Intel knows the self-evident truth:

The on-processor memory controller is really only a benefit for the server environment.

With Core2 wailing on the memory controller-equipped K8 and (forthcoming) K10 desktop arch, it shows AMD only had enough money to develop one arch and HOPE it was enough.

What I want to know is how much of a performance boost does an on-processor memory controller give? And how much north bridge bandwidth would it free up?
I am still using my single core 2.6Ghz AMD processor... And for online 64 player Battlefield 2 at 1280x1024 resolution, it is fine. The only software I own that my P.C. struggles with is the 'Total Annihilation' sequel 'Supreme Commander'.

One more point that Intel seem to have missed, if an integrated memory controller provides for a more efficient processor and also gives a performance boost, then amongst the community of computer users that care about such things, this kind of thing matters.
Compare computers to cars; does a car with GTi badge really need a turbo charger? The answer is probably no, but it sure sells GTi badged cars and the kick of a turbo probably gives a big buzz to a GTi owner.
If a Nehalem owner knows that Intel could have used the more elegant integrated memory controller, but Intel elected not to, then he might feel a bit shortchanged. After all, AMD have been using them in their desktop processors for years now.