* Consumer/Partner Inertia?
* Ability to produce to meet demand?
* Support?
* Compatibility?
Once had an IT person tell me they couldn't move to ryzen laptops because the way the system presented its network interfaces was incompatible with their management software. My charitable interpretation is that there's enough programs like this that prevent AMD adoption, while simultaneously AMD never seems to be in a rush to fix firmware or software problems.
An example in the laptop space, Intel invested a lot in the marketing and designs of the Ultrabook classification. So customers ask for an Ultrabook from Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc. and those are only available with Intel CPUs. It’s taken several years for AMD mobile CPUs to work their way into high end designs.
In the future I'll just pick AMD, their handling of these stability issues has really damaged my trust in Intel.
Meanwhile, AMD use less power and perform better, while supporting ECC memory (unlike Intel).
The x3d models are a class on their own, in games and other cache-sensitive tasks.
It is no surprise AMD is selling better.
And a big portion of Intel chips are now made by TSMC in Taiwan anyway. I have the impression that the US government will make sure they have enough money to get back to having their own competitive factories.
Besides that, due to their anti-competitive practices and other issues, I suppose I think the company does not deserve any charity -- they only stopped paying dividends a few months ago, and stopped stock buybacks a few years ago.
If the goal is to encourage a competitive chip market, Intel stock price is healthy enough that it could be used to raise cash for the company if needed, so there is no significant imbalance there -- as opposed to 10+ years ago when AMD stock was much lower when they looked to be at risk at bankruptcy