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

Possible trouble with Apple Store on Warranty

C

cliff46

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apple offered to replace my Mac Pro dual quad core 2.8 that was dying an ugly death with a Mac Pro single quad core 2.93.

I spoke with Apple phone tech and he stated there was a big difference while the local store is saying they are the "same"?

I know I'm not the brightest blinking cursor but I have not been able to find bench mark test that shows that a single quad core 2.93 is equivalent to a dual quad core 2.8. But the new machine would have more ram and a bigger hard drive. If I'm wrong -- I'm wrong -- if Apple is wrong then I want a better offer.

Any guidance or links to show a comparison of speed, throughput, etc would be greatly appreciate.

One rotten Apple has spoiled the barrel in my home, Cliff
 
Quad core+Quad Core Vs Quad Core

The one on the left is better. Tell them to replace it with a duo quad core computer, as there is a BIG difference.
 
I wouldn't settle for anything less than a dual quad core. Apple itself is saying that more cores, not faster clock speeds is the future (see their OS X page - Grand Central Dispatch). You can always add more RAM and HDs later yourself, but you can't add 4 more cores easily.

I say, stand up for your 4 cores.... seriously. And good luck.
 
How do I determine what's equivalent

So what's similar or equivalent in today's standards to the dual quad core 2.8?

Heck they're telling me the single 2.93 is actually better.

Cliff
 
According to this report from primate labs (geekbench devs) the 2.93GHz quad is slightly better than the 2.8Ghz octad. If I were you... i would totally push to get the 2009 octad model. However Apple might be correct since the 2009 model supports Hyper Threading so basically is 8 physical cores vs 8 logical cores.

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/03/mac-pro-benchmarks-early-2009/

From macworld's review:


In its review, the industry-standard MacWorld reported:

The new [low-end 2.66 GHz] quad-core's score in our overall system performance suite, Speedmark 5, was 16 percent faster than that of the previous 2.8 GHz eight-core Mac Pro. It was also 27 percent faster in our Photoshop tests, and 20 percent faster at Compressor than the older system. . .
Because many applications have a difficult time using even four processors efficiently, the advantage of having eight [cores in the stock high-end 2.26 GHz model] was not apparent in most of the application tests that make up our Speedmark benchmark test suite. In fact, the new eight-core system posted a lower Speedmark score than the quad-core system, and bested it in just one test -- Cinema 4D, where it posted a 28 percent faster time.

With its improved graphics, memory bandwidth, and reduced memory latency, the 2.66GHz quad-core Mac Pro was faster than the 2.8GHz eight-core Mac Pro, and at $2,499 costs $300 less. It would be a fine purchase for anyone replacing an older Mac or buying a new one for the first time. That is especially true for people who work with processorintensive apps such as video or graphics.


http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html

So I think it is really up to you.
 
? i would totally push to get the 2009 octad model

And how do I "help" Apple understand I do not want to be left holding the short end of the cores.

They have stated they are only willing to give me single 2.93 and they ain't giving up one of their 8's which they are indicating they only have the newer 8's?

Cliff
 
cliff46 said:
Apple offered to replace my Mac Pro dual quad core 2.8 that was dying an ugly death with a Mac Pro single quad core 2.93.

I spoke with Apple phone tech and he stated there was a big difference while the local store is saying they are the "same"?

I know I'm not the brightest blinking cursor but I have not been able to find bench mark test that shows that a single quad core 2.93 is equivalent to a dual quad core 2.8. But the new machine would have more ram and a bigger hard drive. If I'm wrong -- I'm wrong -- if Apple is wrong then I want a better offer.

Any guidance or links to show a comparison of speed, throughput, etc would be greatly appreciate.

One rotten Apple has spoiled the barrel in my home, Cliff
Click to expand...

If the 2008 model has two quad-core CPUs, it's really CHEAP of Apple to replace it with a single quad-core CPU. The Nehalem architecture is superior, but for other vendors and warranties the hapless customer effectively gets a comparable upgrade. Two quad-cores should be replaced with two quad-cores. Anything else is approaching the concept of "theft".
 
beto2k7 said:
According to this report from primate labs (geekbench devs) the 2.93GHz quad is slightly better than the 2.8Ghz octad. If I were you... i would totally push to get the 2009 octad model. However Apple might be correct since the 2009 model supports Hyper Threading so basically is 8 physical cores vs 8 logical cores.
Click to expand...

I too would push for the octad model. It's the only ethical choice.

HyperThreading creates virtual ("logical") cores.

The person who in their customer support department doesn't understand what "two quad-core CPUs" means. Intel advanced their technology. Two CPUs are two CPUs.

Hyper-threading isn't a panacea either; some apps don't benefit at all and others take a performance hit. But that's only tangential. The OP bought a machine with 2 physical CPUs. Apple should be replacing the computer with one containing 2 physical CPUs. Playing with "virtual" numbers is not a fair strategy, much less a fair replacement.
 
Logical cores /= Physical cores, and it's a rip-off of Apple to attempt such a thing.

They're using the Geekbench scores as a means to cop out on issuing an Octad system (cheaper for Apple if they can get away with it).

Assuming the OP is successful, I would only expect the 2.26GHz model to be offered, but I'd try to push for a 2.66GHz unit (better for single threaded applications than the 2.26GHz model, and what I'd base the argument on).
 
