Remember that the best current AMD quad-core (X4 9950) barely matches the worst Intel quad-core CPU (Q6600). The Q6600 was released in 2006. AMD plans to use the same core as the X4 9950 as their high-end through late 2010. Intel will have released two brand new architectures in that time, and in 2010 they will have a process advantage too. Do you see a problem?

AMD is losing now; their 45nm Phenoms show little better scores; they don't plan to replace Phenom until 2011. Sure, they can promise 32nm "Bulldozer" cores in 2011, but the current delay rate has been two years per year (i.e. Bulldozer has slipped from "2009" to "2011" in one year.) If they deliver late (highly probable, since they are introducing an entirely new chip and process at the same time) that will leave Phenom standing up against yet another new architecture, Intel's Sandy Bridge.

AMD promised Fusion (CPU+GPU on one chip), but even though they already have the raw materials (they will use Phenom cores and HD4xxx GPUs) they will wait until 2011. Intel, on the other hand, will have their new high-performance graphics chip Larrabee and Nehalem cores, both expected to be better than AMD's offerings, in 2009.

I am an AMD fanboy*, but AMD is doomed. The Intel monopoly is coming...

*not really. I'm still rational. I just want AMD to be competitive for a change.

yep, Westmere will be mine! thank you intel.

edit:

isnt DDR5 scheduled to be supported by motherboard manufactures and Intel in 2011? If so, AMD is INSANELY behind the 8-ball.

It is a sad reality. I used to hate intel. Now I have a dual core.
The fact of the matter is that Intel was slowing down chip releases to maximize profit. Speeds are going to drop soon and increases won't happen as quickly.

This only spells bad things for the PC enthusiast.

not true if each release has a decent/good increase in performance and past chipsets reduce in cost quite a bit.

Sad... AMD used to be better until the multiple core thing started.

Yeah ssj12 but why introduce new chipsets thereby spending more money developing when you no longer have someone willing to fight with everything they've got.

That was why AMD got big in the first place, they didn't care about huge profits, they just wanted some profit, whereas Intel wasn't releasing upgrades because people were still buying.

In direct competition everyone is upping the ante hand over fist. Now there is no reason to do so.

Precisely. R&D costs money, so it is only done when neccessary.

well AMD is competing well in the GPU market so shouldnt have to worry if they are sluggish on the CPU side. As long as their CPUs are cheap as heck to purchase its fine for low end - mid-grade desktops. Juast expect Intel to control the mid - high end markets.

Poor poor CPU company.... oh well....

its just too bad, i remember when amds were top tier and costed like 1/4th of an intel.