Well I'll just throw in my two cents to give AMD some credit here:
I've built a few Intel and a few AMD systems through the past years. EVERY AMD system we have built has outlasted and outlived in every way the Intel systems by at least two years. They just have a much better lifetime it seems. Additionally, it's wrong to go and say that EVERY Intel processor outperforms EVERY AMD processor. If you go strictly and compare costs, the cheapest Intel quad-core processor is still more expensive than the most powerful and most expensive AMD quad-core processor, and the Intel processor will not be able to rival the faster AMD processor without some overclocking.
The usual debate that Intel beats AMD is at the most expensive top-of-the-line dual cores and quad cores. Once you start getting ready to shove $750 or more into a processor, Intel is your way to go, as their top of the line processors are more powerful than AMD. But when you compare cost-for-cost between AMD and Intel, you can get just as much performance from AMD than an Intel system, and even at a cheaper cost if you look right and plan ahead.
AMD also has the benefit of an integrated memory controller, which is a very powerful force! Because of this, AMD processors are able to better utilize and see benefit from faster speed RAM in your system which also can be a powerful force.
There are a LOT of professional IT companies (which includes high-power system designers such as Alienware, VooDoo PC, Acer, HP, and Dell to name a few) are recognizing the real potential of the AMD Phenom processors and are beginning to design and really advertise systems with this setup because A) they are generally cheaper than the Intel systems, and B) For the price the performance is really great. Sure, you can spend even more and get systems that are high-end Intel systems that will still beat it, but it doesn't mean that AMD is not near enough power for anything and everything you need in a designing & rip workstation.
I just finished building a system actually that will be doing some designing but will mostly be for rip workstation. I ended up going with two AMD Opteron quad-core processors. At 2.2 Ghz on each processor, they are not the fastest when compared to some quad-core Intel Xeon processors, but there are many tests and benchmarks that have shown an AMD Opteron quad-core can perform up to 20% more "stuff" (calculations) per clock than an even faster speed Intel Xeon processor. Then given the reasonable cost of these quad-core AMD processors at $400.00 each compared to around $600.00 each for a similar Intel Xeon processor, it was a pretty simple choice for me.
All in all, I'm just saying to not just toss AMD aside completely just because everyone has equated that Intel trumps AMD in EVERY battle because it is completely false. In the absolute highest end of the market if you're looking at spending several thousands per computer, you can probably get the top of the line Intel systems that beat out AMD, but if you've got a budget you clearly should also be looking at what is available from both sides as AMD does offer incredible prices for great performance.
:
. I just like to buy name brand parts because my sense is that the products would be more stable and have proper support (ie. drivers and software updates).
