AMD's Bulldozer cores have Clustered Integer Core which has two true ALU "cores" and one shared FPU. For integer instructions this is two true cores and not "hyper-threading". For FP instructions this is "hyper-threading" and why Intel has been regularly handing AMD it's arse in all benchmarks that aren't strictly ALU dependent (gaming, rendering, etc). AMD's FPU implementation, clock for clock, is a bit weaker on most instructions as well. And yes, the FPU _is_ shared on AMD processors.
EMT64 is not "32 bits on each 1/2 of the clock cycle". That doesn't even make any sense. EMT64 is true 64 bit. x86-64 does have 32 bit addressing modes when running on non-64bit operating systems. This is part of the x86-64 standard and hits AMD, Intel and VIA.
Hardware Queuing Support is part of the Heterogeneous System Architecture open standard and won't even be supported in hardware until the Carizzo APU in 2015. Since this is an open standard, Intel can chose to use it.
Both architectures have shared caches.
WTF does nVidia's IEE-754 compliance have to do with Intel vs AMD?
I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboy, I try to use the right one for the job. I prefer AMD for certain work loads like web servers, file servers, etc because they have the most integer-bang for the buck. If I'm doing anything that involves FP, I'm going to use an Intel Chip. Best graphics solution?... yeah, I'm not even going to go down that hole.
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.