Well, with Intel's current line up, and last years line up, Intel is definetly not performing so well in terms of performance and raw processing. AMD has the CPU market dominated with all sorts of processors, from the mobile to the hard core gaming and the dual-core. Intel has all those processors, but they lack the power to beat AMD's Athelon line up. They're using older technology, for instance, the netburst architecture. Not to mention, the quad-pumped FSB that the new "double-core" Pentium D uses actually doesn't allow the CPU to process all that fast.
Intel needs to release a new Socket, as well as a new architecture for it's processors. They should also adopt AMD's built in memory controller. This would further enchance their CPUs. Intel's prices are good, but I think if you compare it to AMD, then the price-to-performace ratio goes to AMD. I used to think that it was Intel who had the price-to-performance ratio won, but lately, after looking at the benchmarks and reading up on processr architectures, AMD has it made.
Intel needs a massive redo on their CPUs. The netburst architecture is dying, the quad-pumped FSB idea actually failed to utilize all the CPU. They just need to get their heads straight and focus on a CPU that gamers can use to really take advantage of gaming programs. Not to mention, they need a true dual core, not a "double-core". Either way, Intel has a long way to go if they want to reclaim the CPU thrown.