It's no secret that AMD has its work cut out for it right now. The company's top-of-the-line flagship Phenom II X4 965 isn't in the same league as Intel's premium Core i7. Even Intel's mid-range Core i5-750 CPU is a powerful adversary for the similarly-priced Phenom II X4 965, and while it puts up a decent fight, AMD's champion is bested far more often than not.
AMD will answer the high-performance challenge with the "Thuban" six-core CPU in 2010, a processor based on the already-released hexa-core Opteron. The consumer version of this processor is likely to be called the Phenom II X6, we have to guess.

While Thuban will compete more readily against Intel's Core i7, there are two looming problems with this plan. First, it probably won't happen until close to the middle of 2010 (a virtual eternity in the tech sector), and by that time Intel will likely be ready to launch the six-core "Gulftown" processor (purportedly Core i9). In 2011, we can see some game-changers in AMD's plans, such as a new high-end platform and the fruition of the "Fusion" processor featuring a graphics processor on-die. But at least until then, it looks like AMD will have an uphill battle in the high-end consumer space.
Faced with these facts, AMD is cleverly playing up the longevity strategy that served it so well in the Socket A days. In other words, keep the new CPUs backward-compatible with established sockets. On the other hand, platform longevity is something Intel has never expressed much of an interest in extending. While Intel jumped sockets from the Pentium III to Pentium 4, AMD stayed with Socket A all the way from the original 600 MHz Duron to the newest Athlon XP 3200+. Fast forward to today, and Intel offers the LGA 775 Core 2 Duo, LGA 1156 Core i5, and LGA 1366 Core i7 processors; all current models with different socket interfaces.
Contrast that with AMD's new AM3 Athlon II and Phenom II processors, all of which will work on older AM2+/DDR2 motherboards as well as new AM3/DDR3 platforms. The significance of this is compelling when you realize the upgrade path that exists for AMD's customers. Someone who purchased an AM2+/Athlon 64 X4 combo last year can upgrade not only to a faster Athlon II X2/X3/X4 processor, but also a formidable Phenom II X2/X3/X4. There is even a good possibility that their current motherboard might work with the upcoming Phenom II X6 when those CPUs arrive next year (assuming a similar maximum TDP). All of these upgrades are possible without changing a single component, except the processor.
All of this plays into AMD's strength in the entry-level space, with very compelling low-cost platforms and CPUs in a segment that Intel hasn't yet really fought to control. Right now, a budget buyer can get an Athlon II X3 435 for under $90 and a decent motherboard for under $100. When the time comes for an upgrade, is that user going to start over and build a Core i5 system from the ground-up, or are they more likely to buy a Phenom II X4 processor and realize similar performance without having to change platforms? When we look at things from this perspective, we see AMD can offer huge upgrade advantages over Intel products, despite the performance disparity with the new Core i5 and i7 processors.
While AMD's flagship Phenom II X4 965 has recently come down in price to $195 ($5 less than Intel's new Core i5-750), it isn't an ideal upgrader's CPU for many AM2+/AM3 motherboards because of its 140 watt maximum TDP, as many motherboards limit their support to 125 watt CPUs. It is because of this that some upgraders may be interested in the new revision of Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition sporting a maximum 125 watt TDP, among other refinements.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/11/04/amd-phenom-ii-x4-965-be-c3-review/2
I think your article raises an important point about the reasons why people aren't jumping on the Intel bandwagon, because it's not all about performance.
I don't think the AMD products perform badly, either. Considering the Athlon II architecture's retail price plus the fact it's a generation behind the i7 range, I think it does quite well. Couple it with a suitable, low-cost motherboard with stable, fast blue-ray and game acceleration, and it starts to look rosy. Contemplate the ability to use some of your old bits lying around and it looks very hard to turn it down.
And looking to the future..is it wise to follow Intel's path, considering the performance gains to be had from GPGPU technology? I don't think it is..I think it's akin to putting all of one's eggs in one basket, so to speak. On the GPGPU front, who is in a better position to cater for future needs: Intel or AMD? What kind of GPU technology could Intel offer, should companies like nVidia stop giving their support?
AMD is still competing on longevity and price, and the performance is so good for general consumer use..does it matter whether i7 is faster? You go with AMD you know you can upgrade and replace with relative ease..you go with Intel and it's like worrying about whether or not DRDRAM is all it's cracked up to be; the clients I built Intel rigs resented the fact they needed new sockets, memory etc to get better performance.
More than one way to skin a cat, I think AMD knows this, and Intel doesn't care much because it's still basing it's products purely on prestige status and brand loyalty.
Premium or professional computing = Intel
Simple, reliable formula and if AMD actually advertised this fact they'd make a killing - you don't need to outperform to outcompete.
Office or cubicle computing? AMD probably, or the new Atoms.
The recent upgrade history has been.
summer 09: new mobo €100, new fans €40, new external harddrive €130
Xmas 08: new router €100, 8gb of memory €140
summer 08: new cpu €140, cpucoling €80, harddrive €100, chassi €80, monitor €200
If I expect to use a unit for twice the time i spend twice the amount on it. Routers are one thing where it's worth spending on, the same goes for chassi, PSU monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. If I going to use a motherboard for a year I buy asrock, gigabit. If I expect to have two or more asus is the shit
What can Intel do? Sure, it can match performance..but if matches this price (which I think is a bargain), it's going to undercut it's own products by a huge margin.
Quad-Core Considerations..
AMD Athlon II x 4 620 (2.66GHz, 95W) ... £72
Intel Core 2 Quad (2.66GHz, 95W) ... £135
Intel i5 750 (2.66GHz, 95W) ... £152
..factor into that, the possibility you may be using an AMD-based motherboard already (say, AM2+ or AM3). You've just significantly lowered your upgrade costs and in a lot of cases you won't even need a new PSU.
In this instance..would you be willing to reformat and re-install everything for the sake of a Core 2 Quad, when you can get similar (or better performance)? I wouldn't. I wouldn't touch i5 or i7, either (the latter only if I was running CAD). If you wanted to transcode video using NVIDIA CUDA or ATI Stream you'd simply use the money you saved and get a fast card and maybe a new PSU. Also maybe a bigger, faster hard drive. For a machine that is probably going to spend a lot of it's time just browsing or doing reports..I really can't see a weakness at all.
"you don't need to out-perform to outcompete." I agree..AMD couldn't hit Intel head-on so, they flanked them..and I reckon it's having quite an impact. I think the saving grace was not only the refined Athlon core (producing the Athlon II architecture), but the fact a lot of things were already integrated into the CPU logic, such as Hyper-Transport and memory controller. It was a good design from the start, a better one by design that borrowed principles from much bigger, faster technology and as a result it has scaled incredibly well across multiple cores. Even today the Athlon architecture is proving it's worth so hopefully if history does repeat itself, when AMD brings out something next-gen it will be just that. It isn't promising the world with these little Athlon II chips, either, which I think is notable.
I notice they didn't throw in any Core 2 Quad's in that review..I wonder why:
Well what would one expect from a chip that's a generation ahead? The Phenom II is good to go against Core 2 Quad..and then some. So, if these tests that seem to be oh-so eager to demonstrate the greatness of Intel, are eager to try and downgrade the performance characteristic of Phenom II then by default they're also saying that Core 2 Quad is as bad..most people don't own Core-i5, or i7.
fingers crossed!