pretty much the same,

Had INTEL up to MMX 200Mhz, then went with AMD K6-IIs as they outperformed Intel,

Then went to K6-IIIs, and then to Athlons,

for Graphics, i was with 3dFx, then moved to nVidia to see if they retained the Glide API,

then went with ATi as they had better Color on their Cards, and I can get All In Wonder cards (Had 3 of these, AIW7500, 9800 and 9600XT).

When I built My new system, i couldnt Pass up the 8800 Performance.

But systems I've built for family have all been AMD/ATi since about 2001.

Intel nVidia combo provides better compatability in 3Dcontent/video applications and more-or-less equal framerates in games compared to AMD based systems. Yes, it costs a wee bit more. I gots da dolLaRs... I gets da best. All your base are belong to Us. :-)

True.

Most everything is designed/developed on Intel/Nvidia systems. So, compatibility issues get worked out without even thinking -- developers can't develop if it doesn't work on their development system.

On the other hand, I buy many many of the popular games. And, I can honestly say that in the last 9 years, my AMD/ATI systems had only ONE GAME with ONE Issue on ONE level that lead to the game being unplayable (I'm sure there have been other games, but I didn't own them). That was fixed with an *.ini file manual change, IIRC. A couple games had an occasional minor texture flicker for one texture. Other issues have been less visible. For example, CrossFire does not always lead to a better frame rate (nor does SLI) and that normally gets fixed in the next driver release (or the one after that). Not much in 9 years.

Disclaimer, I use in-game settings and don't try to override things with the ATI control panel. Occasionally, I read that an "override" does not work as well for ATI -- again, things are usually developed on Nvidia.

In those few games that were developed on ATI, the tables were turned and performance was usually best on ATI right from the start -- sometimes MUCH better -- so its not that AMD/ATI are technically deficient.

I'll just say that a company's actions will have to be far more underhanded than those done by nvidia and Intel to make me boycott them.
I've traded back and forth between theirs and AMD and ATI products since the beginning. Well, not the beginning, my first ATI card was I believe the 9700. I THINK that was the card that replaced my Geforce Ti 4400? Before that Geforce, I was all 3DFx, actually.
However, my 486s were Intel and AMD until the Pentium released, where I stayed until 2000. Then I went AMD and there I stayed again until the C2D's release. I had 2 of those and now my i7.
On the video front, since that 9700 I've alternated between nvidia and ATI/AMD almost every generation, although a few times I've bought 2 back-to-back. Recently, though, my current GTX 570 was preceded by a 5850, preceded by an 8800 GTS, preceded by an X1800.

When it comes to compatibility issues, I find that for every game AMD CPUs are a little slow or stuttering on, there's another Intel has an issue with. Likewise ATI GPUs and nvidia, although in their cases it's more often a driver bug, not hardware-based.

I generally go for the best CPU and GPU I can get in the $250-350 range when I buy. I have zero company loyalty, I'm a total agnostic.
Means I never overpay or get less than I need, and that each company has to stay on its toes to get that good price/performance ratio to get my business.


The Jedi Master

A brief rumor indicating that Nvidia's partners are concerned by the AMD lead. So, Nvidia may do an announcement next week -- so folks know its coming. Then, actual quantity shipments in Q2 (April/June?).

Kepler Launch Rumors