Lets say I have 80-100$ to spend on a processor.

Lets see what AMD has to offer: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001028%201302820275%20105101317&name=3.0GHz%20and%20higher

Lets see what Intel has to offer: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%204027&name=%2475%20-%20%24100

The AMD processors are dual core ~3.2 GHz.  The Intel processors for that price are a fast Pentium 4 or a slow dual-core.  How much would it cost to get a ~3.2 Ghz Intel processor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%2050001157%201302820275%20105101317&name=3.0GHz%20and%20higher

Now I know that Intel processors are faster because of the way they are made.  But that is a very significant price difference.  I don't think that the gain in performance warrants the cost of buying Intel.

benchmarks across the internet says yes. And it is barely more expensive.

Still I'm waiting to see which will be faster, Core i7 Duos or the Phenom IIs.

Reviews are already out on both of those (check anadtech or techreport etc). core i7's seem to have the top performance cards atm, however the phenom 2's compete with Core 2 quads rather nicely

I see an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz (65 watts) for $119 which will knock the socks off either of those AMD chips (89 and 125 watts) at $80 and $90 USD.  You save the $20 or $30 that year just in energy savings.

Back in the pentium 4 days, AMD moved into prevelance by being more efficient per clock.  Meaning they could do more with the same GHz the pentium 4 line could.  Since the Core 2 Duo architecture, the tables have turned and now Intel does more per clock than AMD.

Unfortunately for AMD, Intel now make faster, better, more energyefficient processors for less money than before.

Don't get me wrong, i respect AMD because they smashed the Intel monopoly back when the P4/Pentium Ds were around with cheaper better processors.

Unfortunately all they did was make Intel have to be competitive again.

Intel, but mainly because that's what works best with osx86. If it weren't for that, I'd consider going amd.

Support AMD and fight the Intel Monopoly

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

With the current prices of Core Duo, anybody would be crazy to buy AMD...imho.

Phenom II isnt bad at all and pretty competitive, and the slowest version of the upcoming DDR3 only phenom II is faster than the current fastest DDR2 offering, so iD say AMD is still in the race- I have used both AMD and intel processors and If the new DDR3 offering is good.. I ll go for that.. plow the savings into a bigger LCD :)

Overall AMD have seemed directionless for a while but its slowly and painfully getting back on its feet. Intel still does rule though. we need another Athlon 64 and now for AMD to truly come back