As an OEM stepping away from Intel is a very risky thing to do. Intel executes really really well, AMD does not. Intel lives and breathes process technology, AMD does not. Intel has discipline to walk to the end of the road, AMD does not.
Using a software example, if you notice the guys who write the gaming engine put out technically better games than the people who license the engine? I attribute that to the ability to internalize all of the benefits and weaknesses of the engine. If you license the engine you 'kinda' know what it does but because you don't have to know your knowledge never gets deep enough to do what the originator can do.
AMD competes against Intel on architecture, and they do Ok at that, but they cannot compete on process. You will notice they gained server share on Intel when Opeteron released because Intel was caught sleeping (they had targeted Itanimum 64 bits, Pentium/Xeon 32 bits, 8051 Etc for SoC/embedded. They were resisting putting 64 bits into the Pentium because it would cut into their already weak Itanium story. As long as they stayed there, AMD gained ground. They capitulated on architecture and then retook ground using process improvements (TDP mostly), meanwhile AMD didn't cement their lead, rather their CTO left and they played dancing CEOs. Boat stalls, momentum is lost.
So no, I don't think AMD can beat Intel organizationally and that will keep them from beating them technically.
Using a software example, if you notice the guys who write the gaming engine put out technically better games than the people who license the engine? I attribute that to the ability to internalize all of the benefits and weaknesses of the engine. If you license the engine you 'kinda' know what it does but because you don't have to know your knowledge never gets deep enough to do what the originator can do.
AMD competes against Intel on architecture, and they do Ok at that, but they cannot compete on process. You will notice they gained server share on Intel when Opeteron released because Intel was caught sleeping (they had targeted Itanimum 64 bits, Pentium/Xeon 32 bits, 8051 Etc for SoC/embedded. They were resisting putting 64 bits into the Pentium because it would cut into their already weak Itanium story. As long as they stayed there, AMD gained ground. They capitulated on architecture and then retook ground using process improvements (TDP mostly), meanwhile AMD didn't cement their lead, rather their CTO left and they played dancing CEOs. Boat stalls, momentum is lost.
So no, I don't think AMD can beat Intel organizationally and that will keep them from beating them technically.
EDIT: Oh look there goes AMD's CFO : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/siefert_leaves_amd/