I need advice. Logic Board in my Octo 2.8 failed twice and so Apple replaced it last Saturday with a Quad 2.66 (Both were and are stock). Is this a comparable machine? I'm reading benchmarks that says the Octo2.8 is faster. What would you do in my position?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2008 Oct02.8 replaced with a 2009 Quad 2.66?
- Thread starter SDLSteve
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Insist on a 8 core Mac Pro, or better a replacement for your logic board.
Replacing your 2,8GHz with a 2,66GHz Quad is intolerable!
Your octad is (was) way faster than the current quad core.
I agree with Transporteur, it sounds like you've been ripped off there. I would definately insist on an 8 core replacement for an 8 core machine. When the 8 core 2.8GHz was about, there was a quad core version of that, so I don't see how they can claim the current quad core is comparable to the 2008 8 core.
Take it back and tell them you want an 8 core. Personally, I'd prefer to keep the 2.8GHz 8 core with a new logic board.
Take it back and tell them you want an 8 core. Personally, I'd prefer to keep the 2.8GHz 8 core with a new logic board.
Thats complete BS on apple's part. You should at the very least, and this would make the most sense, receive a 2.66ghz octo core mac pro.
I think you certainly have an argument to receive an 8 core 2.93GHz model. sureif you get the 8 core 2.66 model, that would be comparable, but I don't think you should have to settle on a machine with less over-all GHz than what you had. I know, it's not as simple as GHz vs. GHz, but the argument could be made that you shouldn't have to settle for a processor that runs at a slower clock than the machine it's replacing.
Unlikely to happen given the cost of 2.93GHz components (more than the retail price of a 2.8GHz octo). The 8 core 2.66GHz is a step up, the 2.26GHz may be a step down depending on what you do. Asking for te 2.93GHz is pushing it too far imo and I can't see you getting far unless they have no clue (I think someone did manage to get it on here).
I hope you haven't already agreed to this, Apple can't guarentee that all apps will run faster than a less core and less GHz machine, despite whatever benchmarks the techs will offer.
I agree with the sentiments of the 2.93 Ghz processor, if they can't replace your logic board with dual 2.8ghz they should replace it with something with on paper equal if not faster specs, the dual 2.93 is the only thing that is faster on paper, so that would be my arguement.
Don't back down
I agree with the sentiments of the 2.93 Ghz processor, if they can't replace your logic board with dual 2.8ghz they should replace it with something with on paper equal if not faster specs, the dual 2.93 is the only thing that is faster on paper, so that would be my arguement.
Don't back down
The way you word it might mean something... both here and there.
A single processor for a dual ???
A 2.66 to replace a 2.8 ???
No. The 2.92 dual processor replaces the dual 2.8 on a replacement - exchange.
If they say Yeah but the 2.92 is faster just reply: "Yeah but the new one has fewer expansion slots, no dual connector IDE controller, and one less free SATA connector - so it's even."
A single processor for a dual ???
A 2.66 to replace a 2.8 ???
No. The 2.92 dual processor replaces the dual 2.8 on a replacement - exchange.
If they say Yeah but the 2.92 is faster just reply: "Yeah but the new one has fewer expansion slots, no dual connector IDE controller, and one less free SATA connector - so it's even."
The 2.26GHz should be the minimum they offer to replace it with. Due to it being worse at some aspects than the 2.8GHz purely due to clock speed it might not be preferable. I mean with the pricing of 2008 it should be a $1,999 system.
The 2.66GHz should be pursued as a replacement as the 2.66GHz processors were the replacements in Intel's line for the 2.8GHz Harpertowns.
As far as the 2.93GHz 8 core goes I don't see Apple setting prescendent by doing this. The cost would be too much for them and they don't have to do it. Kicking up a fuss, having had a terrible time dealing with Apple or being a valued customer might get you some sway, but I doubt it in most cases.
You're more likely to succeed if you have a realistic request to begin with. So yeah, I agree, don't go asking for the 2.93GHz, but insist on a 2.66GHz Octo.
TS...,
I had my 2007 Octo 3.0GHz replaced 2 months ago, they offered me an Octo 2.26GHz, but I requested for an Octo 2.66Ghz instead. An hour later they got back to me and approved my request without hesitation. Though now I regretted not asking for 2.93GHz variant, but I'm happy since the 2.66GHz I worked on almost double the speed of what I get on my old 3.0GHz.
I had my 2007 Octo 3.0GHz replaced 2 months ago, they offered me an Octo 2.26GHz, but I requested for an Octo 2.66Ghz instead. An hour later they got back to me and approved my request without hesitation. Though now I regretted not asking for 2.93GHz variant, but I'm happy since the 2.66GHz I worked on almost double the speed of what I get on my old 3.0GHz.
Indeed! You got ripped off IMHO!
