I did read the rest of the article, and wonder if it was written by an Intel Fanboy. In the Intel vs AMD section:

INTEL

Quote:

Intel engineers created the first microprocessor, the 4004, in 1971. The rest (the part where Intel-powered PCs took over the world) is history. Amazingly, Intel's recent CPUs remain backward-compatible with software designed for the benchmark 80386 processor introduced in 1986. On the green side (ecologically speaking), the company's newer, smaller chips use silicon and other component materials more efficiently, require less power, and support dramatically faster speeds. And the company had the brilliant idea of branding its work: Remember the "Intel Inside" ad campaign, anyone? Competitors, including AMD, have tried to carve a little slice out of the Intel pie by reverse-engineering x86 processors of their own. So far, they're just playing catch-up.

AMD

Quote:

For much of the early part of this century, Advanced Micro Devices enjoyed great success by producing processors that outperformed comparably priced Intel chips. Its earlier Athlon CPUs were performance champs, and they usually sold for less than comparable Intel products. But AMD stumbled when it tried to produce an immediate competitor to Intel's latest quadruple-core processors, and the company's purchase of graphics hardware maker ATI imposed a serious burden on its finances. AMD's plans to jump to 12-core processors by 2010 are interesting. And the prospect of success in an antitrust lawsuit alleging anti-competitive sales practices by Intel may be a source of optimism at AMD in 2008. Luckily, the company has some of the most loyal customers in the business. In any event, a serious competitor to Intel (especially one willing to go after it in court) is the surest way to guarantee better, less expensive products for consumers.

They forgot to mention that when AMD launched the Athlon 64, they took and held the crown for 2 years. And, for the 1st time in Intel's life, they were the ones reverse engineering someone else's chips in an effort to catch up. The same holds true with the release of the Athlon X2. It was a true dual core chip. Intel had to slap two separate cores on one die, in order to keep up. And, the Pentium "D" processors sucked ass compared to thier AMD counter parts. It wasn't until the release of the "Core" micro-architecture, and it's revision the "Core 2", did Intel finally reclaim the crown from their competitor.