keithlm :
Let me repeat the little truth that is making your head crazy: The company that successfully implements a technology is actually more innovative than a company that invents it and doesn't use it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Using the same logic, Intel should be given the credit for the innovation of native quad core, since the original Phenom / Opteron was a failure. Would you admit that? Of course not, because admitting that would be shooting yourself in the foot with your "AMD was the first to native quad core design".
So we have two options here:
1. Admitting that the original developer to be the most innovative. However that won't work, because that will exclude AMD out of a lot of technologies that was considered to be "innovative and forefront" by many AMD fan(boy/girl).
2. Admitting that whoever implemented the technology is actually more innovative. However, that won't work as well, because like I pointed out, AMD will also be pried away from a lot of "firsts".
So which is it? Option 1 or 2?
Actually, I think an Option 3 may be more fitting.
3. Admitting that AMD is the forefront of every technology, by combining the first two options, and use them interchangeably. AMD was the first to use HTT, despite the fact that DEC Alpha was the first to develop and implement it. AMD was the first to real quad core, even though Intel's own rendition is much more powerful and sensible than AMD's. AMD was the first to develop the IMC, despite that Intel already included that in the i386/i486. AMD will also be the first to Fusion, despite that Intel's own CPU/GPU integration will be launched for mass market in Q1 of 10.
The only contribution that AMD gave to the tech industry is the x86_64 extension. While it is very significant, some do put way too much credit into AMD.
OH AND I MIGHT ADD: I looked at the thread you created on AMDZone where you claimed to "win" a debate. In fact there was no debate it was you posting your opinion and not liking it when people wouldn't agree with you. Pretty sad.
Funny that you put it that way, because if I remember correctly, AMDzone actually banned him and his thread before he even had time to explain his points. Quite ironic.