I got a little sample on the intel and AMD CPU's, if two computers with a pentium 4 in them. A computer that has pentium 4 with a bus speed of 133MHz and 512MB RAM is just as fast as a computer that has pentium 4 with a bus speed of 333MHz and 256MB RAM. It doesn't matter only on the clock speed, but if you want to know the performance comes from the L1 and L2 cache, memory bus speed, then the clock speed.

Intels processors are powerful indeed ... and very stable too
buuut they tend to get really hot haha .. and they suck energy abit more compared to AMD ... but still they're powerful

and AMD processors .. are energy saving, and very cool too .. and its has HUGE! overclocking potential *my LE-1620 is originally 2.4 ghz .. but I overclocked it to 3.2 ghz with proper cooling and bios settings* .. but its very unreliable ... after awhile your pc might shut down on its own even though you haven't overclocked it yet
i dunno maybe its just my power supply ... but I dont experience any random shut downs on my intel unit ..but! amd is cheaper haha

~_~ so uh ... I guess its safe to say that Intel are for hardcore gamers
and AMD are for overclocking enthusiast

haha AMD is fun!

I would choose Intel for now because near the end of the year they will be releasing brand new processors called the Nehalem. This processors are totally redesigned from the ground up and will be using Intel new technology that will be replacing the legacy front side bus called Intel QuickPath Interconnect.

I personnally prefer Intel .......

I have an intel which isnt really a bad thing

I prefer AMD over INTERL for some reasons not a fan boy or anything
just personal preference haha well i do game and such on my computer
but when it comes to those 3D marks mumbo jumbo i really dont care
as long as it runs my games/apps smoothly!!

Intel is the best choice for quad cores and most dual cores. Amd still has the budget builds but then again one is sacrificing the ability to choose to upgrade later. Overallt hose looking at sub 500 computers should go AMD whereas those above should invest in intel, but at this time Nehalem is just around the corner. It is better to just get stuff for today, and not tomorrow.

In response to Philideous-Alucard's comment. It is highly false that intel's run hotter than AMD's. With the introduction of the Wolfdale line of CPU's, thus dropping them to 45 nanometer, not only do they draw less power and generate less heat, but they also can house much higher amounts of L2 cache and achieve greater clock speeds. Granted, AMD still dominates on memory access speeds, but their minuscule amount of L2 cache really does hurt gaming performance if your trying to get every frame you can out of a game. My system has the Core2 E8400 3.0gHz 6mb L2 cache 45nm processor. I got it for 160$ bucks, box and sink. I used to be a huge AMD fanboi till I actually started working in the computer business; having to work on client workstations, laptops, etc. To be perfectly honest, AMD severely lacks the stability for the business environment which is where Intel thrives right now. Also, Intel has already released a roadmap of their products for the next 2 years and each time AMD puts some new product out, Intel already has something to beat them with. It's just no use at this point, they are dominant at the moment. In every category.

Also, if you actually browse overclocking forums and websites a few times, you will find that people have taken even the old 3.0gHz 4mb cache Core2 65nm to 4.2gHz with water cooling and whatnot. I even saw a guy take the processor I have to 4.8gHz with a liquid nitrogen set up. AMD does not hold the crown for over-clocking, for the most part, the motherboard plays a gigantic factor as well as the processor.

-My two cents-

Responding to Zealot.

AMD can keep up in price/performance with their X2 series and X4 series. Saying that only Budget computers should use AMD is false. I have no problem keeping up with Intels Mid range Dualcore chips and im running a 5200+ . Again im going to refer to the chips higher clock and bus.

PS this machine costs about $1,200.00

I think that the batte between the two isnt going so well for AMD but they have caught up with their video cards, maybe in the future Amd will optimize their Cpu's so it will reach the best performance

I think that the battle between the two isnt going so well for AMD but they have caught up with their video cards, maybe in the future Amd will optimize their Cpu's so it will reach the best performance

Intel ftw! all there is to say.

I'm an Intel-NVidia fanboy so... yeah Intel leads right now, even Phenom was it? of AMD havent got a prayer.

Crunchbite

Responding to Zealot.

AMD can keep up in price/performance with their X2 series and X4 series. Saying that only Budget computers should use AMD is false. I have no problem keeping up with Intels Mid range Dualcore chips and im running a 5200+ . Again im going to refer to the chips higher clock and bus.

PS this machine costs about $1,200.00

This is simply false. Unless you are confusing budget chips with "mid-range", Intel beats AMD's offerings hands down. AMD simply cannot compete on clock-for-clock speed versus Intel. AMD's current method for attempting to compete is to throw more cores at the problem, which may sound like a solid idea in theory, but it does not work out in practice, as you must have applications that support multi-core.

For situations such as gaming, where typically only one or two cores are ever used, AMD simply can't keep up.

Intel

By an unknown reason, my computers seems to like more the Intel micro-architectures...

Anyway, that is just me and my paranoia ^^