AMD alone in the x86 market would probably be more innovative than Intel being dominant again sometime down the line.
As it stands, pretty much everything we have today, is an innovation done by Intel (x86, MMX, SSE, AVX, HyperThreading, SATA, USB, PCIe etc etc).
The innovations that AMD has added to the mix are extremely limited. There's x64, but Intel and HP had developed IA-64, which was far more innovative. Its main downside was that its x86 compatibility wasn't that good.
x64 was the opposite: good at x86, but x64 was more-of-the-same. Basically AMD rehashing what Intel had done with the introduction of the 386.
The current Ryzen chips are also not exactly innovative. They basically just copied what Intel has been doing for years with the Core series (just standard HyperThreading with 2 threads per core, and cores optimized for high IPC).
Heck, AMD's previous architecture was supposed to be innovative, where AMD did something entirely different from what Intel did. And that was a horrible failure.
AMD is still a much smaller company than Intel, so my money would be on Intel for innovation, at least for the coming years. They have a lot more engineers working on the problem, and a lot more money to invest into R&D.
Today Intel can cut the price of their $2000 CPUs by half to $1000 just becaues there is competition. They've fucked us all over more than enough.
And the exact same happened in the few moments that AMD was on top.
Take for example their Athlon FX series. Those were $1000+ as well, because Intel had trouble reaching those performance levels with the Pentium 4.
Once Core2 arrived, Athlon FX prices were slashed. They dropped to $300 almost overnight.
And already with the success of Ryzen 2, we see AMD moving into ever higher price echelons.
Really, Intel or AMD makes no difference in terms of pricing. They ask the prices that people are willing to pay for their products. That's simple economics.