Apple CRUd my 8core 2.8ghz pro for an 8 core 2.93ghz!!!

[TK2K]

Today, I spoke to the only level two product support staff member on apple's payroll who doesn't understand how processors or GHZ work.

So I'm not exactly sure where to post this, but I thought you guys would find this kinda interesting. So long story short i've been having serious issues with my Mac Pro, and the apple retail store agreed to do a CRU of the machine, but because i bought it refurbished ($2700) they were not able to return it in store and I would have to through applecare. Applecare didn't want to replace my computer, after hours of negations between product specialists at apple and the store near me, they finally agreed to CRU it and told me to call to set it up. The apple store said they were going to replace my 2.8ghz 5xxx series with the base level 8 core mac pro, a 2.26ghz, which is a considerable improvement from my current computer.

I got a women who will remain nameless in level two product specialist support, who agreed to set up a CRU for my machine as agreed upon by the apple store. As I'm listening to her set this up, I hear her say "I see you have an 8 core mac pro 2.8ghz, we don't make those models anymore but we have a model with 2.93ghz of power, so I'll CRU your machine with that" I sort of stammered, thinking she was making a joke or something, and asked her for the full specification list of the machine, sure enough, two 2.93ghz Nelham core Xeon processors...

I called back a few hours later to confirm the specifications of my machine, the guy one the other end of the phone repeated the specifications, saying it would be shipped out monday.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Rominator]

Lucky Devil

[J&JPolangin]

...outstanding, post the unboxing vid...

[noodle654]

Goodlord...I wish I could get one of those

[Andrew Henry]

Sounds like my MP is about to start having serious problems! :p

[TK2K]

...outstanding, post the unboxing vid...

Well here's the thing, If i Ebay it and just get a standard 2.26ghz have 3k to blow on other things... *drool*

[J&JPolangin]

Well here's the thing, If i Ebay it and just get a standard 2.26ghz have 3k to blow on other things... *drool*

...it was a free monster computer, you know you want to keep it:D (don't forever wonder what the "power" would have been like)...

[phil83]

Sweet! but what does CRU stand for?

[TK2K]

Sweet! but what does CRU stand for?

idk but it's like a lemon law on a car, they just give you a new one and take the old one after a certain number of problems

[Eithanius]

Sounds like my MP is about to start having serious problems! :p

Get AppleCare and wait till next year when Intel launch the native 6-core Xeons before your MP starts to crap out..., who knows you might get a dual hex-core MP... :p:p:D

[Genghis Khan]

massive, massive score!!!


congrats dude :)

now you're obliged to pimp it out...that means gtx285, at least one raid in there, at least 12GB RAM and perhaps a Blu-Ray drive?

[jon9091]

sniff sniff...I just love a happy ending! :) congrats! that's awesome!

[Tesselator]

Apple does the right thing and everyone says "massive score"??? I don't get it. The 2.26 would have been a MASSIVE downgrade! The 2.66 octad would have been a fairly equal contender but it's slower at some things too. That leaves ONLY the 2.93 as a 100% proper replacement. It sounds to me more like that it's the user here who doesn't understand "GHz". The 2.93 will always be faster than the 2.88 but mostly only by a very slight margin. It's not until the CPUs are over 80% saturated that the 2.66 begins to compete with the 2.88. At 100% saturation it surpasses it. But at the 0% ~ 79% (about) the 2.88 will always be faster than the 2.66. And isn't that where we spend most of our time? The 2.26 will never beat the 2.88 except is some fluke benchmark maybe.

Apple did the right thing! I just wish their price scheduling for 2009 showed the same degree of appropriateness! The 2.93 is $3000 more and basically has nothing over the 3.2 from 2008.

[Genghis Khan]

@ Tesselator

What you say is true...however, isn't it also true that the 2.93GHz Quad is faster than the old 2.8GHz octo for almost EVERYTHING (i'm not sure which programs do and don't use the virtual cores though)

another point, while the 2.66GHz is only faster at 100% saturation, isn't that where Mac Pro users want their power?


another way of looking at it is that Apple replaced his former model second to base machine with a current model top of the line...how is that not better?

