Ben's Bargains Serving Fresh Deals 24/7

you can get an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ new in box with stock cooler for $58 w/ free shipping, and it's likely to overclock easily to around 2.8ghz or higher. If you want to spend this much, you're probably better off getting a low end Core 2 duo and overclocking it.

how come processors are just as slow now as they were 3 years ago? I dont get it, what did i miss? how come they have not sped up?

#2 is either a troll or a complete dumbass. Either way, Ben needs to ban him.

#2 is probably driving a Chevette and wondering why everyone is passing him on the freeway.

Perhaps we can be nice and explain to us #2's question.

well, if #2 really doesn't know, I'll answer the question. Basically, the "speed" or ghz of a CPU is kind of a base speed of a CPU. However, when a command is given to the CPU, it takes X amount of cycles to execute that command. This X value changes between different CPU's. AMD Athlon 64 CPU's can do more per cycle than, say Pentium 4 CPU's can. As you can see, the way to increase the CPU core's performance is to either increase the ghz, or increase the amount of work the CPU can do per each clock cycle. In the last few years, AMD and Intel(after the P4) have been increasing the amount of work a CPU can do per cycle.

The pentium 4 was an example of a CPU that had a high ghz value, but could not do very much work per clock cycle(compared to the AMD athlon or AMD athlon 64 for example). Due to excessive heat, high power draw, and disappointing performance, Intel switched to the Core 2 Duo architecture(really just an updated Pentium 3 architecture), which had slower maximum clock speeds(as of right now anyway), but was able to do much more work per each clock cycle.

Also, this is a dual core CPU. So, it can theoretically do twice as much work as a single core CPU of the same speed, and it's far faster for multitasking. There are also quad core CPU's available.

Three years ago Intel and AMD were in a GHz war. Thinking correctly that consumers (like Heyd) only looked at processor speed when comparing processors. AMD wised up first and started concentrating on the amount of information processed in each cycle rather than the speed of those cycles, giving them a massive leg up on Intel for several years. Later dual and quad core processors also arrived. Anyway, processor speed is usually only good for comparing processors within the same line.

So this athlon 64 x2 6000+ is as fast as a P4 6.0GHz (if there is one)?

great new year deal and a decent price given the price plateau the 6000 have reached:
http://www.bacon.com/chart.php?range=1y&type=a&smooth=d&n=AMD%20Athlon%2064%20x2%206000&u=priceguru

As already explained, you can't do a direct comparison like that. Also depending on the program/s you use, the older processor could be more beneficial for your personal use. Let's just say to make this easier for those of us who are not up to date on computer technology, newer is better so find one that's within your budget and enjoy your new computer.

there's plenty of cpu comparisons available online, if you're really interested. the matter of fact is that unless you plan on playing high end programs no one needs to upgrade anything anymore.

#8: like #10 says, you can't compare them like that. First off, the AMD athlon 64 X2 6000+ has two cores running at 3Ghz. The Athlon 64 cores can do more work per clock cycle(per ghz) than pentium 4's can. So, if you're looking at the pure computing power, the AMD athlon 64 X2 6000+ would be considerably faster than a P4 6Ghz CPU(if it existed). Of course, you really can't compare a dual core with a single core CPU like that, and the architectures are completely different, giving varying performance for different applications.

I'd have to agree with #10's final assesment as well. Just get a core2Duo or AMD 64 X2, and it'll be better than older CPU's, even if it has a lower ghz value.

Also, if you can't afford a high end CPU, you can get a lower end CPU and overclock it, getting performance similar to a higher end CPU. Look up reviews on specific models to see which CPU's overclock the best.

Supposedly the Pentium E2160 (it's a dual-core) can be overclocked to 3.0+ GHz with stock cooler and can be had for between $80-$90. If your looking for a cheap CPU to play around with for over clocking, the E2160 probably gives you the most bang for the buck.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/12/pentium_dual_core/

Good job #6

All you burp geniuses here just burp astound me. Your praise for more efficient cores that "do more clock for clock" make me want to baconnaise on a burp puppy!

If AMD and Intel told you to jam a stick sick of butter coated in Honey up your ass then run naked through the bear exhibit at the zoo you probably would.

Do you seriously think that a more efficient core running at 10 GHz wouldn't be better????

Mark my burp words here you burp morons, the next breakthrough will be an efficient core that runs at a higher clock speed.

God, you burp butt puppets make me want to vomit.

10 GHz wouldn't be faster because there is a tradeoff between clock cycle time and memory access time. Increasing the "GHz" would actually make the processor slower.

I completely agree with #17.

Great deal this CPU beats the C2D E6600.
its $90 cheaper.....
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=877&chart=430

^^^ whatdda douche.

#17
E6600 is more expensive because its been discontinued. Now if we compare this to the E6760 which is the newer design with 1333 bus and still being produced then its a different story. The 6750 is only 50 dollars more than the X2 6000+ but blows it away. You can also overclock the E6750 to 3.6-4.0 Ghz on air cooling. I would even take the E6550 over this and its comparable in price to the X2 6000+.

My general rule of thumb is if you don't plan on overclocking and are looking at budget processors (below 120 bucks) then go for an AMD. If you are planning on overclocking or are going to spend over 120 bucks on a processor then get an Intel.

If you are going AMD just get a cheap X2 (3800+ ~ 4200+) and overclock it to 2.8 or so. There is no point in spending more as you won't get double the performance if you paid double.

I recently build a media PC with $65 4000+ X2 that overclock to 2.92GHz at stock voltage. As good a ratio as any cheap C2D overclocked. Of course the Intel would be faster but you also pay more and have to over volt.