Wb, Take a step back, and you can see which strategies have worked and which ones haven't for both AMD and Intel. But through it all, Intel has remained the one on top through better marketing, better manufacturing, better relationships with their vendors, and a more congruent set of product lines that they can leverage to form a better total platform. As much as some people would like the battle to be fought on the grounds of performance benchmarks, reality doesn't work that way. Performance is simply one aspect of many that is necessary to succeed. AMD made an excellent product, but their manufacturing shortcomings made the ramp very slow; their marketing shortcomings held back mind share; their vendor relationship shortcomings held back wide adoption; and finally, their reliance on 3rd party chipsets made it difficult to keep up with new features. Hence the first couple years after Opteron's introduction did not manage to topple the Intel empire.
You seem to be saying Intel enjoys the efficiencies of scale and leverage of the gorilla. You're absolutely right.
AMD on the other hand is a partener to those who participate. It is noteworthy that vendors of "Intel's Platform" get the crumbs. Intel's Platforms are efforts to reduce choice for the consumer and vendor.
Intel's actions are similar to those of wreckless greedy politicians, where loyalty triumps principle. The good ol boys at Intel have gobbled up much of the PC platform leaving the vendors to grovel for favor. Vendors are affraid to piss off Chipzilla. Thats not a smile on their faces, nor a grin, but a grimace.
Wbmw, you were incorrect in your assertions regarding ever increasing P4 clock speed. You were played by Intel and you liked it. Thats loyalty.
