Faulty 3.2 Ghz Harpertown - Apple Replacement Imminent - Question

[sound kev]

Hi everyone ,

I've been referencing this forum for a very long time but finally have a reason to ask your advice !

I purchased my 8 core / 3.2ghz Harpertown MP as an apple refurb in April of this year .
Initially i wasn't just pleased , i was down right ecstatic as it turned up with 16GB RAM , 1tb HD , Airport Extreme and 2x Super drives !

However , within a couple of weeks i started having problems with it randomly restarting/freezing .

to cut a long story short , since then i've tried everything suggested by the nice people at Tech Support to sort this out - to no avail .

So now i have an appointment at my local Apple Store for them to confirm that it's a hardware issue - in which case i have been told that i will be offered a 'new' replacement ... which leads me to my questions :

1. from what i can gather from reading the pages of this esteemed forum the Nehalems aren't a massive improvement (yet) on what i've already got .
I'm anticipating being offered an 09 2.66 Octo - would this be a fair swap or would i be better off asking for another 3.2 08 ?

2. as well endowed as my 3.2ghz 08 is - should i expect the same spec on the replacement (16gb ram/1tb hd/airport extreme/2x superdrives) or am i pushing my luck ?

thanks in advance - my appointment is tomorrow so i will report back with my experience ;)

[bozz2006]

You should expect at least equivalent specs. If they offer you a 2.66 ghz 8 core, don't accept it. Your machine is top of the line spec, and anything less than that is not fair. And you should get two superdrives. And you should get at least 12 GB of RAM, if not 16 GB. When they replace a machine, it is supposed to be equivalent specs, and if they don't have the equivalent, the specs need to be rounded up, not down. That wouldn't be pushing your luck. Apple offering you less than the specs on your current machine would be Apple pushing their luck.

[Genghis Khan]

^ however, the superdrive, HDD and RAM were freebies that are not recorded anywhere...just lucky extras...apple will only replace what's on the receipt

so the receipt would say 3.2GHz octo, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, 1 x Superdrive
- if so, you can ask for a 2.93GHz Octo with standard specs

if the receipt includes the specs that you mentioned, you can expect...2.93GHz Octo, 16GB RAM (8x2GB), 1TB HDD, Airport Card and two Superdrives


in the case of the former being true, take out all of the RAM save 2 sticks, 1 superdrive and the airport card

[sound kev]

cheers for your input ^^^^

do you think if i argued that i'd actually purchased those extras myself , that would have a different bearing on the situation ?

[waiwai]

cheers for your input ^^^^

do you think if i argued that i'd actually purchased those extras myself , that would have a different bearing on the situation ?

dude that's just downright lieing. if you are anal about the extras. take them out yourself and then put them into your replacement.

[Billydelp4]

dude that's just downright lieing. if you are anal about the extras. take them out yourself and then put them into your replacement.

+1. don't lie. just keep the superdrive and the ram. you can sell 16gb of ram on ebay and for about what you will sell the old ram for you can purchase the new ram since it is cheaper.

be honest and it will pay you back 10 fold.

[Genghis Khan]

+1. don't lie. just keep the superdrive and the ram. you can sell 16gb of ram on ebay and for about what you will sell the old ram for you can purchase the new ram since it is cheaper.

be honest and it will pay you back 10 fold.

yet your condoning returning the pro not as he received it :p

and don't take out all 16GB...you need to leave 2 sticks in there cos otherwise they'll know you took RAM out :P

*but again, it depends what it says on the receipt

[nanofrog]

take them out yourself and then put them into your replacement.
Unfortunately, this isn't possible. :(

'08's uses FB-DIMM (Fully Buffered DDR2 ECC), and a PATA interface for the Superdrive.

The '09's use Unbuffered ECC DDR3 (DDR3 UDIMM's), and SATA ports exclusively.

But selling off the older parts (eBay, Craig's List,...) is a possibility, and the proceeds can be applied to upgrading the new machine. :) Less out of pocket this way. ;)

[sound kev]

ha ha !

i had a feeling that would provoke a response like that from some people ,

slightly mischievous of me i admit :D

don't worry , i'll do the right thing and report back .

[Moriarty]

A 2.66 GHz 2009 Mac Pro would be faster because of the new Nehalem architecture. Even the new 2.26 GHz one is faster than the old 3.2 2008!

Of course if they try to give you a 2009 Mac Pro, act ignorant when they try to give you anything but the fastest 2.93 GHz one (which is WAY faster than the old 3.2) saying that you don't want a slower one with less GHz. If they insist on only giving a 2.26, well that's still a good deal, just make sure you get given 16GB of RAM and everything else the old one had.

Edit: Looks like Apple won't give you extra RAM for the replacement because it wasn't on the receipt. If it was me, I'd still try get a Nehalem Mac Pro. Take out all the extras Apple gave you and sell them, use that money to buy more RAM and things for the new one. You'll spend a little extra money, but get a noticeably faster computer as a result.

