reason(s)?
*edit* I was bored, so I looked at the "hardware guide" in his sig.
the guy who wrote it seems pretty Intel and ATI biased.
they said this about the Intel 660: This 64 bit component clocks at 3.6Ghz and was created to fit perfectly with the new Windows 64 that will come out shortly.
actually, Intel's 64-bit processors were made just to compete with AMD's Athlon 64's. Intel didn't have time to create the 64-bit architecture needed to natively run 64-bit apps, so they just included some instruction sets which allowed them to emulate 64-bit programs with their current 32-bit architecture. it is more or less software-based, and much slower. hardly the "perfect fit"
and this about the FX-55: The Intel processor is better for overall stability but the FX-55 is faster.
the kind of people that believe "Intel's are more stable" are those with not much knowledge about CPU's at all. they stick with the big brand names, often including Dell and HP (which we know both suck)
neither are more or less stable than the other, it mostly depends on software. rarely hardware (unless you're overclocking, or have a cheap PSU or something)
they also said - ATI Radeon X800 XT: This is the best video card on the market right now.
there are benchmarks that say otherwise.
now, I want to make it clear I do like this card, however it's only faster in Direct3D. the 6800 performs much better in OpenGL.
plus, they have heard of the X850 by now, haven't they?