In both single and dual core, why is the FX series so much more expensive than the Athlon 64 series?

Any help would be greatly appreciated... any help... at all... about anything... please?

FX60 is 2.6Ghz and has 2x 1MB L2 Cache
X2 4400+ is 2.2Ghz and has 2x 1MB L2 cache

Both has same L2 cache but FX60 is 400Mhz faster than X2 4400+, therefore FX60 is more expensive than X2 4400+

TMP-Man

Asus P5P800-SE
Pentium 506 2.66Ghz @ 4000Mhz @ 1.5125v
1024MB Dual Channel DDR400 RAM CL2.5-3-3
40GB 540RPM + 120GB 7200RPM HD
128MB Radeon 9500 mod 9700 @ 360/585

I know the clock speeds, the price difference just doesn't seem proportionate to the increase in core clock alone... there's got to be another reason.

Any help would be greatly appreciated... any help... at all... about anything... please?

There is not.
There is no other reason. It's just the clockspeed and the "name" of the chip. An overclocked 4400+ x2 at 2,6ghz scores exactly the same in benchmarks than an fx60.

Free

Adding to the above....if you disregard the FX tag, the FX-60 is pretty much an Athlon64 X2 5200+

Other than the clock difference, the FX-60 also comes with an unlocked multiplier unlocked [overclockers :-)], and a smaller but redesigned and more efficient cooling package.

However all that bonus still doesn't make it a smart buy over the regular X2, but if you want the fastest and the best, then the FX-60 is definitely a must-buy.

When Google isn't your best pal