Looks like I might go for AMD, but to be sure I would still like to see more votes. Thanks, Nexopedia
I have been using both processors. AMD was far better back in the P4/AMD XP times. With dual core and core 2 duo Intel got ahead but the new Quad AMD CPUs are again on top. It is a constant battle.
I always buy CPUs based on a price/performance ratio. AMD has priced their current Quad CPUs based directly on it's benchmarks, and this time around they priced it to equally match Intel. Now, none of their chips can beat Intel currently in performance, but as someone mentioned, with AMD you can take any socket AM2 motherboard and throw in your quad chip now. With Intel you'll need a new motherboard and new RAM (most likely) making the cost greater if you already own an AM2 based system. Something else to keep in mind is that Intel is rolling off some new Quad core chips in January that simply slay AMD in all the benchmarks. If I were you, I'd wait for that and pick up a Core 2 Quad Q9450 running at 2.67 GHz with 12 MB L2 cache for $316. If you want to go cheaper Intel side, get the Core 2 Quad Q9300 at 2.5Ghz with half the cache for $266 (this model replaces the Core 2 Quad Q6600) Here's some benchmarks that compare all of AMD's current quad cores against Intels second lowest Quad, the Core 2 Q6700. http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/gigabyte/GA-MA790FX-DQ6/b1.htm You'll notice Intel wins virtually every benchmark. It sucks because since Core 2 was released, AMD has not once provided a chip with superior performance. From Athlon XP to Athlon 64 AMD provided the best price/performance and consistently released chips faster than Intel. EDIT: Here's an interesting article about AMD's upcoming Quad processors: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/29/first-inqpressions-amd-phenom