Could the fact that they are trying to get rid of their 09 MP mean an update soon? 😀

And the more RAM and bigger HD shouldn't make a big impact on this, as they are easy to upgrade yourself, and for much cheaper than the part that Apple puts in them.
 
I could see where they wouldn't want to give you a 2.93 Octo. Offer to take a 2.66 Octo (play as if you are compromising since you're giving up the 2.8 Octo) and maybe they'll go for it. It should still be a significant upgrade.

.
 
Flash SWT said:
Offer to take a 2.66 Octo (play as if you are compromising since you're giving up the 2.8 Octo) and maybe they'll go for it. It should still be a significant upgrade.
Click to expand...

It is more than a significant upgrade. They are looking at it from a financial standpoint, not in terms of processor performance. The current quad-core models are closest to the (IIRC) $2,799 the 2.8GHz octad retailed for in 2008.
 
Techhie said:
It is more than a significant upgrade. They are looking at it from a financial standpoint, not in terms of processor performance. The current quad-core models are closest to the (IIRC) $2,799 the 2.8GHz octad retailed for in 2008.
Click to expand...
It's a bit of both in the past (IIRC, they typically offered 2.26GHz systems in the past, and it's the cheapest Octad system available). Now with the Geekbench score (link in previous post), it seems they're trying to get away with a less expensive system (SP, despite the original system = DP), and call it equivalent.
 
nanofrog said:
Now with the Geekbench score (link in previous post), it seems they're trying to get away with a less expensive system (SP, despite the original system = DP), and call it equivalent.
Click to expand...

I don't know if generic Apple employees keep up on Geekbench scores 😛

If people were given octatds in the past, I'm sure it was because of the argument for the "8-core" moniker.
 
Techhie said:
I don't know if generic Apple employees keep up on Geekbench scores 😛

If people were given octatds in the past, I'm sure it was because of the argument for the "8-core" moniker.
Click to expand...
My thinking is, someone in a position to set policy checked, and used that as an excuse to change the policy to further improve the bottom line (cheaper systems being offered as replacements).

Another possibility is, that they've run out of 2.26GHz Octads, but that's apparently not the case, as they're still available in the online store (new; none showing in the Refurbished section).
 
2.66GHz Xeon X5550s replaced 2.8GHz E5462s in Intel's line up and that is what they should justifiably be giving you as a replacement. They seem to push 2.93GHz quad or 2.26GHz 8-core to start, but others have recieved 8-core 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz systems to replace them. As far as I'm concerned there is no way I'd accept a system with low end processors for a replacement of high-end ones just because Apple changed their pricing. If they won't budge though, then either a 2.93GHz or 2.26GHz 8-core isn't the end of the world.
 
you can also argue the angle that the 2008 octo can go to 32gb of ram when the 2009 quad can only go to 16gb (IIRC)
 
wafl iron said:
you can also argue the angle that the 2008 octo can go to 32gb of ram when the 2009 quad can only go to 16gb (IIRC)
Click to expand...
8GB DIMM's are available in DDR2 ECC 667 and 800MHz now. That said, you may have to get a heatsink kit (MaxUpgrades IIRC), but it's possible.

64GB is possible at any rate, and 16GB sticks are supposed to become available (when, is another story).
 
Thanks for input - their final offer

Spoke with Apple store and at first they indicated they would give me 2.26 dual quad core. Then when the "tech" talked with the manager (beginning to feel like I'm dealing with used car dealer) he said no and stated the 2.93 single with 6 GB of ram one TB hard drive was their final offer and it met their "like for like" formula. When I spoke with Apple Could Careless service on the phone they also changed their mind from saying the 2.8 dual quad core was better than a single quad 2.93. Which means they probably called the store so they could both be on the same page.
 
cliff46 said:
Spoke with Apple store and at first they indicated they would give me 2.26 dual quad core. Then when the "tech" talked with the manager (beginning to feel like I'm dealing with used car dealer) he said no and stated the 2.93 single with 6 GB of ram one TB hard drive was their final offer and it met their "like for like" formula. When I spoke with Apple Could Careless service on the phone they also changed their mind from saying the 2.8 dual quad core was better than a single quad 2.93. Which means they probably called the store so they could both be on the same page.
Click to expand...
You could call again, or try another store, as this is really wrong IMO. You bought a dual processor system, so that's what you should be getting as a replacement.

I wish you luck getting this sorted, as I imagine you're rather frustrated by now. 🙂
 
nanofrog said:
8GB DIMM's are available in DDR2 ECC 667 and 800MHz now. That said, you may have to get a heatsink kit (MaxUpgrades IIRC), but it's possible.

64GB is possible at any rate, and 16GB sticks are supposed to become available (when, is another story).
Click to expand...

so i could put a 8gb dimm pair in my macpro3,1 now?
 
cliff46 said:
Spoke with Apple store and at first they indicated they would give me 2.26 dual quad core. Then when the "tech" talked with the manager (beginning to feel like I'm dealing with used car dealer) he said no and stated the 2.93 single with 6 GB of ram one TB hard drive was their final offer and it met their "like for like" formula. When I spoke with Apple Could Careless service on the phone they also changed their mind from saying the 2.8 dual quad core was better than a single quad 2.93. Which means they probably called the store so they could both be on the same page.
Click to expand...

E-Mail sjobs@apple.com and the Corporate Executive Relations team will get back to you within 24 hours and fix everything.
 
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