- The AMD architecture is more efficient. It can perform more work with each tick of its clock, with less power and less heat than the Intel architecture. Intel largely overcomes this difference with a higher clock speed (GHz), using more electricity and generating more heat.
Intel has solved the efficiency problem with the Core 2s, (well, at least the Duos; the first Quadros are still quite power-intensive). They're running as cool or cooler as the Athlon x2s, with less of a power draw.
- AMD systems have been upgradeable through more new processors without the need for a new motherboard.
This had been true for a long time. However, AMD has been changing socket design as often as Intel lately (they're on their third socket for the Athlon 64 family as they finally adopted DDR2), and if I'm reading the presses right, they will have another one when they come out with their Core 2 "killer".
Intel is also closing quite a bit on the price/performance as well. They're not quite there yet though.
Well... maybe. The bulk of their solution is the 65nm process. Anyone can make a CPU cooler by shrinking it. :-)
This had been true for a long time. However, AMD has been changing socket design as often as Intel lately...
Yeah, I'm hoping they settle down again soon. I still think that's a more important thing for AMD than Intel. I may be wrong. (It does happen ;-) )
No question that Intel has passed AMD and given them another dose of incentive. But the Athlon architecture has much of the Digital Alpha magic sprinkled through it, so I'm still a believer that it has more tricks up its sleeve yet. 2007 may be a challenge for us AMD fans. :-/