Keeping in mind that I'm no computer expert:

I long ago stopped using "performance" statistics as a primary characteristic on chip comparisons. Not only are we talking apples and oranges, sometimes it's apples and oysters. This is particularly true for comparing chips used on Macs and PCs, but it's also true for AMD and Intel.

I have gotten to the point where reliability, durability and compatibility rank higher for me. Even in those categories, neither Intel or AMD has had a constant and clear lead. I wouldn't kick out a free computer with either chip set, but I personally have leaned toward Intel in the past.

The race is close enough that if someone is building a new computer after a couple of years, it's worth looking at the chips all over again. Right now I'm looking at Xeon sets, but only a year or so ago I was looking at Opteron. The new 45 nm standard is beating down the door, but not a lot of availability yet.

You also made a good point in your first post about company size. Few businesses are more capital-intensive than the chip business. Maybe the auto business. You can start a software company in a garage, but you sure as hell can't start a microprocessor company in a garage. A big, wealthy company will have a natural advantage in getting new product out the door. It takes a long time for a small company to get big in that business. Usually it takes a great design, and a lot of job-shopping and outsourcing on smaller chips to work your way up, and it doesn't happen much now.