http://channel.tomshardware.com/2007/06/21/300_dollar_pc_with_vista/index.html
You spent significantly more on one system then the other, AGAIN. Even though there were obvious choices for better components on the cheaper system, AGAIN.
$10 more "clearly" exceeds the price limit?
But an extra $26 for the intel system is just fin and dandy?!
You got flamed for this, repeatedly, the last time you did it. Some people never learn. You loose at testing. Grab a freaking clue. How many times does this need to be pointed out?
For $96 (the cost of the CPU you listed plus the difference between the two systems, so it's perfectly within your apparent budget) you could have equipped the AMD rig with up to an Athalon 64 X2 4200+. No rocket science necessary, just a pricegrabber search ($89 at newegg right now).
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box/p/42/1/form_keyword=AM2/sortby=priceA
A 2.2ghz dual-core Windsor consistently out-performs a 3.2ghz Cedar Mill so why wouldn't any sane person with a $361 budget consider it?
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=469&model2=443&chart=188
Not to mention that you significantly exceeded your $300 budget, on both systems, AGAIN. Why don't you just call it a "$350" in the title???
Either compare two computers that are actually $300 builds OR take down your pathetic article, buy an AM2 x2 CPU, re-run the benchmarks, and re-post it as the "$360 PC showdown".
You spent significantly more on one system then the other, AGAIN. Even though there were obvious choices for better components on the cheaper system, AGAIN.
Our choice was a Sempron 3400+, which has 256 kB L2 cache and runs at 1.8 GHz. For some reason, Semprons are more expensive in the United States than they are in Europe. Our particular model was priced at $70. We chose it because we did not want to spend $55 on the 1.6 GHz, 128 kB Sempron 2800+. In my opinion both choices are too expensive. An Athlon 64 3200+ at 2.0 GHz and 512 kB L2 cache would have been an even better choice, but the $80 clearly would have exceeded our price limits.
$10 more "clearly" exceeds the price limit?
Total Cost (AMD)$ 335 (Intel)$ 361
But an extra $26 for the intel system is just fin and dandy?!
You got flamed for this, repeatedly, the last time you did it. Some people never learn. You loose at testing. Grab a freaking clue. How many times does this need to be pointed out?
For $96 (the cost of the CPU you listed plus the difference between the two systems, so it's perfectly within your apparent budget) you could have equipped the AMD rig with up to an Athalon 64 X2 4200+. No rocket science necessary, just a pricegrabber search ($89 at newegg right now).
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/processors-retail-box/p/42/1/form_keyword=AM2/sortby=priceA
A 2.2ghz dual-core Windsor consistently out-performs a 3.2ghz Cedar Mill so why wouldn't any sane person with a $361 budget consider it?
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=469&model2=443&chart=188
Not to mention that you significantly exceeded your $300 budget, on both systems, AGAIN. Why don't you just call it a "$350" in the title???
Either compare two computers that are actually $300 builds OR take down your pathetic article, buy an AM2 x2 CPU, re-run the benchmarks, and re-post it as the "$360 PC showdown".