Why even have a loyalty? Neither company is a perfect angel, nor a vicious tyrant. I back whatever gives the best performance at the time, considering the price as well.
But what really gets on my nerves is when people say things that are their "hunch." There are too many well-informed people, and too many people listening to those well-informed people for hunches to be worth much in the tech world. I honestly don't mean to pick on anyone, but can you give me a plausible reason why
you think that the Quad-Core is going to put AMD back on the top? Personally, I know why AMD could bridge the performance gap, but I want to hear your reasonings.
Just to toss something out there; AMD's K8L will be coming out a year after the Core 2 Duo, and Intel has hardly been sitting on it's laurels the entire time. One quarter after AMD releases K8L Dual and Quad Core processors, Intel will release their 45nm Penryn-architecture processors. It is pretty undisputed that this 45-nm shrink will leave whatever AMD may have far far behind. There was an entire thread devoted to the subject in the AMD
subforum at [H]Forums, and they decided that AMD was pretty much going to be in trouble. K8L's reign, if there is even any, will be quite short-lived.
3.5 -> 4.0Ghz Dual Cores and 3.00 -> 3.73Ghz Quad Cores with Performance per clock improvements, compared to the 2.0 -> 2.9Ghz C2D-competitiors that AMD's K8L will bring? GG AMD.
I am hardly "loyal" to Intel; I just back them because they are in the lead, and I will recommend the best to anyone who asks. AMD was the best around this time last year, and that was all I recommended at the time. But times change, and sleeping giants awaken.