[jon9091]

Apple does the right thing and everyone says "massive score"??? I don't get it. The 2.26 would have been a MASSIVE downgrade! The 2.66 octad would have been a fairly equal contender but it's slower at some things too. That leaves ONLY the 2.93 as a 100% proper replacement. It sounds to me more like that it's the user here who doesn't understand "GHz". The 2.93 will always be faster than the 2.88 but mostly only by a very slight margin. It's not until the CPUs are over 80% saturated that the 2.66 begins to compete with the 2.88. At 100% saturation it surpasses it. But at the 0% ~ 79% (about) the 2.88 will always be faster than the 2.66. And isn't that where we spend most of our time? The 2.26 will never beat the 2.88 except is some fluke benchmark maybe.

Apple did the right thing! I just wish their price scheduling for 2009 showed the same degree of appropriateness! The 2.93 is $3000 more and basically has nothing over the 3.2 from 2008.



I thought it was a great score because they simply just didn't give him a another 2.8 refurb as a replacement...or step him up to a 3.0 refurb to cover the cost difference because the 2.8's are cheaper now than what he paid.

[bigbird]

...outstanding, post the unboxing vid...

Why?

[TK2K]

Apple does the right thing and everyone says "massive score"??? I don't get it. The 2.26 would have been a MASSIVE downgrade! The 2.66 octad would have been a fairly equal contender but it's slower at some things too. That leaves ONLY the 2.93 as a 100% proper replacement. It sounds to me more like that it's the user here who doesn't understand "GHz". The 2.93 will always be faster than the 2.88 but mostly only by a very slight margin. It's not until the CPUs are over 80% saturated that the 2.66 begins to compete with the 2.88. At 100% saturation it surpasses it. But at the 0% ~ 79% (about) the 2.88 will always be faster than the 2.66. And isn't that where we spend most of our time? The 2.26 will never beat the 2.88 except is some fluke benchmark maybe.

Apple did the right thing! I just wish their price scheduling for 2009 showed the same degree of appropriateness! The 2.93 is $3000 more and basically has nothing over the 3.2 from 2008.



I think you're missing some of the information about how CPU architecture works. Yes, it's a 2.26ghz, however it's actual performance is way above the 2.8ghz that I currently have. It's like how back in the old days a 1.6ghz pentium M could keep it's pace with a 3.2ghz p4.

I'm so psyced! I've gotta sell it off if I wanna do any major upgrades to it, might go 2.66 root if the moneys work out though :P

[Genghis Khan]

I think you're missing some of the information about how CPU architecture works. Yes, it's a 2.26ghz, however it's actual performance is way above the 2.8ghz that I currently have. It's like how back in the old days a 1.6ghz pentium M could keep it's pace with a 3.2ghz p4.

I'm so psyced! I've gotta sell it off if I wanna do any major upgrades to it, might go 2.66 root if the moneys work out though :P

lol...i think you may be missing some info on processor architecture...while the 2.26GHz is the new architecture, it can't keep up with the higher clocked 2.8GHz in single-threaded tasks (unless i'm much mistaken...), while the 2.66GHz is about line-ball.

and don't sell it..it would be a shame to sell the fastest mac money can buy :(

only upgrade RAM and HDD at first if you can't afford to go all out...surely you had some money set aside for upgrades of the 2.8GHz?

[Tesselator]

@ Tesselator

What you say is true...however, isn't it also true that the 2.93GHz Quad is faster than the old 2.8GHz octo for almost EVERYTHING (i'm not sure which programs do and don't use the virtual cores though)

"almost everything"? Yes, that's true.

another point, while the 2.66GHz is only faster at 100% saturation, isn't that where Mac Pro users want their power?

No. In the majority of cases, no. Allow me to explain this tho. We can look at the performance aspect of a CPU as being two central things: Throughput and Speed. We can simplify it further to "How Much" and "How Fast". Install MenuMeters or something similar and put history-per-core % in the menu-bar where you can glance at it while you work. Unless this machine is serving duty as a renderfarm node or something you'll notice how seldom the CPUs hit 90% ~ 100% per core. Likely far more than 90% of your computing day will be much less than that. So we're kinda mostly pinging very small to medium sized tasks at it constantly as we work. The completion time for 90% of those processes are weighted the most heavily on the core's clock+plus buss speed; plus maybe RAM and storage I/O speed if it's asking for data or memory pages.


another way of looking at it is that Apple replaced his former model second to base machine with a current model top of the line...how is that not better?

