AMD Killed the Itanium (2005)
Yeah this isn't quite what happened.  Firstly, Intel didn't start Itanium, HP did, as a successor to their HP Precision line.  I forget how they got together, but it was a collaboration between Intel and HP, but HP started it and had largely the architecture defined before Intel got involved.Secondly, it's true that AMD hammered the nails in the coffin, but AMD wouldn't have mattered if Itanic had been faster, cheap, and on time.  Itanic was a disaster partly because of overly complicated design by committee and partly because of the fundamentally flawed assumption (that you don't need dynamic scheduling, AKA OoO processing).I have an Itanium in the garage, a monument to hubris.UPDATE: I forgot to mention that from the outside it might seem that Intel had a singular vision, but the reality is that there were massive political battles internally and the company was largely split into IA-64 and x86 camps.UPDATE2: Itanium was massively successful in one thing: it killed off Alpha and a few other cpus, just based on what Intel claimed.