You didn't answer the question. Yes, I did. You just don't like the answer. Even when it comes out of your own mouth: "When AMD has better products they prosper."
And AMD was prospering, with their Hammer products that were widely acknowledged to be superior to Intel's long-in-the-tooth, reactionary, marketing-driven architectures. By what measure were they superior? I warned you to be sure and not repeat your Parts is Parts mantra. Address all the issues that concern OEMs.
I'll repeat it for you (again) and elaborate:
First measure: Market performance. AMD was taking share from Intel hand over fist and profiting wildly. Given that AMD was widely acknowledged to have the premiere scalable x86-64 architecture, to customers they must have also had at least a sufficient combination of: "product reliability, customer support, advertising assistance, availability, development tools, reference platforms, credible roadmaps and a host of other factors when making their vendor decisions."
Q.E.D.
Given that AMD was clearly superior IN THE ACTUAL MARKET based on their sales and financial performance, the burden of proof is on you to justify your claim that AMD was actually deficient, despite their superior performance IN THE MARKET...
With the unique exception of DELL.
Now:
Q: What was unique about DELL?
A: $6B in "rewards for loyalty."
Bonus:
Q: What, exactly, changed Intel's fortunes?
A: A new, competitive product architecture.
fpg |