Yeah, that's better. :) I just mean that this is what Apple "should" do. I'm not saying it's not better. Given the choice of the two for the same $$ I of course would pick the 2.93! :D


I thought it was a great score because they simply just didn't give him a another 2.8 refurb as a replacement...or step him up to a 3.0 refurb to cover the cost difference because the 2.8's are cheaper now than what he paid.

Yeah, you're right. :)

I think you're missing some of the information about how CPU architecture works.

No, I've done my homework on the architecture and buss differences. Maybe one or two hundred benchmarks too - both synthetic and real-world.

Yes, it's a 2.26ghz, however it's actual performance is way above the 2.8ghz that I currently have.

Your 2.88 needs repair. Is it still under warrantee? I know, I'm being a smart-ass but there's just no way this is true. Something's off.

:cool:

[Obsidian6]

So Lucky!!

I've been trying to get my Mac Pro CRU'd since December. It's been through 4 graphics cards a logic board and a super drive. It's pretty blatantly clear there is an issue with it. I was promised a replacement, but the store is saying they won't do it now because I've "had too many repairs in close proximity to one another" they basically are telling me I'm trying to MAKE problems to get a new computer.

It's just insane how they've been treating me in this situation.

I'm glad you got seriously hooked up. Hopefully I will too someday.

[bearcatrp]

If your problems are true, (have no doubt they are), I would be on the phone with the state attorney general filing a complaint. I would have demanded another mac pro after the logic board died.
On another note, what problems did the op have that warrented another mac pro? I bought a 2.8 refurb and don't have any problems but would like to know your setup so I can keep an eye on any potential problems.

So Lucky!!

I've been trying to get my Mac Pro CRU'd since December. It's been through 4 graphics cards a logic board and a super drive. It's pretty blatantly clear there is an issue with it. I was promised a replacement, but the store is saying they won't do it now because I've "had too many repairs in close proximity to one another" they basically are telling me I'm trying to MAKE problems to get a new computer.

It's just insane how they've been treating me in this situation.

I'm glad you got seriously hooked up. Hopefully I will too someday.

[Tom Sawyer]

That was non... non non... non heinous! :D

[Eithanius]

Today, I spoke to the only level two product support staff member on apple's payroll who doesn't understand how processors or GHZ work.

So I'm not exactly sure where to post this, but I thought you guys would find this kinda interesting. So long story short i've been having serious issues with my Mac Pro, and the apple retail store agreed to do a CRU of the machine, but because i bought it refurbished ($2700) they were not able to return it in store and I would have to through applecare. Applecare didn't want to replace my computer, after hours of negations between product specialists at apple and the store near me, they finally agreed to CRU it and told me to call to set it up. The apple store said they were going to replace my 2.8ghz 5xxx series with the base level 8 core mac pro, a 2.26ghz, which is a considerable improvement from my current computer.

I got a women who will remain nameless in level two product specialist support, who agreed to set up a CRU for my machine as agreed upon by the apple store. As I'm listening to her set this up, I hear her say "I see you have an 8 core mac pro 2.8ghz, we don't make those models anymore but we have a model with 2.93ghz of power, so I'll CRU your machine with that" I sort of stammered, thinking she was making a joke or something, and asked her for the full specification list of the machine, sure enough, two 2.93ghz Nelham core Xeon processors...

I called back a few hours later to confirm the specifications of my machine, the guy one the other end of the phone repeated the specifications, saying it would be shipped out monday.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess I'm not as lucky as you are... :p

I've just got off the phone with Apple guy. My problematic 3.0GHz Clovertown MP was initially replaced with a 2.26GHz Octo, but I told him I'm interested with the 2.66GHz Octo instead for my CPU frequency-dependent work, just wanna try my luck without being greedy. He got back to me an hour later with what I wanted.

Kinda regret, should have asked for a 2.93GHz Octo instead... :(

Going to update my siggy soon....

[seisend]

hmmm... -> Mr.Tesselator

The 09octo 2.26 - a downgrade? isn't it pretty equal with the 08octo 2.8?...
I mean the 08 is slight faster in single core applications, and the 09 is slight faster in multicore applications...