Insist on a 2.93 and take the buttheads to court if they don't pony up! the 2.66 in 2009 is a lesser machine is more ways than not - than a 2008 2.8. That's so fricken obvious it hurts - even is there are some coolaid drinkers in this thread.
Insist on a 2.93 and take the buttheads to court if they don't pony up! the 2.66 in 2009 is a lesser machine is more ways than not - than a 2008 2.8. That's so fricken obvious it hurts - even is there are some coolaid drinkers in this thread.
I used to own a 2.8ghz 8 core machine with 16gb of ram with a 10,000 rpm raptor drive just a year ago.
From my own personal experience, I have to say the 2.26GHz nehalem blows it out of the water in real world usage. I think it has to do with the 40% less latency and doing away with the FSB.
But one thing is for sure, I never remembered the harpertown 2.8GHz 8 core machine being THIS fast.
I dont know how to describe it as a whole but the Nehalem machine is just so much more responsive. Like its lighter on its feet or something. Oh another thing is that the Nehalem runs so much cooler as well! Doesnt heat up my room anymore.
I am very very happy with this machine.
Because it's Nehalem doesn't mean it's better. I haven't seen benchmarks, but I'd wager the 2008 3.2 GHz could take on the current 2.93 GHz with no problem.
I'd be pissed off with this replacement. Try to get the octo 2.93 GHz. If that doesn't work, try for the 2.66 GHz octo with some extra RAM.
I'd be pissed off with this replacement. Try to get the octo 2.93 GHz. If that doesn't work, try for the 2.66 GHz octo with some extra RAM.
Benchmarks are nothing compared to real-world applications. I'm running one of the many BOINC projects utilising all 8 cores on a Gainestown 2.66GHz which is almost twice as fast as a Clovertown 3.0GHz. Jjahshik32 was right, memory bottleneck on FSB was one of the major problems on Pre-2009 MPs. And Hyperthreading on Nehalem is way better than those of the Pentium 4 era.
The single 2.66 quad is heaps faster than the old octo 2.8. Yes it is a more than comparable machine. Half of the people above have no idea what they are talking about.
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
I've seen 100's and 100's of benchmarks (real world and synthetic!). I breathed benchmarks instead of air for the first few moths after they were released. Nehalem's are better. How much depends. If you look at thee differences by task performance sliced into the times required to complete THAT task or benchmark ONLY then they're between 0% and 8% faster than the 5400 series in the 2008 machines given the same clock speeds. This is close to true of the 5300 series operational in the 2006 and 2007 Mac Pro models where it's 0% to 9%. The average of all the tasks and benchmarks combined probably falls in the 3% to 5% range. There are even some situations tho rare, where the Nehalems are actually slower.
If we try and average the performance benefit across the course of an average work day it's much much less - in the tenths or hundredths of a percent. This is tough to do with any accuracy because everyone's usage profiles differently.
But the systems overall are lesser when compared to Mac Pros from any other year. There are fewer PCIe expansion slots, less available SATA connections, no IDE interface at all, more difficult to upgrade in many instances, and the video cards they're peddling it with use some lame-arse mini-displayport that requires an expensive adaptor to hook up to the vast majority of available monitors - as a second monitor.
Anyone who thinks that the 2.66 octad is a good replacement for a 2.8 octad is slightly mistaken. And very mistaken if considering any lesser machine. The replacement for the 3.0 GHz octad from 2008 is the 2.93 GHz from 2009. There is no replacement for the 3.2GHz 2008 and the 2.66 2009 is a downgrade from the 2.8 2008 - and a severe downgrade when you consider the complete system as a whole.
.
This is for 8 core compared to 8 core across the board without considering quads at all.
If we try and average the performance benefit across the course of an average work day it's much much less - in the tenths or hundredths of a percent. This is tough to do with any accuracy because everyone's usage profiles differently.
But the systems overall are lesser when compared to Mac Pros from any other year. There are fewer PCIe expansion slots, less available SATA connections, no IDE interface at all, more difficult to upgrade in many instances, and the video cards they're peddling it with use some lame-arse mini-displayport that requires an expensive adaptor to hook up to the vast majority of available monitors - as a second monitor.
Anyone who thinks that the 2.66 octad is a good replacement for a 2.8 octad is slightly mistaken. And very mistaken if considering any lesser machine. The replacement for the 3.0 GHz octad from 2008 is the 2.93 GHz from 2009. There is no replacement for the 3.2GHz 2008 and the 2.66 2009 is a downgrade from the 2.8 2008 - and a severe downgrade when you consider the complete system as a whole.
.
Who needs IDE? SATA has taken over.
I do agree that the 3.2 GHz really doesn't have a replacement in the current lineup. I'd ask for a refund and wait for a refurb.
I do agree that the 3.2 GHz really doesn't have a replacement in the current lineup. I'd ask for a refund and wait for a refurb.
I've got both sitting under my desk. It depends on the application. Sometimes they are about equal. In other tasks, such as rendering, the 2.93's are 95% faster.