Dont get me wrong, I like AMD for the customs, but to be fair, unless you get the 64 3700 /4000 or the 64 X2 4400/4800, you'll probably get better performance out of the intel. Before they started doing they're major turnover the cpus were fantastic! Unfortunately when they jumped to the Skt775 they might as well of run around the starkers screaming they're all women. Heating became a major issue, that AMD had experienced with the previous XP generation. For a home user that will game occasionally, the P4 would do fantastic. There is not enough support on the web for the 64 bit OS yet unless you look into Linux. I'm saying this having AMD processors since I upgraded from my P2 300 (which I can never say is a bad thing!). If your looking at OCing then the AMD is great, and of course with the FX57, that is alone enough proof to say hands down AMD is far superior than Intel. Now that AMD have hit the Server market, Intel aren't gonna be smiling for much longer. As for the standard 64, you can probably see that the models i chose were the ones purely with a 1MB Cache. This really does affect the performance of the AMD and it is one of the reasons it does so badly in booting up windows. Ok so Intel have HT Tech. with a higher FSB, AMD are still competing. just on single tasking. When it comes to multi-tasking (until the X2) AMD couldn't touch intel. and even now, intel have just released their version of a dual core proc. The market is very close and its starting to become a choice between honda (amd) or bmw (intel). of course, honda does have the NSX!
Now to the point of this pointless rant, Unless you are task specific and you know what your pc is going to be doing, then its not necessarily important what brand of the cpu you go for. Now people have broke off into their little groups just like religions when there's really no need to. If you have the money go for the AMDs listed above, if not then just go for the intel of a relevant speed!