I guess I will have to bring some charts to the table to back up my argument.
This is my chart of choice. I chose it randomly from their list (by random, I mean the first one on the list).
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/3D-Studio-Max-9,836.html
note: in this chart, lower is better
My processor of choice is the AMD 6400+ which costs 89.99$ on newegg.com
I noticed that tomshardware.com did not list a price next to the 6400+ but had on several processor that were rated above it. I checked thier prices against newegg.com and they matched almost exactly. So I will put a 89.99$ price tag next to the 6400+
Looking at the chart, I see that AMD is cheaper for the performance. I am sure someone is going to post soon saying that the chart is rigged or tomshardware.com is a unreliable source. If that is the case, feel free to bring your own charts from a supposedly more reputable site.
here are some more charts. Sometimes the 6400+ performed better than the 129$ core 2 duo E7200
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/3DMark-Vantage-CPU,817.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/AVG-Anti-Virus-8,822.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/iTunes,827.html
