I think attributing AMD's current success to any one person is an insult to all the other employees of the company.
The CEO has more power and responsibility. They receive blame for company wide problems and conversely deserve credit for company with success.
There are definitely many cases where CEO should bare responsibility for the company's success or failure, but definitely not in the case of AMD.
The first Zen products didn't launch until 2017 - that is when their "success kinda started" at least in the CPU market.
Here's a quote from Suzanne Plummer, senior director of the Zen project, in September 2015: "This is the first time in a very long time that we engineers have been given the total freedom to build a processor from scratch and do the best we can do."
You could make a reasonable argument that supplying the GPUs for PS4 and Xbox One, both of which pre-date Dr Su's appointment, is their "success kinda start[ing]", but one could also argue that AMD was really the only vendor capable of providing the APUs needed.
I dug up an old interview from Anandtech that I'd forgotten about when I first wrote my comment above, which has this quote from Dr Su:
"If I put credit where credit is due, Mark Papermaster had incredible vision of what he wanted to do with CPU/GPU roadmap. He hired Jim Keller and Raja Koduri, and he was very clear when he said he needed this much money to do things. We did cut a bunch of projects, but we invested in our future."
Like someone else mentioned here, Jim Keller always says "team work" and all when someone praises him. Microprocessor as complex as a modern consumer CPU certainly involves so many people that attributing it to any one person is just impossible.
But obviously now we are getting into the topic of whether any CEO is that important to a large company. I'd like to say they aren't, but our hero worshipping culture makes it hard to break out of that mindset.
Prior to Lisa they were on a downward spiral and heading towards bankruptcy.
/s