>> Their chipset designs were inferior to Intel's but they had great CPUs. In my experiance that is false. the Space heaters what where the P4's where unstabl

>> Their chipset designs were inferior to Intel's but they had great CPUs. In my experiance that is false. the Space heaters what where the P4's where unstable and had continual problems compared to the Athons. I almost never had a problem out of a AMD based system but Intel based was a constant stability battle The Core line up changed that but it was not until after the Core2Duo's that Intel really started to surpass AMD >If there was a monopoly over the last decade it was only because AMD wasn't producing a competitive offering. It was not because of marketplace abuses like Intel's been accused of in the past. This is also objectively false for any market outside the DIY/Gamer space. Intel made known, and proven anti-competitive deals with many OEM PC builders to ensure they would not offer AMD Chips to their customers Ref: 2010 FTC Anti-Trust Settlement Then you have the whole Patent battle of x86 itself which created the Douoply of AMD/Intel excluding all others from the market which Intel would have loved to have to itself asserting patent rights on the various x86 technologies. So no you can not say that Intel is on top only because they have/had an objectively better product, though out Intel entire existence they have attempted to everything in their power (and some of it proved to not be so legal) to kill any competition to their market share not with innovation but with contracts, patents and other uses of the legal system They continue this pattern today with their not so veiled threat against Qualcomm and MS over having x86 apps run on ARM while at the same time attempting to Sue Qualcomm for their aggressive enforcement of patents and restricted licensing of same