Desktops: Dual Core vs Hyperthread Technology

(NT) I second that

The "Megahertz Myth" is one explanation to why .............

......... to why clockspeed isn't everything when comparing processors. You'll need QuickTime to view these vid clips. This is Apple's explanation why one of Apple's 800MHz processor can outperform one of Intel's 1.8GHz processor

http://lowendmac.com/scope/03/0319.html
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/mhz_myth_320f.mov

As for AMD vs Intel, there are other things to consider for processors as well as pipelines mentioned in the above comparison. There's also clock cycles, amount of L1/L2 cache, instructions per cycle, Front Side Bus speeds, etc. Because of all these attributes/components that make up a processor, there really isn't a "super processor" that does every type of task the fastest/best performance.
In fact, the general consensus for the time being is that Intel processors are better for ppl who do ALOT of multitasking on their PC as well as video editting/encoding procedures while AMD is better for games or just budget consumers (those who won't use their PC for Intel's processors' pros over AMD can get an AMD proc for cheaper with the same end result)

This and more are the reasons Y clockspeed isn't relevant anymore.
1) For a given range of tasks, AMD processors can achieve that same performance at a lower clockspeed.
illustrative e.g. AMD was (and still does to some extent) Athlon 2400. THe "2400" was a naming scheme to let consumers know (among other reasons for this naming scheme) that while the Athlon 2400 ran about 2.0GHz, it was on par with a P4 2.4GHz processor
2) Intel used to be able to tout they have higher clockspeeds. They now have to retract and correct that marketing move. Their new laptop processor Centrino has much better architecture than the P4 Mobiles. A 1.6GHz Centrino has better networking, is cooler, but is also on par if not above a P4 2.4GHz mobile processor. They want ppl buying the newer, better, more expensive Centrinos and selling soley on clockspeeds will only hurt them here.

PS
Processors aren't the only components to share this ideal. In automobiles, a 8 cylinder engine isn't necessarily better than an 6 cylinder engine. For video cards, more RAM isn't the only factor.

For vid cards, buyers need to consider pipelines, bandwidths, speed of RAM, how well it handles stuff like openGL, what version of DirectX does it supports, what graphic methods are available (alpha blending, aliasing, etc.). If none of these ring a bell, then ask around, use benchmarking scores and/or conclusions from editorial reviews to make your decision w/o having to learn in depth about vid card hardware. One point to consider is there are some 64MB vid cards that actually outperform a 128MB vid card. Another point to consider is you don't want to pay $400 for a 256MB vid card when you're only gonna get marginal performance boost compared to a $200 128MB vid card.