i agree, one barcelona won't be faster than one 3.0ghz quad xeon...
of course, intel isn't out of the game, they're still in front but amd has a cost efficient solution with a 320$ server cpu for socket F. also, you might be surprised as barcelona specs could have gone up since this benchmark...
at the same frequency, barcelona is better. it's clocked lower because it's a native quad...
low TDP (68w/4cores makes 17w/core up to 2.0ghz)
low price (320$)
native quad architecture
onchip memory controller
entry-level parts are competitively priced and a 4 socket motherboard will fix this as allowing 16 cores to run easier in a 4x4 than in a 4x(2x2) ... everything is up to it...
how much does 2x 3.0ghz xeon costs ? -> over 2000$
how much does 4x 1.9ghz barcy costs ? -> 1280 $
the motherboard could cost more... but not 500$ more...
ram support getting twice as high
which would be faster... then, 2x3.33ghz quad vs 4x2.3ghz quad
remembers me of the 4 socket opteron board on s940 ... lol
8x3.0ghz vs 16x1.9ghz
as barcy is the more efficient/clock architecture as soon as it gets available, AMD should be ready to compete with Intel.
as long as both remains at about the same level, we'll have good priced high performing hardware