True, but you may not get warranty etc any more as AppleCare is expiring.
It depends on the circumstances/where you buy it. The 3.2GHz '08 Octad (or any others that might make a brief appearance) on Apple's Refurb store will have a full warranty, and and can be extended.
You can also find used systems that already have extended Apple Care which would still be active as '08's haven't been around long enough for it to expire (unless the original purchaser didn't opt for it).
Same with the '09s, so I don't see how the is an "advantage" for the '08 over the '09, as this thread is about.
You misunderstood what I was getting at I think.
Both use EFI64, which places the '08's on the same playing field as the '09's (and '10's when they show) in terms of future graphics cards and OS releases.
A little pricey, yes, but you can live with it if you need hardware RAID. I've been happy with software.
If RAID is needed, and a user is on a budget, it could make the ability to meet performance goals given the lower cost of the '08 systems, so less, or perhaps none of the upgrades needed/desired have to be eliminated/compromised,...
It's up to the user to determine that, but budgets are a big deal in most cases in my experience.
Advantage to the '09 models then?
It will depend on what a user needs them for. In some cases, the additional ports will be an advantage (used under OS X). Others (Windows drive), the '09 has an advantage.
Keep in mind however, there is an inexpensive solution to add SATA ports to an '08 (Windows drive use), and can be had for under $20USD. That + cost of the '08 is still less than the '09.
It all comes down to specifics. Generally speaking, there are limitations in any Mac for some users (i.e available ports, necessary adapters,...), and can be gotten around for additional funds in many cases. It just comes down to what's acceptable for the specific use and within budget.
See, this is selective use of figures and benchmarks. Yes, the 3.2Ghz '08 Octad is faster than the 2.26Ghz '09 Octad (but not exactly by much I might add), but the 2.93 and 3.33 Quad '09s are faster on single-thread, whereas your statement is worded as if the '08s win all round. Plus, the 3.2 '08 can be tricky to obtain - I see far more 2.8 '08 models around.
It's not selective numbers, but rather no ability to make a general statement that applys across the board. The user needs to be able to consider their use, and see how the systems compare. Everyone's requirements are different, and that individual has to make their own decisions. The chart was intended to assist with that is all.
Throw in the fact that the 2.66 and 2.93 Octad '09s cream the 3.2 '08 Octad, and you can argue that the '09s offer a greater range of options - although there is the cost implication involved.
Are the systems you list faster? Sure. But they're also much more expensive. If you look at the performance/cost ratio, the '08's do offer a better balance.
Unfortunately, budgets are a major part of a computer system decision. So much so, they're almost always the primary factor in the decision.
It very much comes down to what you want. Single to quad thread, you're best going for a 2009 Quad with the high clock. Multi, you go for an '08 unless you can drop the cash on a 2.66 or higher '09 Octad. It's not as simple as "zomg, buy the '08 3.2!"
Actually, the 3.2GHz '08 gives you more performance for the same money as the base '09 Octad (2.26GHz) models (save the very rare instance the software used can actually utilize triple channel DDR3).
If you buy a Quad, yes. Octad '09s are 8 slots.
Yes, but filling all 4 in an '09 also slows you down (from a technical standpoint, as there's precious little software that can utilize triple channel DDR3). Also keep in mind, the '08 Quad also had 8x DIMM slots. The current Quads do not. The lack of software that can take advantage of DDR3s bandwidth is one of the reasons the '08's are attractive for some, as they can get the additional memory at a lower cost (don't need larger capacity DIMM's to acheive their target).
Again, none of this may matter, as it comes down to the specifics for each user.
If you are doing mostly pre-press, web design/development, office applications, etc., I believe the 3.33 GHz quad will give you the best performance. Put an SSD and a RAID array in there and you'll be set for a long, long time.
There may be reasons precluding such a machine, such as DIMM slots (since the larger DIMM capacities are rather expensive, particularly the 8GB sticks). And of course, there's budget as well.
So it comes back to usage.
