Someone explain to me... (picture inside)

[flipster]

Someone explain to me why the first mac pro is cheaper than the second mac pro. it has more ram, and 8 cores verses four on the other one. it doesn't make sense to me, why would you pay more for less

[Danekero]

Higher clock rate is the only thing I can think of, but that's a ridiculous price considering a refurbished 2010 6-core with a 5770, a wireless card and a terabyte of storage is $3,149. Is that picture recent?

[diazj3]

Consider that more cores/processors is not better for everybody - it depends which apps and tasks one would run. Personally, due to the nature of my needs, I'd prefer a higher clock over more cores/processors, and would pay more for it.

... but then again, everyone is entitled to their own.

I agree w Danekero - compared with the 2010 hex refurb, this 2009 quad seems a bit off.

[FluJunkie]

I've been weirdly unimpressed with the "deals" on the refurb store recently.

[DanielCoffey]

I suppose it also depends on what condition the cheaper machine is in - there could be scratches on the case which do not affect the performance but would impact the price.

[Macsonic]

My guess here is might be the higher clock speed of 3.33ghz and this model being uncommon makes it more expensive than the 2.26. I've seen 2.26 models occasionally appear in the refurbish section in other countries so maybe the 3.33ghz could rare ( I could be wrong ) Or maybe Apple knows people will choose the 3.33ghz model more than the 2.26 so it might be a strategic business decision and made the price much higher.

[Loa]

Hello,

Don't be impressed by the number of cores... very very few apps will make use of all of them, and then again you'll most likely run those apps a few % of the time you actually use your Mac.

Multi-cores is the path the industry chose when it discovered that it couldn't keep up with Moore's law using single processors/cores. Very powerful for a few apps, otherwise it's a waste. I don't know anyone who **wouldn't** take a 36GHz single core machine instead of a 12-core 3GHz machine.

The 3.33 is very nearly 50% faster than the 2.26 in all cases where your apps don't use more than 4 cores. That's **fifty** percent more speed.

Loa

[philipma1957]

mac refurb prices can be really bad or really good


bad:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0...co=MTcyMDg3MDQ

good:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0...co=MTkzMjkzMjU

How does the guy that paid 10 dollars more for the 2010 hex. Like a winner. Point is the richest computer company in the world will take a fools money right to the bank. Over the last 5 years I have found the above example to be common. It occurs when refurbs over 2 or 3 years time show up. The older refurbs are very overpriced when compared to the newer ones.


BTW that 2009 3.33ghz quad refurb has been on site for over a week while the 2010 3.33ghz hex refurb sold out in about 1 hour.

[DewGuy1999]

I don't follow Mac Pros, since they're far outside my needs or price range, so I can't offer up specifics, but...

Generally with refurbs the pricing is based on the original standard configuration price. Occasionally BTO (Build-To-Order) Macs will show up as as refurbs and since their original BTO price was higher than a standard configuration, the refurb price will also be higher. Usually standard configuration Macs will have a percent off listed, whereas the BTOs don't (the OP pic follows this pattern). Lastly older refurb models of standard config Macs tend to have their prices discounted further (when there are new models available) whereas the BTOs don't seem to.

The above is based on my observations of the refurb section of the store over the last few years for MacBooks, MacBook Pros, Mac minis and iMacs and they seem to follow the above pricing methods. It's possible that the Mac Pros are priced differently so this may not apply. HTH.

[flipster]

For those of you wondering if it was recent, yes it is. I got the picture yesterday actually. It just didn't make sense to me considering the new hexacore mac pros, and why one with 8 cores would cost less.

I thought more cores=more power though? If not, wouldn't it be best to get an i5 with turbo boost at 3.6 ghz rather than an i7 at turbo boost with 2.93 ghz? Now im confused lol

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by flipster

For those of you wondering if it was recent, yes it is. I got the picture yesterday actually. It just didn't make sense to me considering the new hexacore mac pros, and why one with 8 cores would cost less.

Original retail price of the 8-core was $3,299. Original retail price of the 3.33GHz quad-core was $3,699. The 8-core uses two $375 processors, the 4-core a single $1000 processor. The 4-core has a bigger premium as it was an upgrade to get that rather than being a base-model as the 8-core was. The current 8-core model is cheaper than the 6-core, despite coming with twice as much memory and a more complex logic board as the processor prices are the same as the models we are discussing. There is nothing weird about the prices of the two models you showed. One is discounted 18% the other 15%.

I thought more cores=more power though? If not, wouldn't it be best to get an i5 with turbo boost at 3.6 ghz rather than an i7 at turbo boost with 2.93 ghz? Now im confused lol

More cores can mean more power, but the software has to take advantage of it. There is also some overhead when using many cores. Most people should be looking to get the fastest clock speed they can in quad-core when it comes to desktops for serious use.

[flipster]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

Original retail price of the 8-core was $3,299. Original retail price of the 3.33GHz quad-core was $3,699. The 8-core uses two $375 processors, the 4-core a single $1000 processor. The 4-core has a bigger premium as it was an upgrade to get that rather than being a base-model as the 8-core was. The current 8-core model is cheaper than the 6-core, despite coming with twice as much memory and a more complex logic board as the processor prices are the same as the models we are discussing. There is nothing weird about the prices of the two models you showed. One is discounted 18% the other 15%.



More cores can mean more power, but the software has to take advantage of it. There is also some overhead when using many cores. Most people should be looking to get the fastest clock speed they can in quad-core when it comes to desktops for serious use.

So, please explain to me this. This makes absolutely no sense. That's a little weird. Something's up where their pricing schemes

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by flipster

So, please explain to me this. This makes absolutely no sense. That's a little weird. Something's up where their pricing schemes

Ahh this is just how a lot of companies discount things. First you have to understand that both systems retailed for the same price of $3,699 and both processors have a list price of $999. The 6-core just replaced the 4-core when Westmere was introduced.

Both systems probably cost Apple a similar amount to make, so they want a similar profit. You and I would probably discount the older model more to try and get someone to buy it as technologically it is inferior, but Apple don't need to do that as they can just leave it sitting there as there is no rush to clear inventory.

[Danekero]

Yeah. It's a bad deal for us, but Apple really doesn't mind waiting for somebody either too impatient to wit for the hexacore or just confused with what the other prices might be.

And about the octocore being cheaper than the hexacore, it's because of the clock rate. For the vast majority of tasks, the 3.33 hexacore will come out on top of the octocore and often even the 12-core because of that extra speed. There are apps that will use the extra cores, but most won't.