[AlexandrB]

> SUPERIOR PRODUCTS LOSE TO SUPERIOR DISTRIBUTION LOCK-INS & GTM.

This takeaway was a little odd to me in the context of 2008. I had been an AMD stalwart in my PCs since about 2000 (Athlon Thunderbird), but IIRC in 2008 Intel had the better processor. Better single core performance, better performance/watt, and I think AMD processors tended to have stability issues around this time. I remember I built a PC in 2009 with a Core processor for these reasons.

Obviously this is a niche market (gaming PC) perspective. But I don't think it was so clear cut.

[BirAdam]

Until the later Core 2 Quad CPUs, AMD’s stuff was “technologically” better in the multi core workloads. The problem with that is that multi core workloads were uncommon at the time. This is where the “AMD Fine Wine” meme originated. By the time people had moved on to better things, the greatness of AMD’s technologies became apparent.

Personally, I’ve always liked Intel for stability reasons. Running Intel chipsets and CPUs, I’ve just had fewer issues. I’m an enthusiast, so I do spend more than I should on both Intel and AMD rather frequently… but now, I’m hungry for an Ampere system. My wallet is crying.

[tails4e]

Agree. It took a truly superior product at lower cost to make a dent in Intel's dominance in server, all the while Intel tried their best to flex their lock in muscle.

That happened well after 2008, with the advent of Zen and chiplet bases tech and better perf/W

[treprinum]

Ryzen 1 was far from superior, performance-wise it was already behind Intel at around Haswell-level but it brought the first reasonably-priced octacore x64 for the masses.