It's just competition. For those who think AMD won't be ahead of Intel is stupid. It's always going to alternate between the two.
8 years ago, amd poked the sleeping giant that is intel. intel first response was slow, and it cost them market share and completely destroyed the image of netburst. so they did what any company that couldn't compete, they cut prices, bought themselves time, and came out with a new architecture and a new release cycle/roadmap.
as far as i know, amd doesn't have a tick-tock release cycle, and lets face facts again, amd doesn't have the resources to compete with intel on this level. if they did, they would roll out their own tick-tock, release a new architecture every two years (instead of every 4 to 5) and die shrink and architecture improvements every year (instead of ever 2 to 3 years).
they released phenom and phenom II to compete with conroe, phenom I were barely able to compete with amd's own k8 architecture, let alone intel's flagship, phenom II release a bit later, was able to take on conroe and the tock penryn, but at that time intel had already moved onto bloomfield, then the tock hit, released lynnfield, and now is onto a new architecture and die shrink, yet leaving phenom II feeling even further dated.
even if bulldozer will out perform sandy bridge and ivy bridge, there is still a six year gap between dominance for amd, and if history is any indication, intel's next "tick" will decimate amd's offering, the "tock" will put it even further behind, and by the next "tick" we will be back at this argument...
now this "apu" market, unless intel pulls a gold calf out of its ass, and replaces intel graphics with something more substantial, they will definitely will loose on the intergrated graphics solution, but that is not cause the amd cpu is better, its cause the ati gpu is better...