How much bang for your buck

[marklar]

I have been wondering which CPU to get and as you will see I have far too much time on my hands so I've worked out how much performance you get for your extra $s.

I've assumed $900 for the rest of the system and used Newegg prices for the CPUs (retail not OEM).

CPU - - $ - - per GHz - - rig per GHz
2.4C = 171 = 71.25 = 446.25
2.6C = 211 = 81.15 = 427.31
2.8C = 269 = 96.07 = 417.50
3.0C = 392 = 130.67 = 430.67
3.2C = 630 = 196.88 = 478.13

This doesn't take into account overclocking ability of each chip but I was thinking of getting a 2.8 before I worked all this out and now I'm decided.

I just thought I'd share

[FIZZ3]

Well, it would seem to me that the 2.4C offers the most bang for the buck as it's at the lowest price per Mhz... taking into account the cost of the other components distorts the picture; with the savings you get from a 2.4C you could get better ram etc.

I guess the idea is to fix that 900 and see what would be the most reasonable CPU choice given that. As long as you realize that for true bang-for-buck values the $ per Mhz is what counts.

Disregarding overclocking in the current Intel world is a Sin, by the way. In other words: overclocking potential will transform the bang for buck estimates even more; in favor of the lower clocked processors.