why do these single core cpu's cost so darn much? the 57, which is over 1000 USD, says that the clock speed is only 2.8GHz. Now, I know there must be something I am unaware of, because you can buy a pentium 4 2.8 GHz for like 250. Someone let me know please, I am very interested.

These AMD chips are great for games, which are almost all single thread applications. The top of the line chips always have a premium price. These chips were fabricated using 90nm technology instead of 130nm.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/06/27/amd_fx_57/1.html

I read that article and concluded that you must be insane/wealthy to buy an FX-57 when there is only about a 15% increase to the X2 4800+, which is half the price. I guess if you really love the top-end gimics......

Saphalline has previously recommended going with processors at 90% of the state of the art, and I agree. You still get plenty of performance but don't pay the huge price premium.

Ok, you need some CPU primer articles here. There's no way in **** you can compare an FX 57 to a P4 2.8!! :eek: That's just plain insulting to the FX 57! Read some (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34050) articles (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34538) first (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=36460).

Anyway, yeah, unless you've got a ton of money to throw away, I wouldn't recommend the FX 57. I'd rather have an X2 myself, but the FX 55 ain't a bad deal. Very good at OC'ing for a fraction of the price of the FX 57. ;)

X2 4800+ ain't exactly half the price of a 57 either....still going to drop $850+ on that proc. Saph's right, though, p42.8 is a joke compared to the 57. As a very very loose guideline (that I'll probably get yelled at for), I've often found it easier to compare the first number of an athlon cpu's description, and compare that with a p4 clock speed. For instance an athlon xp 2800 might be in the same ballpark as the p4 2.8.