>> You got it backwards: them having a monopoly is only possible because it hasn't been possible for anyone else to produce more efficient desktop/laptop CPUs.

>> You got it backwards: them having a monopoly is only possible because it hasn't been possible for anyone else to produce more efficient desktop/laptop CPUs. Intel has patents over the x86 instruction set. >> It's not as if if they sacrificed their margins they'd magically be able to produce faster processors. Just cheaper ones. They have produced slower processor on purpose. Instead of soldering the chip to the heat spreader, they started using a very inefficient thermal paste. Replacing it leads to 20K better temps. It hurts both the speed and the expected life time of the processor. But what's wrong if the customer needs a new CPU in 3 years ... >> And why would they have "consumer cpu options that ditch the integrated graphics"? What that would accomplish, when there's a ton of cpu being wasted otherwise? The graphics units occupy more than 50% of the die on recent Intel mainstream CPUs. Instead of GPU they could put 8 cores in chips like 7700K and save money.