It might just not last long enough. Athlon64/X2 also totally destroyed Intel but Core architecture arrived before AMD was able to grab more market share.
A large part of that was due to illegal action on Intel's part; giving massive rebates to any manufacturer who agreed to go Intel-only. Intel paid AMD $1.25B in compensation. Such tactics won't be available to Intel this time around.
Don't be so sure, Intel always played "dirty" and always worked to make sure they have a huge influence over the major software giants of the time. In the last decades always made sure to present hardware manufacturers with "offers they can't refuse".
One of those offers costed them $1.25B more than they expected but was totally worth it.
For example, Intel gets a lot of money but also "gives" a lot of money in the form of "incentives" / tip / kickbacks to a lot of hardware manufacturers and the usual palm grease to an army of managers, execs, tech "journalists", governments, etc.
To be noted, they also have been competent enough making chips most of the time.
Spending down your warchest to pay manufacturers to use your chips isn't something that even Intel can keep up forever. If AMD had kept up their performance lead eventually Intel wouldn't have been able to keep up its kickbacks.
Intel doesn't need to do it forever. They need to hold out for Intel 7nm slated for 2021 and they need 7nm to be good. From a zero sum monopolist perspective it makes a lot of sense for Intel to be hamstringing AMD here.
What Intel needs to be careful about is while they fend off AMDs attacks in desktop/server also need to keep an eye on ARM coming after them on mobile. How long until Linux based Chromebooks come with Qualcomm CPUs like 7cx become standard? The chips are better than Intels low TDP offerings so long as they don't have to emulate x86_64. They could spend all their money on a phyrric victory crushing AMD only to lose a different market.
It's a tough job being king with upstarts always after your neck.
There was a gap of about 3-5 years where AMD had the performance-per-clock lead over Intel, I don't think that time was the issue here. As another posted alluded to - Intel was engaging in some dodgy dealings.
That's the most heard explanation. I also think that the world was different back then. Slower and slightly smaller market (laptop weren't mainstream). Intel could keep it's glow, it was mostly the only king in town since the PC birth.
Nowaday computing culture has shifted, new brands, new idioms and devices .. intel is a beast for those in the knowings of silicon processors but for the market .. a lot less than before (samsung, apple, exist now )
>Athlon64/X2 also totally destroyed Intel but Core architecture arrived
That is not 100% accurate. First being Athlon 64 didn't destroy Intel. It was good, but businesses were still buying Intel for stability reason. AMD's chipset at the time, were no where as good as Intel, especially in the I/O speed. The WinTel Alliance meant all the software, from library to compiler were optimise for Intel.
Now the market is multiple times bigger, we have many Open Sources alternatives, like LLVM and GCC, the Web Stack are mainly open sources meant optimisation is a lot easier. I/O and Chipset are no longer a problem due to maturing IP selection from Multiple vendors. No longer will AMD has to do it all by themselves. The magic of Licensing IP and Pure Play Foundry. And Nadella Microsoft is an entirely different Microsoft than 20 years ago.
Finally it wasn't necessary the Core architecture that killed AMD, AMD went downhill with Bulldozer design and lots of execution problem. Basically they have their own moment of Pentium 4, except when Intel had the resources for a backup plan ( Core ) and able to sustain losses while they figure it out, AMD had nothing. It took them nearly 15 years to get out of it.