons:

• Still very expensive
• Not the most powerful MBP you can buy
• Up to 11 hours wireless web

Best Overall

16-inch MacBook Pro (2019) i7 processor

Largest display for less

The entry-level 16-inch MacBook Pro is an excellent choice for the occasional computer gamer.

Source: iMore

Much lighter than the 13-inch MacBook Pro that has the same screen size, the 2019 MacBook Air weighs just 2.75 pounds, making it a great take-and-go laptop. Along with being less weighty, the MacBook Air provides an hour more of use between charges, although actual performance depends on the tasks.

We're sold on the entry-level MacBook Air, even for gaming, because of its price. Still, think casual gaming here only thanks to its slower processor and graphics card. There's also fewer Thunderbolt 3 ports on this model.

If you're purchasing a laptop solely for gaming, this isn't the one to buy. However, it will work well in a pinch when you need to take a break from your studies or work.

Pros:

• Same screen size as 13-inch MBP
• Up to 12 hours of wireless web between charges
• Excellent price

Cons:

• Only two Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) ports
• Not as powerful as MBP models

Best Value

MacBook Air (2019)

Save money and still game

Casual-casual gamers will enjoy using this MacBook Air model during the occasional break from work or school.

Source: iMore

When it comes to the 2019 13-inch MacBook Pro, $500 separates the base and most complete package. For even more, you can upgrade the machine's For the five memory, storage, and processor.

The smaller of the two MacBook Pro models is a great overall pick. At just over three pounds, the 13-inch MacBook Pro is only slightly heavier than the MacBook Air. For this, you get a better processor and graphics card, more storage availability, and a Touch Bar. You can upgrade the processor and storage. In doing so, however, you'll push the price just shy of $2,000. If that happens, you might want to consider our No. 1 pick instead.

Regardless, if a 13-inch display is what you want and you want the bells and whistles missing on the MacBook Air, this is the one to get. If you intend to spend more than one-fourth of your time gaming, it's even more vital for you to consider this model over the Air.

Pros:

• Better internals than MacBook Air
• Great mobility
• Much cheaper than the 16-inch model

Cons:

• You can't upgrade the graphics card
• Price can rise as you add components
• Is 13-inches enough?

Best Alternative

13-inch MacBook Pro (2019)

A step up

There's much to love about this model, which offers better internals than the MacBook Air.

Best Premium: 16-inch MacBook Pro (2019) i9 processor

If you're a hard-core Mac gamers, or want to be, the 16-inch MacBook Pro with an 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor and Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz is the one for you. Compared to the entry-level model, you'll get a graphics card boost and 1TB of storage. If this isn't enough, add more memory, an even better graphics card, and more storage. In doing so, the cost of this model can quickly exceed nearly $6,000, however.

Pros:

Pc Gaming On A Mac

• Apple's best MacBook Pro to date
• Graphics boost, upgrades
• Up to 64GB of memory available

Best Premium

16-inch MacBook Pro (2019) i9 processor

Mac Pro For Gaming

The best of the best

If you're okay with the price, no doubt this is the MacBook to get. Happy gaming!

Bottom line

In 2019, the MacBook lineup changed considerably as Apple discontinued the 12-inch MacBook and 15-inch model MacBook Pro. The change brings to four the number of Apple laptops we recommend for gaming purposes. Our favorite, the 16-inch MacBook Pro (2019) i7 processor, should give you enough power to play your favorite casual computer games. Still, it will cost you, especially if you add extras. It's still an expensive laptop, which no doubt is something to consider too.

The base model includes a 9th-generation Intel Core i7 processor with Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz with 16GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory, 512GB SSD storage, and four Thunderbolt 3 ports. The model comes standard with an AMD Radeon Pro 5300M with 4GB of GDDR6 graphics processor and can be upgraded to an AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with 4GB of GDDR6 or an AMD Radeon Pro 5300M with 8 GB of GDDR6 for better performance.

Credits — The team that worked on this guide

Bryan M. Wolfe is a dad who loves technology, especially anything new from Apple. Penn State (go Nittany Lions) graduate here, also a huge fan of the New England Patriots. Thanks for reading. @bryanmwolfe

We may earn a commission for purchases using our links. Learn more.

Pc Gaming On A Mac Program

Webcam hacking is real, but you can protect yourself with a privacy cover

Pc Gaming On A Mac Pro Download

Worried people might be looking in through your webcam on your MacBook? No worries! Here are some great privacy covers that will protect your privacy.