Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

TK2K

TK2K

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 4, 2006
266
0
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.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
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.
 
@ 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?
 
Tesselator said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Tesselator said:
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.
Click to expand...



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
 
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Genghis Khan said:
@ 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)
Click to expand...

"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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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


jon9091 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. :)

TK2K said:
I think you're missing some of the information about how CPU architecture works.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
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.

Obsidian6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
TK2K said:
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.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

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....
 
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 ...

$ $ $
 
seisend said:
hmmm... -> Mr.Tesselator

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

$ $ $
Click to expand...

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... )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back