[hehejames]

ha ha !

i had a feeling that would provoke a response like that from some people ,

slightly mischievous of me i admit :D

don't worry , i'll do the right thing and report back .

I don't think you're getting a new machine. Keep dreaming!

You've mentioned your machine started having issues with freeze and etc., and have contacted tech support, but no fix. Well.... Have you tried reloading the OS?

Perhaps, one of the fan broke and your machine is overheating or perhaps you have a faulty ram.

Let me tell you something buddy. You ain't getting a new machine. No way in hell!

If there is a problem with the logic board, I'm sure Apple will replace it as part of the warranty and others as necessary, but I just don't understand why Apple would give you a Nehalem. Also, you bought a refurb 3.2 - if your machine was reallllly all that messed up, where Apple can't fix it you may get another refurb 3.2 unless they can't locate one.

[goMac]

I don't think you're getting a new machine. Keep dreaming!


They already told him he's getting a new machine...

[hehejames]

They already told him he's getting a new machine...

"So now i have an appointment at my local Apple Store for them to confirm that it's a hardware issue - in which case i have been told that i will be offered a 'new' replacement ..."

Only if in fact there is a significant problem and they admit the problem and/or it cannot be fixed, which I highly doubt. I'm smelling something on this dude/gal. ;-)

[G4DP]

A 2.66 GHz 2009 Mac Pro would be faster because of the new Nehalem architecture. Even the new 2.26 GHz one is faster than the old 3.2 2008!

Of course if they try to give you a 2009 Mac Pro, act ignorant when they try to give you anything but the fastest 2.93 GHz one (which is WAY faster than the old 3.2) saying that you don't want a slower one with less GHz. If they insist on only giving a 2.26, well that's still a good deal, just make sure you get given 16GB of RAM and everything else the old one had.

Edit: Looks like Apple won't give you extra RAM for the replacement because it wasn't on the receipt. If it was me, I'd still try get a Nehalem Mac Pro. Take out all the extras Apple gave you and sell them, use that money to buy more RAM and things for the new one. You'll spend a little extra money, but get a noticeably faster computer as a result.

I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. The 2009 2.26GHz is not faster than the 2008 3.2GHz. In fact it's only just faster than the 2008 2.8GHz. Having used both for the same jobs and running the same photoshop/illustrator tests, the 2008 model is still faster. If you believe the rubbish the rubbish that is Apple Marketing however, then you'll think the 2009 2.26GHz is better.

[hehejames]

I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. The 2009 2.26GHz is not faster than the 2008 3.2GHz. In fact it's only just faster than the 2008 2.8GHz. Having used both for the same jobs and running the same photoshop/illustrator tests, the 2008 model is still faster. If you believe the rubbish the rubbish that is Apple Marketing however, then you'll think the 2009 2.26GHz is better.

"Moriarty" is just jealous cause he/she doesn't own a MP and can only speak on behalf of the Apple's marketing materials ;)

[goMac]

"So now i have an appointment at my local Apple Store for them to confirm that it's a hardware issue - in which case i have been told that i will be offered a 'new' replacement ..."

Only if in fact there is a significant problem and they admit the problem and/or it cannot be fixed, which I highly doubt. I'm smelling something on this dude/gal. ;-)

The Apple Store likely does not stock Mac Pro parts. It's a judgement call on the part of the Apple Store, but I've heard of similar things happening. They may just want to give him a new one instead of sending it back in. It might be cheaper for them to just part the machine and give him a new one than it would be to repair.

[hehejames]

The Apple Store likely does not stock Mac Pro parts. It's a judgement call on the part of the Apple Store, but I've heard of similar things happening. They may just want to give him a new one instead of sending it back in. It might be cheaper for them to just part the machine and give him a new one than it would be to repair.

You are absolutely right. The apple store does not stock parts therefore they make you leave the machine with them while the necessary parts are ordered and replaced/tested. If whatever part(s) that has been replaced doesn't correct the problem, they make you come back and the whole fiasco starts...

My brother went through a bitch fight with Apple support & store and I have been exposed to the process. People get new machines in extreme cases!

[nanofrog]

My brother went through a bitch fight with Apple support & store and I have been exposed to the process. People get new machines in extreme cases!
I've gotten the impression it's a mixed bag, as it depends on the store and it's staff.

YMMV? :confused:

[Shake 'n' Bake]

A 2.66 GHz 2009 Mac Pro would be faster because of the new Nehalem architecture. Even the new 2.26 GHz one is faster than the old 3.2 2008!

Of course if they try to give you a 2009 Mac Pro, act ignorant when they try to give you anything but the fastest 2.93 GHz one (which is WAY faster than the old 3.2) saying that you don't want a slower one with less GHz. If they insist on only giving a 2.26, well that's still a good deal, just make sure you get given 16GB of RAM and everything else the old one had.

