Intel has blunderbussed a lot, people have to admit that. AMD as well.
It's just funny that if AMD had made the same mistakes intel has they would long be underwater.
RDRAM was not necessary; the whole market was against it except intel. This caused the corporate stance to eventually turn around.
AMD also realized that they couldn't keep selling CPUs for bargain-basement prices and still make a profit, hence the a64s.
High-end P4s can handily beat Athlon XPs in practically everything. The ratings for bartons are somewhat inflated. This is correct.
Athlon XPs are priced a lot better for the performance, though, and Athlon 64s are arguably the better choice most of the time when debating whether to get a p4 system or not. And do not forget prescott's runaway heat issues.
It all depends on what a person wants to do. AXPs are good for most people, A64s and P4s for those with the money. Even prescott at the moment has its use with the SETI people.
Tons of other things have happened, and tons of other equalizing justifications exist, but I won't list them here. It just seems that some people are worshipping one or another company too much without looking at the facts.