I was wondering what you have or what you might consider better (in your own opinion).
Blind 'n brainless emotively driven brand allegiance aside, anyone who's been around IT for more than a proverbial 5 minutes will, or should, have realised, AMD vs Intel is neither a static nor simplistic "mine's better than yours" issue. AMD have had suffered triumph (Athlon intro) and disaster (K6-2) series, whilst Intel has suffered at worst from utter mediocrity, exacerbated in the public eye at times with the same emotive disadvantage of Microsoft in not being the underdog.
, Intel CPUs and their accompanying chipsets are the more consistantly hardware and software compatible therefore considered reliably stable. AMD has had mixed results over the years in this regard, and suffered some truly woeful results in its partnership with incarnations of chipset implementations on its compatible motherboards. eg: VIA experiences and horror stories over the years all to readily come to mind.
The truth is that both brands CPUs perform well and are pretty good today, with each implementation offering its own advantageous characteristics in particular. For overall safe or best outcome of compatibility and stability, sometimes at the sacrifice of marginally lesser performance at any particular pricepoint, Intel still wins the "which to buy?" decision hands down.
I currently run multiple systems (home network) featuring both brands BTW including Athlon, Pentium & Celeron CPU based systems (no Semprons). I have run both brands either concurrently or consecutively for many years starting with my first AMD 486DX40 chipset back in about '92 or '93 (?) vs Intel's then 486DX33 when they both still used the same socket. I had both.
These days, I buy on price...versus performance. And that encompasses compatibility as well as the associated cost of primary supporting peripherals such as the mobo. As a rule, AMD mobos today are frequently more expensive, often negating any marginal price advantage in AMD's current CPU segmentation pricing.