This thread is probably going too fast for me to catch up, but I want to share my thoughts...
I've used AMD for the past 10 years. I don't love AMD, I just admire innovation and hate blue mob tactics. There was a time where Asus AMD boards had to be sold in white packages because otherwise Intel would sue or not sell chipsets to Asus. Intel advertised its processors (P2, P3 and IIRC P4 too) as "internet accelerators".
With AMD I could finally buy a computer that performed well in games. Then I had great moments, like overclocking a tbred B more than 800MHz thanks to the ability of a wonderful nForce 2 motherboard that unlocked multipliers. With the nForce series desktop pcs got a modern interconnection architecture (HT and dual channel DDR), and great onboard sound.
Then AMD released the first x86 64bit processor. Intel did not bet on extending x86 to 64 bits, that was done by AMD alone. That was against Itanic.
Now who was the first company to release a real dual core desktop cpu? with virtualisation support? And the first real quad core? And with integrated memory controller.
Why I stick with AMD? I don't know if my next CPU will be AMD, but I'm not giving Intel my money.
PS: I have to do this.
PS2: For those of us who remember THG for its biased reviews... Tom's Hardware Bribe
.Edited by cloppy007 - 10/12/11 at 2:52pm