I was looking for a better cpu for my PC today - I have a socket 478 motherboard, so the best I can do is a P4 3.4 ghz. right now I have a 3.2 ghz. I don't need it necessarily for the unnoticable speed bump, but just to satisfy game requirements, basically. What I have found is that although the chips are supposedly "old technology", we are being charged "new prices"! I could not believe that these cpus are being sold - at retail, for twice as much as some of the newer chips! Even on ebay, these things are going for an asking price in the low $200.00 range. My question, with the hard sell of Quad Core, Dual COre, x64 systems - is why are they cahrging so much if P4 x32 is supposed to be "slower" "older" and inferior to the "new" chips???

Maybe because these new chips aren't really performing that well? Or is it a tactic to get us all to buy new hardware? What about people who just aren't in a position to purchase a complete new system - I guess they are just "collateral damage" in this mission. I find it nauseating that everywhere you turn there's pressure to "upgrade" - yet the former systems are priced as if they are worth more than the so-called "new gen" technologies.

Is my 1996 car worth more than my 2008 car? Is a tape player worth more than an HDDVD player? Is a 10" black and white TV being sold for more than a 47" Plasma??? If the new CPU's are worth more, and are better - then what gives here? Why is the old CPU that I need priced so much higher?

Perhaps THIS is the case - my 1996 DODGE isn't worth more than my 2008 Toyota... but my 1969 Corvette is... My tape player isn't worht more than my HDDVD player - but a fully functional 8-track player from 1972 might be, even a classic turntable...My 10" B/W TV from Radioshack isn't worth more than a Plasma - but a 1950's era cabinet TV might net me some antiquitish cash from a collector.... What does this all mean? There may be more to the P4 than meets the eye - maybe it IS better than the others. Maybe there is some flaw in the multicores whereby they don't always perform at a multiple of thier combined core speed. Maybe the software just isn't being written to take advantage of the "multiple processing power" of the multi-cores...

And maybe we just aren't being told what the problem is.

Suffice it to say, I'm still running 3.2 - no way I'm getting raped for a processor that's actually on the the way out the door.