Edit: Looks like Apple won't give you extra RAM for the replacement because it wasn't on the receipt. If it was me, I'd still try get a Nehalem Mac Pro. Take out all the extras Apple gave you and sell them, use that money to buy more RAM and things for the new one. You'll spend a little extra money, but get a noticeably faster computer as a result.

Absolutely wrong. Sure it is Nahalem, but that doesn't mean it is faster. Most apps these days can't even take advantage of multiple cores anyways. And don't forget that 3.2 GHz is almost a whole GHz more than 2.26 GHz. There will be a hugely noticeable difference between 2.26 GHz and 3.2 GHz.

[galstaph]

I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. The 2009 2.26GHz is not faster than the 2008 3.2GHz. In fact it's only just faster than the 2008 2.8GHz...
Actually it depends on the app, for most apps yes, however, if you are running an app that is extremely CPU/thread intensive (i.e. 3d photorealistic rendering such as maxwell render) the 2.26 IS faster than a 3.2 due to the hyperthreading

[Tesselator]

I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. The 2009 2.26GHz is not faster than the 2008 3.2GHz. In fact it's only just faster than the 2008 2.8GHz. Having used both for the same jobs and running the same photoshop/illustrator tests, the 2008 model is still faster. If you believe the rubbish the rubbish that is Apple Marketing however, then you'll think the 2009 2.26GHz is better.

Only in some odd tests - maybe. My 2006 2.66 octad kicks the 2.26's ass at many things and the 2.8 kicks my ass at almost everything. The 2.26 is a bastard step-child who only claims heir to the thrown.

Anyway to match his hardware Apple must offer either the same machine, or the 2.93 octad. Nothing else works.

His 3.2 is faster than the 2.93 at many things as it is now. Of course the 2.93 is a little faster at some other things too.

And, if they offer a 2.93 (as the SHOULD!) then let then have their ram back. Don't try and keep it at all. That ain't no good. If they don't offer you a 2.93 then pay a repair shop to repair it - it's WAY WAY WAY better than the 2.66 octad!

[Genghis Khan]

The old Harpertowns are still faster at single threaded tasks for the most part. However the hyperthreading in the Nehalem's makes them much faster at multi-threaded tasks such as 3d rendering.

It all depends on what you use it for...

[Tesselator]

I found it has a lot to do with GT saturation levels. In both MT and ST applications the lower the saturation that faster the 2008 is over the 2009 - probably due to the core clocks. There's some alpha margin as the cache is faster and more efficient in the Nehalems but this would generally otherwise tend to make sense as Turbo Mode wouldn't be engaged and the cache I/O wouldn't be stressed (the two features that make the Nehalems faster). Since most software doesn't saturate the cores this means that the 2008 is still faster with said (most) software when there is a clock advantage such as 2.8 vs. 2.66. The two machines end up averaging out to be very very close to each other performance wise - all other things being equal. So should it be so with the '08 3.2 vs. '09 2.93 models. ;)

[hehejames]

don't worry , i'll do the right thing and report back .

So what's the scoop? It's been a day already.

[sound kev]

first of all , thanks for the advice everyone .

i don't see what i would have to gain by coming on here and concocting a story though (mr/ms hehejames) :confused: strange person .

as i stated in my original post - the unit i purchased back in April has NEVER worked properly . I have spent the last 3 months working my way through the good people at Tech Support , so um .. let me tell YOU something buddy ... doing a fresh install of the OS was something i did very early on ;)

i've never had a problem like this with any of my Macs (and i've many since my first G3) so i don't know what the drill is regarding replacement of faulty units .
all i know is - i paid a considerable amount of money for a machine that has never worked ... and that is totally unacceptable to me .

I am a business user - so this has been a huge inconvenience to me .
I have had to revert to working on my MBP , which doesn't really look good to clients ... but neither does a computer that spontaneously switches itself off during a session !
my productivity has suffered , not to mention the many hours spent on the phone to Tech Support etc etc .

I would settle for just a working version of what i paid for - but as i said in my original post - i was told (after being transferred from Tech Support to Customer Relations) that if it was found to be a hardware issue i would be given a new replacement .

This seems reasonable to me .
If i cocked up on a job for someone i would go out of my way to make it up to them - it's just good business practice isn't it ?

anyway - i should know more in the next few days .

thanks

[sound kev]

So what's the scoop? It's been a day already.

apparently it's in 'triage' - 24hr loop test .

i'm hopeful that they'll deem this an 'exteme case' ;)

[Tesselator]

Did you give it to them with the memory and the extra ODD? If you didn't then what happens if it was the RAM or ODD either directly or indirectly that was causing the trouble? :p

[nanofrog]

Did you give it to them with the memory and the extra ODD? If you didn't then what happens if it was the RAM or ODD either directly or indirectly that was causing the trouble? :p
:D Even if it was, it wouldn't return, from some other posts floating around..."sent it in, and it was missing x,y,z I added". :eek: :p

[JamesGorman]

Hopefully you will get a new machine, That'd would be the right thing of apple to do.


