TheWhiteRose: Another important point to bring up in Intel vs AMD CPUs is that AMD will be focusing heavily on mobile cpus in the future. Their desktop CPU division in on the hot seat after the lackluster launch of Bulldozer. So it's going to be a stretch to recommend an AMD CPU for anything gaming related.
AMD is perfectly fine for what the OP is asking about and significantly less expensive.
If the OP had been asking about a gaming rig for current AA games, that would be completely different. But, even my relatively modest notebook can handle pretty much all the games on GOG for less than half the price of a comparable Intel based laptop.
hedwards: Plus, Intel GPUs, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
kavazovangel: Maybe the previous generations, but Nehalem and Sandy Bridge offer quite good performance across all models.
I honestly think the future will belong to Intel, seeing how their coming Ivy Bridge supports DirectX 11, OpenGL 3.1, and OpenCL 1.1, among other things. PCs are going to become much like the consoles, most likely, if nVidia and AMD don't do something better to rival Intel.
The whole CPU + GPU in one place is very tempting for casual and mainstream buyers.
"Ivy Bridge is expected to bring up to 20% increase in CPU performance, and up to 30% increase in integrated GPU performance." ... and not to mention the smaller electrical power requirements.
You'd have a point if the express purpose wasn't to play old games. The laptop I have is about half the price of a comparable laptop and is more than fine for the games you find here. At least the ones up to about 2004 or so.
Which was my main point, why waste money on an Intel system when AMD is perfectly fine? We're not exactly talking about current generation AA games here.