[hga]

Yeah, I skimmed it and it looks mostly wrong, and you explain the outside observables:

AMD created an utterly dominating lead in server space in 2004-5, continuing the P6 microarchitecture approach while the Intel NetBurst (Pentium 4) microarchitecture failed when it coincided with the end of Dennard scaling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling it might have worked if they'd been able to make the 5-10 GHz parts on the roadmap).

Plus the per chip on chip local memory controllers and Hypertransport ccNUMA approach scaled much, much better than Intel's one front side bus (all CPUs hitting the same northbridge memory controller).

Then, from the outside, AMD just sat on its laurels, giving Intel enough time to get their act together from all their self-inflicted wounds and take advantage of their process lead. The K10 microarchitecture was late, and shipments had to be paused due to a nasty TLB bug which didn't help their credibility. Intel's QPI copy of the Hypertransport ccNUMA concept shipping a year, year and half later was probably the final nail in the coffin.

[yuhong]

I think it took until Bulldozer before they finally give up though, and part of the reason for that was FB-DIMM problems and DDR3 at first being more expensive. (Side note: it is unfortunate they didn't bother with 2Gbit DDR3 back in 2007 when Samsung and Elpida at least had prototypes of 2Gbit DDR2 back in 2006)