<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The true speed; ignore the marketing speed completely.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-reinvents,1258-9.html">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-reinvents,1258-9.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
William Bagwell wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:200805110642.15045.rb211@tds.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Saturday 10 May 2008, Brian W. Neu wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">snips
I'd reconsider your stance on buying a new processor. I just bought
a dual core Athlon 64 5400+ (2.8 Ghz) for $87 . . . and it absolutely
screams(though I did overclock it just a tad). If you go AM2 & DDR2
800, make sure to buy a processor with speed rating evenly divisible by
400Mhz, so your RAM runs at full speed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The marketing speed (5400) or the true speed (2.8 Ghz)?
Thanks! I did not know this. I always just buy the one at the point on the
price curve where it starts to steepen. For example the next slower one at
the time I bought mine would have saved $10 and the next higher one cost $30
more. Apparently there is a flaw in my logic...
Doing the math, it apeares both of your speeds are evenly divsable by 400.
Checking mine, 4600 is not but 2.4 is.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>