this is true - for now - that AMD has the better performance outcome compared to Intel. However, a lot of AMDs choices are also more expensive and show no signs of decreasing in price. Toledo is upwards of $800 - thats a lot of money. Also, Intel is in the final stages of releasing Conroe which has been benchtested to walk over AMD's current 939 socket offerings (Toledo, San Diego and Venus). Not only that, Conroe is supposedly designed to run more efficiently and cooler than AMD's top of the line 64 bit choice while costing, on average, 300-400 bucks less than top notch AMD processors.
Sources for the cost of Conroe when it comes out vary but none of them were tagged to cost over 600 bucks - modest compared to AMD's current prices.
I dunno about you but considering the price versus performance ratio, I would rather invest in a 975/955 (LGA775) board that supports the Conroe series when it comes out because, while AMD is faster for the time being, building an Intel based machine is still going to cost me much less than an AMD box NOW. Moreover, upgrading to Conroe when it comes out is still going to cost less than AMD's offerings because part of Intel's plan is to offer better prices for its processors in comparison to AMDs chips. The way I see it, the more efficiently I spend my money on a PC upgrade, the more money I have left to use for investing in studio gear upgrades.