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

[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

(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

(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

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.