sorry if this has already been brought up
im very purplexed though.
a few questions:
is the only thing special about the FX the 1mb cache? if it is.. then why is a dual core processor also with 1mb cache that is clocked 400mhz less than the FX cost about £200 less? do the two cores share the cache? is this why the fx's cache is more 'costly'?
also, why is the mid-range of the dual core processors the only one with 1mb cache? is it just because microdirect might be retarded?
and a little bit about how the two work, does the dual core/big cache create a bigger demand for RAM and make higher clocked RAM much much more useful? (something i think i read somewhere)