AMD or Intel ?

AMD has an apparent value advantage - in that an Intel CPU of given spec will cost more than a roughly equivalently spec'ed AMD CPU. However, that's really about it, IMO, and I stress the "apparent" part of that statement.

I personally favor Intel processors, and don't mind a bit paying the price difference for what amounts to superior performance and reliablity in the world my computers inhabit. I have nothing against AMD products; they work fine. I think, however, they're more fragile than P 4s, they do generate quite a bit more heat than the Intel conterparts, and the Intels typically benchmark better than AMDs when it comes to business and content creation applications. I give Intel the nod when it comes to wireless, too, especially the Centrino platform.

Frankly, for most folks, there really isn't going to be much, if any, recognizable, functional difference. Few typical users ever will really tax contemporary Intel or AMD mid-to-upper level CPUs.

And bear in mind, that's just my viewpoint - I'm sure others will have other viewpoints.

if u r using AMD athlon 64, you do not need to upgrade for 64bit longhorn next time

I have to disagree with Timberlandko on this one. It's pretty much completely the other way around. AMD CPU:s are cooler due to lower power consumption (lower clock frequencies) and something called "Silicon-on-Insulator" technology.

As for benchmarks, AMD has the upper hand nowadays in most types of benchmarks, including office/video/internet benchmarks. Intel CPU:s may have an edge when it comes to multitasking due to their Hyperthreading technology though.

If I got a new desktop computer, I'd definitely go for an AMD, simply because they generally give you more for the money. Laptops is an altogether different issue, though, one that I don't know that much of I'm afraid, so I will not be of any help there. I don't think it would be a mistake to choose AMD however.

AMD does not have built-in WiFi CPU like Centrino, does it?

Our house swings with AMD now - we used to be solid Intel. We've never had a single CPU\bios\config problem or any hardware\software problems and any of the 3 we have.

I do lots of audio\video editing and authoring and I cannot wait to use the AMD 64 - it hear it screams and crunches.

At this point, so far as I'm aware, AMD does not have an equivalent to Intel's Centrino, nor do they have anything really equivalent to the P4M architecture, but there are simple, reliable workarounds - should pose no deal breaker.

And husker makes a good point: AMD makes a good product, and most users will find things every bit a satisfactory as he reports having found them to be. There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any application likely to be used by a consumer that a contemporary AMD processor can't handle quite adequately.

How about Turion, is it equivalent to Centrino? When will AMD launch the Dual-core laptop processor?

Did intel play foul? AMD is in fray with intel!

For us Intel didn't do anything wrong - but I started building my own PC's at at that point AMD was the most cost effective. Many of my friends looked an me like I was nuts about 6 years ago. Still think it was a good decision all are still running good as the day built.

I have one current issue on my Atlon 2200 box, in that I honestly never figured the load on the power supplies until yesterday. Adding a new graphics card with a lot of bells and whistles taxed the PSU. So I get a warning about not enough power so the video is running on supersaver mode to stop damage. Order larger power supply today.
Ram sucks power and I'm running 1.5 gig.

amd for me.. They're superior in all but cpu intensive gaming applications, where intel has a slight edge. In all other benchmarks amd wins.The amd philosophy suits me better, but It's a matter of preference and thank God we have a choice.. amd seems to run a bit hotter but if you don't overclock the heck out of them, and use the proper phase change material and heatsink it isn't really an issue.
Clockspeed can be deceiving as amd does twice the work of intel per clock cycle therefore amd runs at less xhertz.
Some applications run better on intel architecture and that seems to be due to the manner in which software is compiled.. I read an article about it recently but have forgotten much of what I read.. ( Too many blows to the head ).. I sometimes run into issues where amd meets via chipsets under a linux platform but there is usually a work around. I've been abusing an amd xp 2800 barton core processor, on an asus a7n8x deluxe mother-board for 3 years and it's still running strong. I use an asrock k7vm4 board as well with an amd xp 2200 processor, and that's the board with the via chipset.. sometimes it gripes about things, but it really runs good. In my opinion amd gives you more bang for the buck, but again it's a matter of CHOICE.. Intel is doing all it can to remove you of that choice, with its' monopolistic nature.. Just my 2 cents on the matter.