IIRC from the suit, Intel never spelled it outright that you couldn't buy AMD, they just provided sales targets required for discounts/marketing partnerships (which just paid money to the retailer for hanging up Intel advertising) with different purchase amounts for different retailers, and if the retailer started selling AMD, they'd hike up the amount until they were no longer selling AMD.

Ok, but how would they know how many the company was selling, and how much to mark up there amount until they weren't getting the discount?

Spirit of the law and intent are more important than actual wording. At last that's how it should work, and did in that case.

I would assume it to be more like:

"Buy five thousand and I'll give you 10% off"

"Buy five thousand for the next few years, and only from us, and I'll give you 20% off, because now we know we'll have cashflow for years"

But aren't exclusivity contracts commonplace? Like a contract stating "We'll buy some large amount of product at a discounted price and only purchase from you for the next some number of years." Like Qualcomm could give Apple a lower price now, because decrease in revenue is offset by the promise of future discounted revenue. I don't understand why that's illegal.