"This is why us techies always cheering for AMD, otherwise Intel will go back to the stagnation of the Netburst days."
I dont consider Netburst to be "stagnation"---it just happened to be a very poor design choice path for Intel. If you remember back then, the buzzwords that sold PCs were mhz/ghz, and the deep pipeline P4 architecture would allow Intel to "wipe the floor" with AMD in terms of clock rate. Thats why AMD went back to their old "Mhz equivelancy" ratings (Athlon XP 2400+ was not clocked at 2.4 ghz). Problem was, the Netburst architecture was based on the idea that Intel would have no problem pushing to insane speeds like 10Ghz, and well, they hit a roadblock with power consumption WAYYYY before that.
That aside, it was a poor choice, but remember, Intel couldnt afford to stagnate---the first gen Athlons had been putting the heat on Intel's P3s long before the P4, so it wasnt like they were complacent.