While Intel seems to have top performance per device sewn up, AMD has dropped prices so low that performance per $ is just fine. Come, admit it. Your quad core hotplate is idling most of the time anyway. AMD works for me. Salesmen have to make a living and when they cannot understand data, they do get carried away with adjectives.

If you want the best value per $ from a CPU, put it into a video editing station or a server, not your desktop. People have awakened to this and are buying up low-end notebooks and such. Intel cannot keep up with the demand for the Atom. AMD's Geode and successor, if it ever arrives, will sell many times for each quad-core chip.

Both AMD and Intel should figure out how many 32bit 3gHz chips they can crank out on a 600mm wafer at 22 nm instead of betting the farm on multicore CPUs only. The desktop does not usually need that kind of power. Servers may but there are many clients per server except in super-computers.

We should also migrate to GNU/Linux so we get the service from our machines that we want. If you need quad core to make Vista run comfortably, your logic is circular. You do not need Vista to run at all and while we are looking at configurations switch to thin client or multi-seat X so that our machines have to work a bit to earn their keep.

I want a new cpu and socket

deepen the penetrtaion through.. IT channels.

:-))

nice one, Emma! I would've bet this kind of humour comes from a man, but...

AMD's market-share and brand-awareneness can't be beat. For instance, I know that Turion Ultra washes whiter and at cooler temperatures than any other leading brand!