We've come to the conclusion that it's up to your personal needs as to what CPU type you should get. Personally, I'd choose AMD simply for price and what i'd use it for (web design, gaming and word processing) but I've always found Intels okay too.
For the price of a 3+ghz Intel processor you can get an equivelant AMD for a smidgin of the cost. Plus we have to look at the price of motherboards too which are higher for 478s then As.
Though AMDs run at a higher temp, this can be countered with better HSFs. And though new Intels are now using HyperThreading and what not, the programs and components (bar winXP) that will benefit from this aren't a large list. Yes, they will be but not for this year. By 2004/5, it'll be more of a standard but for now, not so much. I'm sure most of you probably don't agree
I'm in the process of getting the cash together to buy the components for a new PC as i've had mine for the last 5 years, and bar from the HDD now being a bit buggered and the power supply making a lovely "RRRRRR"ing noise it works fine-ish. However, it's now showing its age and needs binning.
So, finally, AMD or Intel. Have to go AMD for now. We'll see what happens (may win lottery) and have to see where they are going with P4s and XPs to decide whats best in the future. All I know for sure is that this debate will go on for as long as there is more than one processor out-there. And so it should - competition is good. Sega always had my vote back when it was Nintendo v Sega.
AMD, nuff said