On a side note, if you dont use the full 16gb of ram, try and opt for 12Gb as the triple channel effect will speed up your system considerably. With 16gb of ram you lose the speed boost of triple channel ram.

Also, the 2.93ghz has turbo boos built in(all the nehalems in the mac pro's do) which will effectively let your system run at 3.2ghz if needed. Head on over to intel's website and look up the xeon nehalem processors for more info, they have sum good videos on there about them.

Best of luck man, hopefully youll be getting a new system soon.

[Tesselator]

:D Even if it was, it wouldn't return, from some other posts floating around..."sent it in, and it was missing x,y,z I added". :eek: :p

Wow, that would suck!

[nanofrog]

On a side note, if you dont use the full 16gb of ram, try and opt for 12Gb as the triple channel effect will speed up your system considerably. With 16gb of ram you lose the speed boost of triple channel ram.
From a technical standpoint, leaving the 4th DIMM socket empty will allow triple channel operation.

Unfortunately, most usage patterns won't benefit from triple channel, so the extra capacity (dual channel) would be a better way to go. As always, the details are dependant on the specifics though. But such a general statement isn't completely accurate.

Also, the 2.93ghz has turbo boos built in(all the nehalems in the mac pro's do) which will effectively let your system run at 3.2ghz if needed. Head on over to intel's website and look up the xeon nehalem processors for more info, they have sum good videos on there about them.
Turbo Mode is useful if the application is single threaded, and the other cores aren't used/very light load. Otherwise, it's too hot, and TM won't kick in. :(

It has limits. ;) But is still useful for it's intended purpose, especially as many applications are single threaded. :)

[sound kev]

Did you give it to them with the memory and the extra ODD? If you didn't then what happens if it was the RAM or ODD either directly or indirectly that was causing the trouble? :p

yep , decided not to mess about mate , i just want the problem sorted , if it means losing the extras - so be it .

[sound kev]

cheers for your reply's again JamesGorman/nanofrog/Tesselator -

not being entirely au fait with the more technical aspects of the MP , it's great to learn from you guys .
tbh i still can't get my head around how Apple can release a new line of MP's that aren't significantly better than the previous gen. :confused:

i'm primarily using Logic Pro / Ableton Live - does anyone know whether these take advantage of the Nehalems 'hyperthreading' capability i've seen mentioned ?

NB still waiting on my test results !

[Genghis Khan]

tbh i still can't get my head around how Apple can release a new line of MP's that aren't significantly better than the previous gen.

well, they're not slower per se...
(someone please correct me on the following if i'm wrong)

there's a number of reasons...while the Harpertowns have higher clock speeds, the Nehalems have triple-channel RAM, no FSB, hyper-threading and turbo-boost. Not to mention that most software is still optimised for the Core2 technology.

So as an all-round system, the nehalems are faster...but if you're doing intense single-threaded apps, the old Harpertowns still beat them ;)

[Tesselator]

Yeah, that sounds right to me too. Per clock they're like 5% ~ 20% faster depending on the kind of operations... But then Apple selects to scale each respective model down a CPU model so the end result is a machine that is about the same speed in general, faster at VERY few specialized things - like 3D rendering, and slower and a few things too.

But also keep in mind that Apple has to follow the Intel roadmap if they're going to stay with Intel chips, so it's really not their choice. The few choices Apple did make were all terrible IMO. Only 4 DIMM slots per proc.? bumping down the speed of each respective MP model? Opting to release a Quad core system not user upgradable to 8? Raising the prices $1,000 to $3,000 when you actually compare the proper speed relations between 08 & 09?

Trends would normally dictate a relative performance and spec increase per price-point. This year we got the opposite: A relative price increase per performance point. :( To me it looks like a repeat of the behavior that almost bankrupt them a decade or so ago - But we've all read and discussed these things to death I suppose. We've had 3 years of goodness so let's hope this 4th year is just an odd year out. Rumors have it that Intel will be dropping prices on future new models so maybe Apple will as well and self-correct their poor judgement. <shrug>

[bearcatrp]

Maybe its time for apple to offer AMD's Opteron chips. Yeah, I know apple has a sweetheart deal with intel. To offer both would keep chip prices down with the competition, IMHO.

[teohyc]

I'm like you, I also struck the refurbished jackpot years ago with the 2006 Mac Pro.

My recommendation is to take out the extras, especially the ram, if you want to keep them.
Anyway, when you send it in, they do take down the specs of the computer, or you can insist they take down the specs of the computer.

If Apple can repair, they will repair. If not, they would exchange it for a new set, refurbished or brand new doesn't really matter as long as it works.

As for the speed difference for the expected new set...Does it matter? Is the difference in speed gonna be that huge? This really depends on what you use your Mac Pro for. I say don't bother if you're not a 3D modeler or use processor intensive applications.

