I found this interestingly funny and true.

Everyone knows that TomsHardware has always been fairly intel bias, now here's a little insight to what "TOM" thinks about AMD and its supporters.
http://www.tomshardware.com/smoke/02q3/020704/index.html

A little harsh huh?
thanks Tom for that Insight...I guess i will suck up to Intel now after you insulted me for being a AMD supporter..and a Fanboy?!?!?
What a JERK!!!

this was posted yesterday...

check the thread "and you say toms isn't biased"

who does he think he is. 3dfx and Amd both kick A$$ that m.f.er deserves to have his hand blown off in a freak pc accident AHHHH HAAA HAA AHAAAAA

Boy, that guy is angry!
I think he's had a little too much mail from hardcore AMD fans.
I will agree with one point he had, it is silly to love a giant corporation. But I guess people have formed the same sort of allegiance to AMD and Intel that many people have for sports teams.
The moment one of the two gives me more performance for the money, I'll switch allegiance, that's how deep my loyalty runs to these huge corporations!

And thats how much devotion any computer company deserves Repo man. Personally I have always leaned a bit on the intel side of things, but I've always wanted the underdog to be able to out-perform the mega-huge monopolistic ******* companies (MS and Intel). Out of spite sometimes I would like to go and buy a AMD and run Linux... to bad that would get me NO WHERE! unless I want to give up gaming for the most part.
I do agree that in some ways some of the extremely loyal AMD hardcore fans who LOVE their AMD computer to peices and wouldn't part with it are holding them back. I notice that not as many AMD users do the small upgrades, instead they wait for a large jump in performance gain before upgrading their systems. Wether this be budget related for the users (Since AMD"s are a better bargain system), or just simply the patience of the user to hold out untill their PC is almost obsolete... in either case this means less AMD chip sales for them, even though their prices are lower.. people aren't upgrading to their new chips enough to make them the $$ they need to in order to compete with intel.
I see MANY intel users who run a 1.6a or 1.8a upgrading to 2.26b's or 2.53b's ordering new Ram, getting a new mobo.. these are the "hardcore intel" types, and they are jumping up with intel on every step. I'm sure there are the few who have upgraded their XP2000+ to a T-Bred 2200+, but how many do such things in comparison to people who do the jump for intel.

Check-X said:

I see MANY intel users who run a 1.6a or 1.8a upgrading to 2.26b's or 2.53b's ordering new Ram, getting a new mobo.. these are the "hardcore intel" types, and they are jumping up with intel on every step. I'm sure there are the few who have upgraded their XP2000+ to a T-Bred 2200+, but how many do such things in comparison to people who do the jump for intel.

Click to expand...

The argument could be made that Intel enthusiasts probably have more money to burn than their AMD counterparts. I chose AMD because I got the most bang for my buck and also because I could be secure in the fact that my mobo was a sound investment unlike my Intel friends.

Tom is so openly biased I don't understand how anybody even if they liked Intel could buy anything from his recommendation. William said it best when he said, "i refuse to give Tom my traffic". I think I will stick with him on this.

My problem with Tom and his site isn't any bias that he/they have: its their lack of competence.

I might let them mow my lawn for $20 though.