Agreed on AMD. I don't make them sound infallible, you make them sound incompetent. The point is that because of Intel's experience, sheer size, and resources,

Agreed on AMD. I don't make them sound infallible, you make them sound incompetent. The point is that because of Intel's experience, sheer size, and resources, they have a massive leg up over the very fragmented ARM group. They fuck up all the time, but they almost always catch up on features or optimizations (except for the power efficiency aspect, which I believe is highly dependent on the architecture) and they do so very quickly. When they do innovate (which is very often), others can't catch up because by the time they do, Intel is already ahead again (not entirely true, but close enough). "They're great at clinging on to their legacy designs, and adopting others' good ideas after they're proven." I guess everyone just really loves the underdog but come on, read a book. AMD's history revolves around copying almost every aspect of Intel's business and then they get hailed for coming up with TWO original things in TWO decades (AMD64 and HyperTransport). I'm sorry to oversimplify this, but this is the only response I could think of against a silly statement like that.