8-/, your post is a little strange.
Last point first: And yes, AMD took market share from INTC again in 2002, per Gartner. Did you mean 2003? 2002 was an awful year! If you compare Y/Y market share for AMD for each quarter, we were down in 2002. Things are getting better now.
Next, on market share: There is really little brand loyalty in the world anymore. It may seem that there is brand loyalty to Intel, but I maintain that this is a matter of Intel's manufacturing might and consistent delivery of product. Whenever AMD hits its stride in delivering chips (such as 1999-2001) then AMD market share goes up to the limits of its manufacturing. Both AMD and Intel make very good processors and when AMD can protect the price structure by competing on all performance points, AMD processors sell very well. When AMD has a year like 2002, Intel can make their profits on the high end and undercut AMD with Celerons, recapturing market share. No brand loyalty there!
So, market share is up for grabs. That is what makes the IBM relationship so intriguing - if you combine the great design capabilities of AMD with the manufacturing might of IBM, then you have a combination that can alter the market share dynamics greatly. (Of course, if you start with a lame design like Cyrix, it does not matter, which is why that relationship ten years ago went nowhere.)
AMD is much better off right now than when the Athlon was introduced. Then they were marginalized to about 10% marketshare with the K6 platform, and near bankruptcy. With Athlon they got up in the low 20s. Even with the problems last year, they never got anywhere as low as they were a few years ago - because they never were too far from fielding a competitive product. Going into Hammer, their market position is stronger, their finances are stronger and their reputation for delivering quality is now earned.
With some decent manufacturing, market share is low hanging fruit!
