http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...2002243&pgno=1

Intel's Nehalem is due out soon, but many of the features of what has widely been touted as a "new" architecture are only new to Intel. AMD's previous-generation Barcelona was the first quad-core processor and also included 2 MB of shared L3 cache integrated on the same chip with a Northbridge memory controller. AMD's latest design, Shanghai, triples the L3 cache size to 6 MB, but all the basic building blocks were already incorporated in the 65-nm Barcelona chip.
I'd be ashamed to link to such bad and Mis-information!
Lame since IMC is not "NEW" to Intel LOL!
L3 is OLD NEWS to Intel.
Monolithic Quad-Core processors at 65nm were a bad Idea and Intel was PROVED right for not making the same rushed mistake AMD made. Intel went MCM at the right time (eventhough both cores still sucked) and it seems went *Monolithic at the right time. If it were the other way around many here would be talking about how dumb it was for Intel to try *it @65nm.

Intel maintains a lead in process technology. AMD had a lead in architecture, but Intel's Nehalem will offer many of the innovations AMD introduced, along with a few of Intel's own. Whether you believe AMD or Intel is better at a given point in time, it's clear that competition is driving innovation, resulting in better products and more choice.
First see above?

How are they in the lead architecture wise when they're slower in MOST cases? Point to Point and IMC is AMD's saving grace (thank goodness since NO ONE needs an all powerful Intel without competition). Without the EV6 based Intel licensed tech, AMD would have died years ago. AMD will kick Intel's A$$ when its CORE/S improve IPC wise. When CSI hits the market, that's (core IPC improvement) what they'll need more than anything.