[dr. shdw]

Maybe its time for apple to offer AMD's Opteron chips. Yeah, I know apple has a sweetheart deal with intel. To offer both would keep chip prices down with the competition, IMHO.

Opteron's are pretty slow. :(

[nanofrog]

Maybe its time for apple to offer AMD's Opteron chips. Yeah, I know apple has a sweetheart deal with intel. To offer both would keep chip prices down with the competition, IMHO.
I don't see this happening in the near future. :p

[zmttoxics]

I don't think they will give you a new machine, probably just replace what ever was toast. They will have spare parts for those boxes for another year or so at the factories most likely.

[bearcatrp]

I don't see this happening in the near future. :p
They said the same thing about the PPC too. All depends on the relationship between intel and apple. Then again, apple owning there own chip plant could yield something in the near future too.

[nanofrog]

They said the same thing about the PPC too. All depends on the relationship between intel and apple. Then again, apple owning there own chip plant could yield something in the near future too.
Relationships are certainly part of it, but I'd think a switch to AMD would mean a substantial amount of rework of OS X (architectual differences), even though SL will be 64 bit (including kernel this time), and it uses the same instruction set (licensed theirs to Intel). More work than it's worth IMO. Then there's the performance... :p

As per Apple owning their own fab & employs designers, it's aimed at mobile devices (current aim of the fab & licensed architecture). Keep in mind the economy of scale works for the mobile market, but not for the MP. It's less expensive for Apple to let Intel (or any other chip maker) incur the design costs, and divide it amongst many more parts (sold to multiple vendors), in the case of Server/Workstation parts. Apple can't afford this for a small market. The final product would end up way too expensive.

It could work out in favor of the iMac/MB/MBP... as well (some future processor line for laptops).

[sidewinder]

...I'd think a switch to AMD would mean a substantial amount of rework of OS X (architectual differences), even though SL will be 64 bit (including kernel this time), and it uses the same instruction set (licensed theirs to Intel).
What rework? Both processors support the same instruction set. I can run any x86 or x86-64 OS on an AMD or Intel-based box with a 64-bit processor.

S-

[nanofrog]

What rework? Both processors support the same instruction set. I can run any x86 or x86-64 OS on an AMD or Intel-based box with a 64-bit processor.

S-
I'm thinking in terms of compling the code. There are differences, despite the instruction set, so compilers do have components for specific CPU's, lending to optimization.

Presumably, Apple's written their own compiler (or outsourced it), and it was designed around the Intel chips/chipsets. The specifics occur during the OS installation (parts needed get installed, but others may be present on media), and is transparent to the user. Not that it won't work, it just won't run as well as it should. So I'm imagining a step backwards per se. Like going from SL (supposed to be optimized) to Leopard, or worse. :p

[Tesselator]

Yeah, And doing something like that there WILL BE some code changes too! Probably mostly unforeseen ones as is usually the headache, err, case. If it were something like an medium sized app program then probably (maybe) not... But a complex low level app or an OS?!?! Yeah, there is going to be a bunch A BUNCH of work involved. But like someone else said earlier we don't need to worry about it cuz it ain't happening and AMDs are sloooow anyway.

[frimple]

Yeah, And doing something like that there WILL BE some code changes too! Probably mostly unforeseen ones as is usually the headache, err, case. If it were something like an medium sized app program then probably (maybe) not... But a complex low level app or an OS?!?! Yeah, there is going to be a bunch A BUNCH of work involved. But like someone else said earlier we don't need to worry about it cuz it ain't happening and AMDs are sloooow anyway.

Well... they're not THAT bad. They do virtualization very well. ;)

[zmttoxics]

Yeah, And doing something like that there WILL BE some code changes too! Probably mostly unforeseen ones as is usually the headache, err, case. If it were something like an medium sized app program then probably (maybe) not... But a complex low level app or an OS?!?! Yeah, there is going to be a bunch A BUNCH of work involved. But like someone else said earlier we don't need to worry about it cuz it ain't happening and AMDs are sloooow anyway.

Haha. Who do you think wrote x86_64? Intel licensed it from AMD much like AMD licensed x86 from Intel. Any low level app or os built for those architectures will work on both cpu platforms. Now, not all AMD cpus support the latest SSE stuff etc, but not all Intel cpus support hardware virtualization. There are trade offs, and in the server world AMD is still a very viable option and still does well, especially with their price cuts on their new Istanbul Opterons (6core cpus).

[Tesselator]

Oh, I agree! It "should run". Of course the likelihood of that actually happening without having to do multiple test/debug cycles is just about nil. I think every developer will agree with that!

[JamesGorman]

From a technical standpoint, leaving the 4th DIMM socket empty will allow triple channel operation.

Unfortunately, most usage patterns won't benefit from triple channel, so the extra capacity (dual channel) would be a better way to go. As always, the details are dependant on the specifics though. But such a general statement isn't completely accurate.



Valid Point, I didnt even think that it would revert running dual channel. But yes, with the system working like this it would make more sense to have 16gb.

