AMD vs. Intel Processors

I find it very amusing when I get an email calling me an AMD zealot or saying that I am biased towards AMD. I have never considered myself "loyal" to either AMD or Intel, I simply go with whomever is faster.
Since I upgrade my motherboard and/or CPU pretty much every six months I have an interesting dilemma... Should I stick with an AMD setup and get a Thoroughbred processor or should I perhaps do something more radical and go with a Pentium 4? Here are a few of the things I contemplated while making my decision.
Performance:
Like many others I was caught up in the hype surrounding the "Thoroughbred" 0.13 micron AthlonXP based processor. I honestly thought it would bring AMD back into the spotlight and allow them to retake the performance crown from Intel. However, after playing with a Thoroughbred I was brought back down to reality. Why would a shrunken core (0.18 micron Palomino to 0.13 micron T-Bred) improve performance by leaps and bounds? It wouldn't since AMD didn't add any features to the core.
I was not a fan of Intel's Pentium 4 processor when it came out about 2 years ago. I didn't like the longer pipeline which resulted in lower IPC each MHz could handle. Because of this the P4 had a very rocky start, the 1.5 GHz Williamette (0.18 micron, 256 L2 cache) P4 could barely out perform Intel's own Pentium III 1 GHz!
Coming back to the present, now with lots of software supporting SSE2 and with the introduction of the Northwood (0.13 micron, 512KB L2 cache) Pentium 4, things are totally different. Clock for clock the P4 is still not as powerful as the Athlon but it's much closer. Also thanks to the new core's ability to clock high, Intel has retaken the performance crown away from AMD and doesn't look like they'll be losing it any time soon.