<div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:14 PM, shirish <<a href="mailto:shirishag75@gmail.com">shirishag75@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div dir="ltr">Hi Raseel,  No, there aren't any technical reasons. The basic reasons are :- a. I do seriously think that they (AMD) should be given a fighting chance. b. I haven't had any experience with an AMD chip machine. c. I don't think (although may be proven wrong later) an Intel+ATi combo An interesting blog post which caught my time sometime back. <a href="http://www.larsen-b.com/Article/299.html" target="_blank">http://www.larsen-b.com/Article/299.html</a></div> </blockquote></div> I personally have a AMD Desktop machine and things are working flawlessly on it. My main reason for going for it (at the time I bought it) was that , in those days (I think before 2004), AMD was seriosuly giving Intel a run for their money. AMD had come up with the 64-bit processors that were faster than the Intel processors of the same processor speeds. However, with Intel's "Core" achitecture, the tables have turned and AMD has been on the down-side ever since. I have never heard that the AMD Opetron dual core processors being better than any of the corresponding Intel Core 2 Duo, etc. Also, my personal experience says that the AMD processor heats up more than the Intel (this was true for Desktops at least). You might want to check this up, since this can be a major factor for laptops. Finally, I agree with the your last point. But that maybe because I am a Nvidia fan. I think currently, Intel - Nvidia is the best option. Thanks, Raseel </div>