EDIT: was there not a study doen by a company that showed triple channel had a 22% increase in performance or something along those lines?

[nanofrog]

Yeah, And doing something like that there WILL BE some code changes too! Probably mostly unforeseen ones as is usually the headache, err, case. If it were something like an medium sized app program then probably (maybe) not... But a complex low level app or an OS?!?! Yeah, there is going to be a bunch A BUNCH of work involved. But like someone else said earlier we don't need to worry about it cuz it ain't happening and AMDs are sloooow anyway.
Absolutely, but if the compiler was botched, it's an effort in futility to develop code on it. :D :p
Well... they're not THAT bad. They do virtualization very well. ;)
They certianly have their uses, no doubt. ;) Certainly as a lower cost alternative, assuming they're applicable to the task. :)
Haha. Who do you think wrote x86_64? Intel licensed it from AMD much like AMD licensed x86 from Intel. Any low level app or os built for those architectures will work on both cpu platforms. Now, not all AMD cpus support the latest SSE stuff etc, but not all Intel cpus support hardware virtualization. There are trade offs, and in the server world AMD is still a very viable option and still does well, especially with their price cuts on their new Istanbul Opterons (6core cpus).
Of course there's cross licensing. ;) And the architectual differences do apply, ported code or not.

Porting such code (same app, same OS) to another processor isn't that simple, unfortunately.

It does come down to how well the compiler works (properly), if the code produced on it will work. This is more important than the source code, as the resulting issues are out of the developer's hands (no way to know if the copiler or source is causing the problem). Even if they're aware of the compiler has issues, they can't fix it unless they developed it as well.

Assuming the compiler is in fact 100% functional, then as Tesselator mentioned, there's a really good chance the source code will also need to be adjusted. :rolleyes: :(

It's not just a simple recompile = zero errors. :p
EDIT: was there not a study doen by a company that showed triple channel had a 22% increase in performance or something along those lines?
Seems about right. :)

[goMac]

Xeons are faster than Opterons, have more features, and are more power efficient...

Why would Apple switch?

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Xeons are faster than Opterons, have more features, and are more power efficient...

Why would Apple switch?

Don't forget AMD processors are generally more expensive than comparable Intels.

[hehejames]

Don't forget AMD processors are generally more expensive than comparable Intels.

Last two pages are totally off-topic~~~

[zmttoxics]

Last two pages are totally off-topic~~~

And filled with misinformation.. :cool:

[sidewinder]

I'm thinking in terms of compling the code. There are differences, despite the instruction set, so compilers do have components for specific CPU's, lending to optimization.

Presumably, Apple's written their own compiler (or outsourced it), and it was designed around the Intel chips/chipsets. The specifics occur during the OS installation (parts needed get installed, but others may be present on media), and is transparent to the user. Not that it won't work, it just won't run as well as it should. So I'm imagining a step backwards per se. Like going from SL (supposed to be optimized) to Leopard, or worse. :p
If you were correct, you could not build a Hackintosh using an AMD setup. That is not the case. When you buy applications for Windows, you don't buy an AMD version or an Intel version. That's not how things work....

S-

[Tesselator]

If you were correct, you could not build a Hackintosh using an AMD setup. That is not the case. When you buy applications for Windows, you don't buy an AMD version or an Intel version. That's not how things work....

S-

And OS X running on AMD is 100% bug free?

Of course that a dumb question because none of us have aggressively tested it. But I'll bet I can find fatal errors the first day in that don't exist on an Intel platform. :p


That's just how things work...

[nanofrog]

If you were correct, you could not build a Hackintosh using an AMD setup. That is not the case. When you buy applications for Windows, you don't buy an AMD version or an Intel version. That's not how things work....

S-
Applications are above the level I'm refering to. The OS loads the different components for the system hardware, and does differ for AMD and Intel, even though they use the same instruction set.

You're thinking too high. Get deeper into the physical layers, and the architecture does have bearing.

[sidewinder]

You're thinking too high. Get deeper into the physical layers, and the architecture does have bearing.
Sure.....all OSes need to have drivers supplied to support different chips sets. If those drivers are not present, fatal errors are sure to follow. But the issue is not related directly to the processor used from an instruction set perspective.

It's a driver issue.

For example, Vista needs drivers to support various chip sets used with AMD processors. But, the base code itself does not change. In other words, there is not an AMD version of Vista and an Intel version.

S-

[nanofrog]

Sure.....all OSes need to have drivers supplied to support different chips sets. If those drivers are not present, fatal errors are sure to follow. But the issue is not related directly to the processor used from an instruction set perspective.

It's a driver issue.

For example, Vista needs drivers to support various chip sets used with AMD processors. But, the base code itself does not change. In other words, there is not an AMD version of Vista and an Intel version.

S-
Let's see if I can give a nice example.

