I know for sure most people don't know either of them.

But, more people know the name Intel from those Intel stickers on those old laptops people used back in the day.

So because those worked fine for them, they just choose to ask for the same name, making Intel over AMD.

I'm sure there are more factors than just these that make Intel the most popular CPU brand, but this is the best one I could think.

While I can’t give the specifics, I can say that I have experienced this in the server space repeatedly.

Manufacturers were not able to design equivalent servers due to pressure from Intel, or need to delay equivalent or more powerful AMD platforms.

AMD is still has more PCIe lanes and better for high bandwidth requiring tasks like dense GPU computing.

>where’s the evidence that this is caused by anti-competitive practices by Intel?

The examples cited in the article:

>Specifically, the Commission cited examples where Intel paid HP not to sell AMD-powered business PCs to small and medium businesses through direct channels from 2002-2005. It also paid Acer to delay the launch of an AMD-based notebook from late 2003 to early 2004. Intel also paid Lenovo to push back the launch of AMD notebooks by six months.

I'm not taking about the article. I'm asking the person I'm replying to who says "The situation is still the same, happening as we speak".

Any evidence that they are still doing that 20 years later?