Brand perceptions can definitely change but the reality right now is that for the past 5 years AMD has been shipping non-competitive parts and has had zero premium design wins and very little money spent on advertising.

For the average consumer, every high end system they have seen in recent memory is Intel, and every ad they have seen is Intel, and if they have seen AMD at all it has always been positioned as a budget product.

That is going to take a long time for AMD to turn around assuming they can sustain performance parity with Intel.

That is also why AMD is focused on servers and semi-custom where they are selling to technical people who are evaluating based on price/performance and not based on brand perception.

I was talking max OC on R7 (4.0 - 4.1) vs max OC (5.0-5.1) on i7-7th gen though. Which is a good indicator of the max clocks each platform can get.

> Are people actually looking to buy a computer for an Intel CPU? I have honestly never met anyone that said "I need my computer to be Intel Inside™ ".

I've had friends go out to buy a computer and insist on an i7 because "it is the best."

Same people who buy the newest Samsung Galaxy every year.

My dad went to Best Buy to replace his 10+ year old laptop last year. He actually said he wanted Intel instead of AMD because he heard AMD processors were very slow. I had to tell him the Intel N-whatever and Celerons were also very slow so that he'd stick with one of the i-whatevers.

To most consumers, AMD sounds like a knockoff brand. Have you even seen an AMD commercial in the last decade?

I would say yes. Intel are better at marketing than AMD (think decades of TV ads and the little Intel Inside stickers).

You might have a good point for the home market - I couldn't say either way. I do know for the corporate market, businesses want as low a number of SKUs to support as possible, and so they will often only buy Intel (and only specific CPU models at that). This is particularly true in the datacenter / cloud world.

I work in heavily optimized compute, and it does matter there. We write assembly that is supported by one architecture only (for now), and frontier Intel chips are easier to come by. So our code runs on Intel’s processor extensions a generation or two before AMD, and that represents a high switching cost.

But this is server compute stuff which this news doesn’t seem to be about.

Agree — that seems like a very 2003 idea. The whole Intel Inside doesn’t have the cache it used to.