GZ said:
AMD offers the most "Bang for the buck" usually...
While that is true it is important to note the cost of the CPU is but one factor in the cost of the entire computer. And when you factor in any difference in CPU costs, after factoring in the cost of the motherboard, case, PSU, RAM, graphics, monitor(s), speakers, OS license, mouse, keyboard, hard drives/SSDs, optical drive, shipping, taxes, etc., any cost savings by getting a less expensive CPU is greatly marginalized, if not negated all together.
And then there's the issue of power consumption and heat generation. With several notable exceptions, of course, since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo in 2006, Intel CPUs are generally considered more efficient - that is, they consume less power and generate less heat. Less power consumption results in energy cost savings over time, and the less energy wasted in the form of heat pumped into the room means less heat for the facility AC to deal with. So annual operating costs may factor in there too.
So while I agree AMD CPUs do (with several notable exceptions, of course) have the advantage in costs, other factors balance that out. MUCH more important than the CPU (other than to ensure motherboard compatibility), IMO is the sizing and selection of the PSU, motherboard, and the graphics solution - plus assuming what should be a given - lots of RAM. I generally recommend 8Gb minimum for dual-channel memory architecture motherboards and 6Gb minimum for triple channel motherboards as the current "sweetspots" for RAM and W7/W8. Of course, that means 64-bit Windows 7/8. Less than that amount of RAM and performance suffers. More than that amount of RAM and gains in performance are minimal, if perceptible at all - for most users.
That said, both Intel and AMD make excellent, reliable processors and either, if properly matched with a decent board, graphics, and sufficient RAM, powered by good power and cooled by a good case, would form a solid foundation for any computer.