>Barton isnt slow... but it isnt fast either for the money. you are
>paying just a hair under 3.06 prices and getting performance
>thats not above what you pay for. This is a problem, since the
>real only reason to buy an AMD is for price... ( cummon admidt
>it... the shitty VIA chipsets arent a reason!) hehehe If AMD isnt
>drasticly cheaper than Intel at the same "theoretical" speed... I
>dont think they have a chance.
That also depends how much money will you spend to take advantage of all the 3.06 potential . And those rimms aint cheap.
A barton motherboard, decent ddr, and well, the barton, still is a cheaper system than an Intel one.
Either way, i said it once, i'll say it again. The average computer uses doesnt care and wont buy top systems, he still buys the cheap stuff, uses all default, with everything onboard (cause its cheaper) and uses windows and office and plays the sims cause its nice and on the news. The Barton and p4 3.06 is not for the budget desktop market. Just that.
Besides, 2002 was a crappy year for computer sales, alot of makers/distributers/resellers went negative. Nobody was buying, due to the "recession" happening. Even AMD with those lower prices had losses. The problem now is the price. They have to increase the prices, because its getting more and more expensive to build the processors, even more true with the Opteron and the Athlon 64. It's a fact. If she doesnt , the losses will just add up and well... puff?
You guys are still comparing apples and bananas. the chips arent at the same speed, they have alot of architectural differences, and they're not at the same price. And barton with ddr vs p4 3.06 ddr and equivalent remaining systems, i think barton wins.
On a side note, don't have VIA chipset, SIS here. Cheap, stable, problem free. Whats not to like?. Ok , if i was buying today, probably nforce2, but im not
.