>quad-core 2.8GHz >$40 total from china What's t

Higher power use compared to newer chips, which is probably negligible unless your electrical rates suck.

File: Screenshot_2016-10-11-21-08-20(1).jpg (109KB, 1263x544px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1263x544px

Higher power consumption, old as fuck so requires obscure motherboard and RAM. It's a really bad investment, just get an Athlon X4 845.

>>57036245
I just need something cheap that can act as a testing box for exploits and that cpu only goes for 2x as much as the xeon around here.

I need something under $200 that will run out of an orange crate

>>57036116
>passmark
kys

>>57036995
It's a valid baseline for comparison. Fuck off.

>>57037044
no, it's complete garbage and doesnt show even close to real world performance

>>57036116
This isn't 2007. There's more to a processor than core count and clock speed.

IPC for that chip will be shit compared to Haswell/Skylake-era Xeons and it'll run hot as hell. It's a Nehalem after all.

>>57036116
>>quad-core 2.8GHz
>>$40 total from china
>What's the catch?
It's fucking old and that's overpriced.

>>57036579
Free trial aws

>>57037060
Oh boy here we go again. Yes it does give you a close estimate. It's not perfect being a synthetic benchmark and all, but it's perfectly fine for doing a basic comparison of processors. You look at real benchmarks later on after you've narrowed down your choices.

>>57036116
>What's the catch?
Passmark is trash and the mobos can be expensive as balls
>Is this really the best performance/price CPU?
No, you can get two Opteron 6172 for like 30, you will get 24 cores with slightly slower single thread performance than an old ass Nehalem or get a ES Sandy/Haswell Xeon that won't be dated as shit
>>57037210
You can just skip Passmark and go straight to real benchmarks

>>57036579
VM you nog