I think the 09octo 2.93 is MUUUUCH faster than the 08octo 2.8....

so I would say MASSIVE upgrade ...

$ $ $

[Tesselator]

hmmm... -> Mr.Tesselator

The 09octo 2.26 - a downgrade? isn't it pretty equal with the 08octo 2.8?...

$ $ $

No. Not even close. But your right about the money factor thanks to a few crazies at Apple marketing. :) (oh wait.. that should be a frowny face... )

[kirreip]

No. Not even close. But your right about the money factor thanks to a few crazies at Apple marketing. :) (oh wait.. that should be a frowny face... )

this makes me wonder: which sources do you refer to? The benchmarks I have seen, seemed to be exactly the way seisend just wrote.

[Tesselator]

this makes me wonder: which sources do you refer to? The benchmarks I have seen, seemed to be exactly the way seisend just wrote.

Well, he wrote: "I think the 09octo 2.93 is MUUUUCH faster than the 08octo 2.8...."

So if that's what you mean then yes. But the only benchmarks that will show the 2.26 as being faster than the 2.8 will be the ones that kick it into turbo mode while at the same time saturating the cores to 99% ~ 100% in systems with triple channel RAM configured. In those tests we will see about a 7% increase over the 2.8 - but this almost never happens in real-world use - some polygon rendering engines maybe. For normal use the 2.8 will always be 5% to 10% faster than the 2.26 and about on par with the new 2.66. And the 2.8 will still be faster than the 2.66 at some things. ;)

Can you link to any intelligent benchmarks that show otherwise?

[kirreip]

Well, he wrote: "I think the 09octo 2.93 is MUUUUCH faster than the 08octo 2.8...."

So if that's what you mean then yes. But the only benchmarks that will show the 2.26 as being faster than the 2.8 will be the ones that kick it into turbo mode while at the same time saturating the cores to 99% ~ 100% in systems with triple channel RAM configured. In those tests we will see about a 7% increase over the 2.8 - but this almost never happens in real-world use - some polygon rendering engines maybe. For normal use the 2.8 will always be 5% to 10% faster than the 2.26 and about on par with the new 2.66. And the 2.8 will still be faster than the 2.66 at some things. ;)


Thank you for the clarifications. I didn't know that.

Can you link to any intelligent benchmarks that show otherwise?

No not at all, that's why I was wondering. The only benchmarks that I have seen are the ones that float arround in this forums and which you surely have seen too.

[Genghis Khan]

Well, he wrote: "I think the 09octo 2.93 is MUUUUCH faster than the 08octo 2.8...."

So if that's what you mean then yes. But the only benchmarks that will show the 2.26 as being faster than the 2.8 will be the ones that kick it into turbo mode while at the same time saturating the cores to 99% ~ 100% in systems with triple channel RAM configured. In those tests we will see about a 7% increase over the 2.8 - but this almost never happens in real-world use - some polygon rendering engines maybe. For normal use the 2.8 will always be 5% to 10% faster than the 2.26 and about on par with the new 2.66. And the 2.8 will still be faster than the 2.66 at some things.

I bought my Mac Pro refurb just after the '09 models were released, and was slightly unsure about which way to go...2.66GHz Quad or 2.8GHz Octo

Thank-you for validating my decision :D

(except i do polygon rendering, which seems to be the one thing that the nehalems kickass at)

[Tesselator]

I bought my Mac Pro refurb just after the '09 models were released, and was slightly unsure about which way to go...2.66GHz Quad or 2.8GHz Octo

Thank-you for validating my decision :D

(except i do polygon rendering, which seems to be the one thing that the nehalems kickass at)

Yep! Anyone being paid the big bucks to render animations on their desktop wants dual nehalem W5580's as fast as they come and tons of RAM. :)

This looks rather nice: http://uk.asus.com/Product.aspx?P_ID=sqbdCm0nmFxn3sS4
http://uk.asus.com/websites/global/products/sqbdCm0nmFxn3sS4/P_500.jpg

I guess we could fully populate this with 36GB RAM and two W5580 3.2GHz + a nice GFX card for about $4,500. Kinda shows just how overpriced Apple currently is. :p