I told you so!
Well, I didn't tell you, but I had tons and tons of people telling me a while back when AMD started heading for the lead that Intel lost their edge and AMD just has better everything etc... Of course IA64 was almost a total waste of precious engineers by Intel, but it sure looked fun. Too bad SGI (one of my favourite old time companies lost their balls on itanium)
Anyway, point being, I was saying for a long time to these nut jobs, Intel has more R&D capitol than nearly any other company out there. They can afford to let AMD take a lead if it means stepping back from the cat and mouse chase game to do something impressive. After all, Intel can easily survive 6 consecutive bad quarters if they need to.
When Intel released Core and announced the coming Core 2, it was the end of AMD leading in technology. Now, AMD is losing the market share they grabbed up during the glory days.
P.S. - I have a personal vendetta against AMD over their early 486 clones. I couldn't afford Intel back then and instead of dumpster diving for tin cans to get an extra $50 off of deposit refunds, I spent all my money on an AMD chip. It was supposed to be really fast. Well, the catch was, I needed to spend $75 more on the motherboard to handle the $50 cheaper AMD chip because they clock doubled 40Mhz and during the "black era" of the PC, when nearly every build your own PC component was of crap quality or worse, VESA local bus cards maxed out at 33Mhz and IDE controllers and VGA cards would crash the systems more than periodically at higher bus clock rates. While AMD might have made a huge jump forward regarding quality since that time, I just still can't trust a company that always races to be first, fastest, etc... give me stable and proven any day.