Do You Like intel or AMD .....say WHY!!!

I like Intel (Core 2 Duo) for regular, mainstream computing and Opterons (x2, x4) for server and other parallel computing tasks. Most people can't add enough memory to their systems to get the benefit of AMD processors, so for most people, Intel will be "faster" (faster as in I defy you to tell the difference without a benchmark).

Intel due to performance, both in apps and battery life. AMD procs for laptops have been battery eaters for a while now and that holds mostly true. Their newer mobile platforms that use hybrid graphics are improving that though.

@NoTime: What do you mean AMD is better for graphic programs? If you look at the charts provided by Tom's Intel pretty much cleans house in the rendering benchmarks they tested. Did you mean memory benchmarks? That I would agree with, but with just about everything else, Intel has the lead.

That may only be true since AMD knows they have to beat Intel in pricing to seem like a viable option.

I was trying to look up retail prices for AMD mobile CPUs, but newegg's offerings were rather pitiful. Only 5 AMD's to 20 Intels. I also found it rather odd that none of the 5 were newer chips. They were either of the MT series or the older TL's.

Well, that statement is best described during the AMD athlon vs P3/P4 era. I really shouldnt have to elaborate more. You can buy $300 CPU from intel or you can spend $250 on a cpu from AMD which had equal or better performance.

More relevant examples would be the new ATI 4000 series cards. They offer great performance and don't gouge you like NVIDIA.

Sure ATI/AMD is a big coporation that is in it for the money but atleast they are a bit more forgiving to the end users. Not everyone earns a disposable income.

Not sure where to begin with that.

maybe it was poor phrasing on my part. I guess I look at it this way. 2 identical chips with respect to clock speed,cache (one might have more than the other but it's not going to do a whole ton) and assuming they both will work with DDR2 and such the Intel will 99.9% of the time be more expensive than the equivalent clocked AMD chip. Just really can't justify that. Not to mention Intel chips are in some of the crappiest prebuilt's out there I prefer to not follow the sheep

Of course, if we were all running 64-bit OSes with 4-8 cores having 16-32 GB RAM, we'd see a different story altogether (hello on-board memory controller, dynamic scaling, ect.). However, we are talking about mobile computing here. Intel has always owned the performance crown in mobile computing (well, maybe except for a breif period between the P-III Tualatin and the Pentium M) and even more so since the Pentium M-- more performance at lower frequencies consuming far less power than any of the competition.

The introduction of the Core and Core 2 has done nothing more than solidify that position. . . and if it's just $20 or so price difference compared with comprably performing AMD parts, you go with Intel if you primarily value performance.