"As Jonathan stated AMD's are definately known for their longevity."
I've noticed that the AMD Opteron in my desktop hasn't slowed down very much in the years since I bought it. Other people on the internet have also noticed that Opterons seem to stay fine for a long time. Opteron was a very good line, with the main appeal to enthusiasts being that it was actually the FX's chipset under a different name for a fifth of the price. Nobody is trying to pull the carpet out from under AMD's past successes. There were several years when AMD was definitely the way to go, and during this time, products like their Opteron/FX chipset earned a reputation for being fast and staying fast. However, that was then and this way now. Intel got jealous and started making efforts to reduce burnout as much as possible, which eventually culminated in some of their developers putting up a video of an Intel and AMD processor attempting to play a game without any fan at all, and smoke immediately starts to come out of the AMD machine while the Intel one keeps going (albeit very choppy). Now, obviously temperature stress tests are an imperfect indicator of what you can expect in terms of longevity, but the only perfect measure of that will be time itself, so we'll just have to wait and see.
"Intel essentially pre-OC's their processers"
Wait, what do you mean by that? They're the ones who decide what the advertised clock speed will be in the first place, so as a matter of definition, they aren't overclocking. If you're talking about doing things during chip production to increase the performance of their processors, then what are you complaining about exactly? They aren't doing it so aggressively as to make their chips unstable. AMD, VIA, Nvidia, ATI, Motorola, and every single other chip maker out there has basically the same "Make it as good as possible, but don't do anything risky" approach.
"I can OC an AMD proc to benchmark higher than an intel"
What AMD processor and what Intel processor are you talking about here? If you're talking about a top of the line AMD processor and a bottom of the barrel Intel processor then maybe, but if you take two models that are specifically supposed to be on the same marketing level, Intel processors have been kicking AMD's ass for almost two years now. This is true before and after overclocking. Read the trade journals and enthusiast web sites. Every single one -- Maximum PC, Laptop Magazine, CPU Magazine, PC World, CNet, TomsHardware.com, AnandTech.com, Google Search (go ahead and type "bad year for AMD" and see what happens), and so on forever -- has been filled with articles saying how bad things have been for AMD, glowing reviews of Intel processors, and recommendations to buy Intel processors.
"gl OCing an Intel too much"
Good luck? Any curious twelve-year-old can figure out how to overclock these days. It seems like pretty much every motherboard these days comes with a BIOS that can just automatically overclock up to ten percent for you with just one push of a button for anybody who doesn't want to adjust the timings and voltages themselves.
"i guess their R&D management is to blame but i still have a problem with the fact that intel has smashed their head against teh wall repeatedly..."
You really want to go on record as the guy who tried to talk bad about Intel's Research and Development? You do realize exactly how much they've pioneered, right? Does the name Gordon Moore mean anything to you? How about flash memory? But even if you discount the history of computers (which I'm not sure how you'd do in a conversation about a major player's research and development), just take a look at how things are now. Intel is dominating in terms of processor performance, and you're really the only one disputing it.
"...i.e. 64bit proccessor that WAS NOT 32 bit compliant..."
Can you link me to some information about this, please? The only thing I can think of that you might be talking about would be 64-bit operating systems not being able to run some 32-bit programs, but that isn't the processor's fault.
"...oh and the 'quad core' thats really 2 dual cores sitting on one chip..."
That doesn't mean it's not quad core and the same criticism can be applied to AMD's multicore chips, so what's your point? In any case, the quad core line is demonstrably very powerful. If you really want to make an argument against the quad core line, you could try to ask the question of whether or not the extra power is worth the bigger price, which has the obvious answer of "Depends on how you're using it."
"...both times AMD had a similar product with the realisticly marketable features."
What do you mean, "both times?" The second thing you're referring to is the quad cores, but what was the first? 64-bit processors that weren't 32-bit compliant? I still need more info on that, but why would you want to lay claim to that anyway? In any case, yes, AMD does come to the market with products that compete with Intel's. Sure. The issue is that right now, they aren't doing a very good job of being competitive.