I don't think most people want AMD to win completely, as no one expects Intel to ever fold. Also historically, Intel has been much scummier, and it's paid off for them. When AMD was previously top dog (most recently with Athlon64), I don't remember them being as anticompetitive as Intel has been.

Intel has 5x the market cap and 10x the revenue compared to AMD, and AMD is the underdog in its dGPU competition with nVidia too! If you want innovation, you'd want to equalize investment in R&D for both these two competing pairs, it makes sense to be pro-AMD.

I don't think anyone actually wants AMD to "win", regardless of how they express themselves. What they want is AMD to have a lead on Intel, since it's been so long since that's been the case, and we'll all benefit from Intel not being continuously in a hefty lead, like it has been for decades.

AMD is so far behind intel in market share, money, resources overall that worrying about "you don't want AMD to win (either)" is looking too far ahead.

I'm still thinking about my cheap Ryzen-based PC only as a stop-gap solution, until the "real deal", aka Intel 7nm CPUs, premieres in 2021 (fingers crossed) .

Why is the "real deal" not the 7nm+ AMD CPUs coming out this year, or the 5nm AMD CPUs likely coming out next year?

Because AMD is a company with a long history of making crappy processors, that only recently created a decent one, by lucky coincidence. Intel is exactly the opposite.

Even now Intel architecture is still superior in some areas, the biggest downside of it being the fact that they are stuck on the outdated 14nm++++ process.

Once the Intel's 7nm comes out there will be no reason to buy AMD, except for the price (I expect Intel's 7nm process to be roughly equivalent, or even superior to TSCM's 5nm)

>that only recently created a decent one, by lucky coincidence.

They have been repeating that "lucky coincidence" for the past 3 generations of Ryzen (ofc you can nitpick that one of them wasn't a true gen, but more of a gen 1.5, but whatever).

3 extremely successful generations in a row seems a bit more than just a "lucky coincidence" to me.

An alternative point of view is that AMD took the long view and invested heavily in future gains at the expense of short-term gains, allowing the market to be even less competitive for Intel during that time.

Perhaps their current situation isn't as much a "lucky coincidence" as the payoff for a very successful long-term strategy?

>Because AMD is a company with a long history of making crappy processors

Tell that to Microsoft and Sony.

Like it or not the Xbox and PlayStation shows what the future will bring for games on PC which is exactly the opposite of what Intel tries to sell.

You must not remember the Athlon 64 era.