Technologists can be a fickle bunch. I was an Intel fan before AMD schooled the on processor performance and I remained in the AMD camp until Steve Jobs said he looked at the super-secret roadmaps for each company and he was going with Intel. - I figured Jobs had the scoop.

So I'm back to being an Intel fanboy until something better comes around. But I admit it stung just a little to see my old love, AMD, get spanked like a redheaded step child this week.

ZDNET poured it on thick:

AMD Quad FX slaughtered by a single Intel CPU

That's going to leave a mark.

Meanwhile, PC mag had a very good story on AMD's problems.

AMD QuadFX Platform: More Isn't Better
AMD ships its long-awaited two-socket desktop platform, code-named 4x4, abounds with ironies.

AMD ships it's long-awaited two-socket desktop platform, code-named 4x4. As a response to Intel's quad-core efforts, it's pretty anemic on the performance side while drawing ludicrous amounts of power. This is really AMD's Hail Mary for the long term with the new platform. Will the company's quad-core plans save the day?

AMD's new dual-socket platform abounds with ironies. Once the purveyor of "Cool 'n' Quiet", the AMD reference system is one of the noisiest PCs we've had in our labs--and that's with Cool 'n' Quiet and BIOS fan control enabled. And until Intel shipped its Core 2 line of processors, AMD touted it's lower power capability, but the 4x4 (AMD's code-name for the platform) eats nearly 600W at full load--and that's with only one graphics card. AMD is launching new CPUs, including a new speed grade, but the underlying platform technology is more interesting than the processors. On top of that, AMD is touting QuadFX's capabilities under Windows Vista, for some good technical reasons. But those same reasons make it a somewhat anemic performer under Windows XP.

Tom's Hardware has the final word:

Although the primary goal of releasing a workstation-type enthusiast PC for the desktop might have been to answer Intel's quad core offering, AMD has invested a lot in the platform. No other solution offers the bandwidth reserves of a Quad FX, and no other solutions promise such a predictable upgrade. As soon as AMD's "Agena FX" quad cores become available next year you'll be able to replace today's FX-70 series processors and substantially increase your computing power. So, clearly, the platform is brilliant from a technology standpoint.

Unfortunately, considering the effort required to bring this platform into life, the results aren't terribly impressive in terms of both performance and performance per watt. Why should I buy a pair of processors, an expensive and very special motherboard and a heavy duty 1,000 W power supply when I can get almost the same experience with much cheaper mainstream components and Intel's quad core processor? Sure, I won't be able to upgrade an Intel machine to eight cores by the middle of 2007, but AMD's Quad FX powerhouse will be outdated by that time as well. HyperTransport 3.0, with double the clock speed, is waiting for its spring debut, and although the quad core Agena FX will run in today's Quad FX systems, it will have to live with standard HT link speeds. ...

The bottom line is obvious: Quad FX is hot, but its time has not yet come.

My money says it's 5 years before AMD leapfrogs Intel again.