Let's say in the case of SSE & SSE2. Yes, they're additions in instruction set, and not available on all Intel processors. A quick change in the /arch during compile will fix that. Cool. ;)

Now think of say, the VT-d switch. Not quite so easy, as it doesn't exist in all of Intel's processors, and certainly not in AMD models (AMD-V instead, and is also limited to certain parts).

My point, is the switch from one manufacturer (Intel) to another (AMD) would require a rework of the compiler, even though they share most of the x86 instruction set for obvious reasons. Intel couldn't get it right, and licensed it from AMD. :p But there's still differences that result in the architecture (different instructions unique to their respective manufacturers, even if it's for the same/similar function).

Now let's consider the OS (specific functionality). If you want Kernel based VM (real time guest support), it has to be compiled for it, and is specific to which ever CPU make is in the machine.

Or are you thinking in terms of a simple set of x86 instructions (minimum architecture) based compiler, develop the OS off this (unoptimized/no support for certain functions), and pushing such details to the applications development groups (i.e SSE/SSE2, virtualization,...)?

[sidewinder]

nanofrog,

Do you buy an OS or an application these days for Windows and have to ask for the AMD version? No. Why? Because developers make sure the compilers output Intel and AMD compatible code.

Apple does not have to do this since they know all their code is going to run on Intel processors. But, I would wager that they too have the compilers they use set to output code that is both AMD and Intel compatible.

Now, when it comes to certain types of code, such as that used for hypervisor support for visualization and paravirtualization, yes, you need CPU specific software. But that does not require a recompilation of the whole OS. Zen, for example supports both Intel VT and AMD-V.

S-

[dr. shdw]

Don't forget AMD processors are generally more expensive than comparable Intels.

AMD's prices are about the same if not lower.

[nanofrog]

nanofrog,

Do you buy an OS or an application these days for Windows and have to ask for the AMD version? No. Why? Because developers make sure the compilers output Intel and AMD compatible code.
That was my point. ;)

There are differences that have to be taken into account for specific architectures in a compiler, whether it's the same manufacturer (different feature sets in the part offerings), or different vendors alltogether. Without it, you can't develop products that can take advantage of the special functions (specific instruction(s)).

Perhaps in some cases, a brute force approach can be used (no compiler support), but it's not pretty in my experience (really buggy, if it works at all). Better to get the compiler running properly first IMO. :)

Apple does not have to do this since they know all their code is going to run on Intel processors. But, I would wager that they too have the compilers they use set to output code that is both AMD and Intel compatible.
No, it doesn't actually matter on a Mac, as they don't run AMD. :cool:

In the case of Apple, I don't know if they created the compiler from scratch, or built off something that included the AMD support (possibly contracted out).

Assuming the prior, it would likely need a redesign in order to switch to AMD parts (or any other). The latter OTOH, may not take much work at all, but would still require some changes that require a recompile (change /arch from the Intel to AMD, and some optimization).

It's all academic in a sense (it works, and the systems are Intel only), but would be applicable for any change in CPU vendor. Applicable though, if P.A Semi develops laptop or even desktop parts in the future. ;) Certainly applicable to Apple's mobile devices now. :) Perhaps a long term goal for the laptop and iMac systems, as it's development costs could be rolled together due to shared parts.
Now, when it comes to certain types of code, such as that used for hypervisor support for visualization and paravirtualization, yes, you need CPU specific software. But that does not require a recompilation of the whole OS. Zen, for example supports both Intel VT and AMD-V.

S-
Perhaps not the entire OS, but some sections/features. But more importantly, as it's an OS, those parts need to be on the final version released for manufacture to installation media, not an update. Rather obvious, but I'd think more than a few users would raise all kinds of .... if the OS was Intel only, and it was sent out on an AMD machine, and they use those specific features. :p

Application developers have it a little easier in a sense, as they can chose to update existing installs, or wait to include the changes for the next release. :)

[lixuelai]

If two chips runs the exact same instruction set, they are the same to the OS. But AMD and Intel cpus have slightly different instruction sets. Most are optimizations. For those instructions that does not exist in hardware it is usually emulated in software. I dont think Apple specifically test for AMD hardware. But I would not be surprised if they did just to leave the options open. I doubt Apple is using all or even a lot of Intel specific instructions as it really makes no difference. Apple has to support Core Duo processors anyway which lacks a lot of instructions common in newer Intel and AMD cpus.

Anyway there is nothing preventing Apple from switching to AMD. Apple has no real reason to however. But if Jobs woke up one day deciding to do it, it will not be hard at all. Maybe a patch or two. Leopard already runs well on AMD. Snow Leopard should not be much different.

[hehejames]

If two chips runs the exact same instruction set, they are the same to the OS. But AMD and Intel cpus have slightly different instruction sets. Most are optimizations. For those instructions that does not exist in hardware it is usually emulated in software. I dont think Apple specifically test for AMD hardware. But I would not be surprised if they did just to leave the options open. I doubt Apple is using all or even a lot of Intel specific instructions as it really makes no difference. Apple has to support Core Duo processors anyway which lacks a lot of instructions common in newer Intel and AMD cpus.

