Originally posted by: T8000
I would go for option 2, because it is far more stable than an AMD solution, even more if that AMD solution is based on a VIA chipset.
VIA chipsets had their problems, but they're not as bad as you'd like them to be. I have an AMD Duron running on a KT133A board, with uptimes that regularly reach the month unit before being destroyed by the necessity of installing whatever latest patch just came out from Microsoft. My Athlon XP + Nforce2 system, which I use more frequently, is currently going strong after 23 days of uptime, but must be rebooted later today to install some more patches from MS.
Now, I could see your point if you were comparing an AMD/Via system with Windows 98 vs. an Intel/Intel system with Windows XP Pro + SP1, but that's certainly not a fair comparison. Not to mention that comparing AMD vs. Intel with the same OS and claiming to see these huge differences in relative stability between the two shows the world that you're full of it.
Yes, Intel has some advantages (media encoding for one), and AMD has other advantages, but don't go making up BS to promote the platform that you happen to be a fanboy of.
The second reason is speed, as the P4 offers far better response times thanks to Hyperthreading, and game performance is even between the two.
"Far better"? Yeah right. I suppose to someone who is predestined to like the Intel solution over the AMD solution (i.e. an Intel fanboy) there would be a huge difference. To an AMD fanboy, the AMD processor would kill the Intel in all areas. A reasonably unbiased person would see the strengths and weaknesses of each platform, but would recognize that there is not some "far better" difference between the "response times" of one and that of the other.
And the third and last reason is price, as the P4 retails for about half the price of an A64, while still offering superior stability and performance.
P4 vs. AMD64 could be argued in favor of the P4 on price, but your far "superior" stability and performance claims are rediculous.