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. On the mobile, where there are competent competitors, it's a different story.
It's not as if if they sacrificed their margins they'd magically be able to produce faster processors. Just cheaper ones.
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?
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.
Not the x86 instruction sets - that's out of patent protection a while ago (patents are max 20 years).
Maybe amd64 (which is more AMDs parents).
Okay, let's say that Intel hasn't been under investing in improving the performance of their cpus. They still have 63% margins across their entire product line, they still don't have 8 core cpu options below $1000. They still don't have consumer cpu options that ditch the integrated graphics.
All of which is only possible because they have had a monopoly.