Should I switch to Intel?

I've been using AMD boards and CPUs for a few years now, but recently I somehow managed to fail at booting up a couple of my AMD-based computers. Maybe I'm just super clumsy, or maybe it's the low-quality boards I just got. Ironically, the only computers that are working in the house now are two old Celerons!

In any case, I'm simply curious about the overall experiences P4 users here have had with their systems: has anyone ever been unable to boot up their PC, get a blank screen, etc? Anyone ever fried a P4? (Is that even possible, due to thermal throttling?) I have accidentally fried two AMD CPUs in the past, and it was an unpleasant experience.

the biggest problem with the p4 is overvolting.. in the early days quite a few guys fried their chips with too much juice.. otherwise these chips are the most overclockable cpu's ive ever owned.. that includes even the much vaunted thunderbirds ...

I'm only speaking from my experience, but I've read this in magazines and heard of other people going through the same things too...

Basically, Intel is REALLY good for gaming. If you're into games, intel will rock. Combined with a 9700 or 9800 Pro, you've got yourself a beast that'll be a challenge for any AMD user to beat in terms of solidity and overall capacity to run the game smoothly.

However if you want something that's good all around, with no rough edges, AMDs are the better pick. I've noticed that on my Intel system, when shutting down programs that take up an exhorbitant amount of RAM space and use a lot of my CPU's power, it takes anywhere from 4-10 seconds for the computer to recover and just "not be slow." When I had my AMD system, it took something like 1-5 seconds for it to recover. No I'm not running anything in the background except for AIM, occasionally and yes I clear my cache everyday.

There's also the FSB difference. Intels can run to around 180 or so on stock/close to stock voltages, for the most part. AMDs can run upto arond 200 to even 220 I've seen, but the voltage has to be quite high. Nevertheless, Intel is soon to come out with chips that'll be doing 200FSB, and around 300 OC'd, within a few weeks to months. Some are already out, but early adopters of the new gear aren't that happy... but that's because they only have the mobo's and not the chips. They're using their old chips in the new mobo's that support the 200 FSBs.

For me, those are the only BIG differences. Everything else is nothing else.

Amino it is not fair to say the P4 is better in gaming. Take a look at http://tech-report.com/reviews/2003q1/athlonxp-3000/index.x?pg=9 P4 wins in Quake 3, 3DMark2001 SE (which is a synthetic bench), loses in Serious Sam SE, wins in Comanche 4, loses in Unreal Tournament 2003. It depends on which game you run. No blanket statements can be made.

First line of my inital post.

IMHO, I would say that it is all a matter of preference. If you are going for a more expensive chip like the P4 3.06Ghz or the 3000+ Barton they run pretty much similar results, if price is an issue AMD processors usually run a little cheaper.
Right now, and for the past 5 years i have had intel processors, but i am putting together a new rig in the next couple of weeks and i am going to have to go with AMD. Not because of unstatisfaction just personal preference, it just depends on the person.

i use amd and p4
both chips are good , and have advantages and faults
i choose p4 because overclocking abilities and good video and audio encoding results