Technically the jurisprudential division between "fact" and "law" is quite lengthy, but as a practical matter it is quite simple, or simplistic, if you prefer.
Let's say there is a price preference given to Dell. That can be a stipulated fact. What remains is whether that price differential is legal as a matter of law.
Let us say that a favorable AMD witness will testify that he was told by vendor X that vendor x had an agreement with Intel. Probably inadmissible hearsay, never gets to be a "fact".
The fact would be the vendor testifying he had an agreement. But what was the agreement? In discovery, two things will happen before it gets to court. Is it admissible? If so, is it probative.
Intel could stipulate to the agreement and still AS A MATTER OF LAW, not have that "agreement" be one which is in violation of the law.
SURELY AMD BELIEVES THEY WERE SCREWED.
But this is NOT a fact. It is not evidence. It requires no jury. It is inadmissible.
I could go on but your point will be decided by the court, not by us here on the bulletin board.
So for us to parse and re-parse is not a productive exercise.
As Bob Dylan said,
the Princess and the Prince discuss
what's real and what is not
and there are no truths outside the Gates of Eden.
The court will have all this and a thousand things more, in front of it. It will decide.
I don't feel as a expert that there will be a triable issue of fact in this case. The facts will all be agreed to and in fact are now known to everyone.
There may be something new, but not yet. If discovery had in fact been halted, the chances for new facts will have increased, but barring anything new,
The issue will be whether the known facts violate the Clayton Act.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