Anyway there is nothing preventing Apple from switching to AMD. Apple has no real reason to however. But if Jobs woke up one day deciding to do it, it will not be hard at all. Maybe a patch or two. Leopard already runs well on AMD. Snow Leopard should not be much different.

Totally off-topic to now irrelevant Intel vs AMD discussion :confused: What's the latest status on the dude getting a new replacement machine? Looks like it hasn't happened nor will happen and end of discussion. Would have loved to see him get a new MP.

[Genghis Khan]

time for another change of topic

anyone selling any e30 BMW wheels?

[bozz2006]

Snorkel.

[sound kev]

Totally off-topic to now irrelevant Intel vs AMD discussion :confused: What's the latest status on the dude getting a new replacement machine? Looks like it hasn't happened nor will happen and end of discussion. Would have loved to see him get a new MP.

:D still here !

the weekend has interrupted proceedings -
there have been developments -
it's in the balance , but i'm still hopeful :)

will hopefully be able to tell you more on Monday .

[Shake 'n' Bake]

AMD's prices are about the same if not lower.

Really? And the AMD is OEM, too. Imagine what it is new.

[goMac]

Let's say in the case of SSE & SSE2. Yes, they're additions in instruction set, and not available on all Intel processors. A quick change in the /arch during compile will fix that. Cool. ;)

Haha... No, no it won't. That couldn't be further from the truth.

SSE and SSE2 are actual programming instructions that you write into your software. They're not a compiler switch. True, your compiler can sometimes turn your C code into SSE and SSE2. But if you write SSE2 code there is no magic switch.

It's like writing Altivec code and then having it not work on Intel. Again, no magic compiler switch.

If Apple was writing SSE4.1 code (which they aren't), there is no way that code could run on AMD processors. It would require a rewrite of the code that used the SSE4.1 instructions, not a recompile.

[lixuelai]

Totally off-topic to now irrelevant Intel vs AMD discussion :confused: What's the latest status on the dude getting a new replacement machine? Looks like it hasn't happened nor will happen and end of discussion. Would have loved to see him get a new MP.

People just took a detour while waiting for the OP's update :p;)

[sound kev]

hey , sorry for the delay .
i'm pleased to say that i've had it confirmed that my replacement 2.93 Nehalem is on it;s way ...
:D

even though it's been a rough 3 months which started off with a real sense of disappointment at the realization that i'd been sold a dud , i've come out the other end feeling SO happy that Apple have lived up to evrything i've always hoped/believed them to be .
to me , they've justified the premium i've been paying on their products over the years .
i'm not just talking financially either .
their tech support and customer service personnel have been top notch since day one .
the best i've ever come across .
i must admit , in the past i've thought twice about paying out for applecare on other products i own ... never again .
maybe it's a nationality thing .. here in the UK it seems the level of customer service is (more often than not) appalling !
nonetheless - i was impressed .

all told , i believe Apple have done the right thing here and it could be argued that that isn't something to get all excited about , but , in this day and age , i think it's fair to give credit where it's due .

WELL DONE Apple :)

and thanks !

[dr. shdw]

Really? And the AMD is OEM, too. Imagine what it is new.

You're comparing the wrong processors. The AMD 8xxx series needs to be compared to the Intel 7xxx series. You're looking at quad socket solutions, it'd be unfair to compare quad to dual socket cpus. ;)

[Genghis Khan]

i'm pleased to say that i've had it confirmed that my replacement 2.93 Nehalem is on it;s way ...

Congratulations! It's stories like these that make me want my logicboard to fail :P

[justflie]

Congrats!!! That's pretty awesome news.

[wpc33]

@ sound kev:
Is the replacement an 8-core model, or a quad? I must know!

[bozz2006]

If they gave him a 4 core system to replace his 8 core, that would be robbery.

[sound kev]

it's the 8 core :D

i should also add to the thread that the customer relations guy has admitted to me that there had been a mistake made on their part .
he said that (with refurbs) the course of action is to have the problem fixed (in my case - a logic board and memory riser replacement) but for some reason they were under the impression that my unit was new , which explains why i was offered a new replacement.
fortunately for me they said they would honor the promise they had originally made .

i've been very lucky !!

on reflection i would not have been at all happy with a repair .
the machine was a dud from the start so at the very least i would've expected a like-for-like replacement or full refund ..
but , as i am a business user i wouldn't have wanted another refurb as i could not afford to risk losing so much time/money again -

so , in other words :
(and in agreement with bozz2006 , Genghis Khan , Tesselator and JamesGorman , among others) -
even though it appears contrary to company policy -
i think this has been the correct outcome .

i'd just like to thank you all for your input , it's a great community you have here .

SK :)

[wpc33]

Right on, man! You still have the most powerful consumer desktop going. :D

[sound kev]

Right on, man! You still have the most powerful consumer desktop going. :D

!!!! :D:D:D