[qball]

This probably has a lot to do with the anti-consumer segmentation and processor locking that Intel implemented at the dawn of the decade- arbitrary socket changes every 2 years so you couldn't upgrade without buying a new motherboard, and locking overclocking behind a paywall being the two most egregious.

AMD's processors, while not fast, did none of those things and were cheap. I guess that buys you a lot of good will when Intel's still charging 300 dollars for CPUs that wouldn't beat a 2500K at 4.6GHz until several years down the line.

[fyver]

I much people upgrade computer parts instead of replacing the whole computer and replace their CPU with every new generation?

[qball]

Maybe, but the people that drive the hate for Intel online all fall into the former category.

And "have to replace the motherboard along with the CPU" is the exact thing we're talking about here: there was no technical reason for Intel to make the earlier boards incompatible, they did it just because they could. Not that there was ever really a reason to upgrade beyond "buy the cheapest K series, set multiplier to 46-48x, done", but even if you wanted to, you couldn't.

It was an anti-consumer practice and said consumers never forget it (not that most tech channels don't provide active reminders of it). And those people are who everyone else asks when "I'm getting a new computer", they say "buy the competitor's product", and the rest is history.