Questions about CPU pricing

So, I’ve been falling down a rabbit hole looking at Intel processor prices lately, and honestly, some of this just doesn't add up... Like, sure, the i3 chips are basically what they've always been—the budget option compared to an i5 or an i7—but the math gets weird when you look at clock speeds. Sometimes an i3 actually looks "faster" on paper because the GHz is higher, yet it's still way cheaper than a chip with lower GHz but more cores and cache. I pulled together a few examples of i3 models that look almost identical, yet the price tags are all over the place...

i3 3.6 GHz, 6 MB cache, dual core $0.38
i3 3.6 GHz, 6 MB cache, quad core $317
i3 3.6 GHz, 6 MB cache, quad core $213

i5 2.9GHz, 12 MB cache, six cores $0.54
i5 3.1GHz, 12 MB cache, six cores $0.63

i7 2.9GHz, 16 MB cache, octa core $1.00

It makes me wonder if GHz isn't actually the big deciding factor here(?) and if the number of cores is where the real value lies... I mean, take this i7—it only hits 2.9GHz, but it's easily three times the price of an i3 that boasts much higher GHz. So, how much do these cores actually matter in the real world? And what does having "more cores" even mean, really?

Basically, more cores equals a beefier processor. It started with single-core chips, then moved to dual-core, and eventually, it just became an arms race for more cores. Having a multi-core setup is kind of like running several processors at once within one system.

Clock speed is hit or miss—if there's a massive gap, sure, it matters. But if you're looking at two i5 chips where one hits 2.9GHz and the other does 3.1GHz, that tiny 200MHz bump isn't really something you'll feel, and it's probably not worth the extra $67.

Regarding those i3 processors you mentioned, the model numbers are what actually matter. They tell you which generation you're dealing with. Right now, the tenth generation is the standard, so you'd look for chips starting with the number 10.

Every generation usually brings either some minor tweaks or a legit jump in performance. For example, comparing the i3-10100 to its predecessor, the i3-9100:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us...-4-20-ghz.html
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us...-4-30-ghz.html

With this specific generation, they "added" Hyper-Threading, meaning each core can handle two tasks at once, making the system act like it has 8 cores. I guess it's not quite the same as having 8 actual physical cores, though.

You actually missed the most important part in your examples, which is the specific model number, like an i3-9100. That tells you way more than just a random list of speeds you found on Google...

Basically, those i3, i5, and i7 labels represent different Intel "families" aimed at different parts of the market. A higher number usually means it's built for a power user with heavier workloads... anyone asking for an i7 already knows exactly why they need it...

GHz is basically the top speed where all the cores can run, or just certain ones when things get heavy. Nowadays, processors manage their own speed based on the load to optimize power and heat. They try to run as "slowly" as possible while still being fast enough that you don't notice the dip... say, an i3 idling at 3.6 GHz might drop down significantly when it's just chilling...

The core count means the chip can handle multiple tasks at once without them stepping on each other's toes. For example, one core handles your antivirus running in the background, another opens a tab in Chrome, and a third is crunching numbers in Excel... if you only had one core, it would have to juggle everything—doing a tiny slice of one task, then a slice of the next—so it feels simultaneous, even though the total time spent is just the sum of all those little bursts...

Right now, the trend is barely bumping up max speeds because of physical manufacturing limits, so companies compensate by adding more cores. There’s a limit for every user, though. Like, does having 64 cores instead of 4 actually make a Chrome page load faster for you? Nope. That extra power just gives you the capacity to do a bunch of other stuff at once, but whether you actually *need* that is a whole different story...
So, peak frequency directly hits how fast a single task finishes, while more cores let you crush multiple tasks concurrently. But keep in mind, the more tasks you throw at it, the more the cores slow down to prevent overheating, since they can usually only hit max speed for a very short burst anyway.

Price comes last, once you've figured out what you actually need. Usually, a beefier processor costs more, but for basic home use, you really don't need anything beyond 6 cores or those crazy expensive enthusiast editions.
When comparing prices, you should look at processors from the same generation (like 8xxx vs 9xxx) rather than comparing speeds across totally different generations...

Bottom line: both speed and core count matter, but you buy a PC based on what you do, not by thinking: "I'll grab an i7 at 4.2 GHz because it has a ton of cores so it must be powerful, I'll figure out what to do with it later..."
Max speed directly impacts how fast a complex webpage loads, while core count lets you run multiple tasks (not necessarily full programs) smoothly at the same time...

This is all pretty generalized and simplified... but hey, there's your answer.

Alright, thanks for the breakdown. It feels a little weird to me that processors are so "focused" on multitasking all these different apps at once with all these cores—I always figured that was mostly the RAM's job... But I guess the workload is kind of split up now, sort of like how you can choose to use the CPU for rendering instead of just relying on the GPU. So, if that's the case, it leads to one pretty logical question: why even bother having a separate CPU, RAM, and graphics card? Why not just smash them all together into one massive, super-powered processor?

Take a few months ago, for instance... I was working on some rendering and things got pretty messy. The software actually crashed on me because it absolutely devoured all my RAM, and I ended up having to go out and buy another stick of memory—all while the system was trying to juggle the CPU and the GPU at the exact same time.

Yeah, looks like the PC is pulling from multiple components to handle different tasks.
Try hunting for some tutorials on YouTube, maybe something like