Jon, lt cap,

Those numbers and prices for the new AMD chips certainly look like winners. And AMD's stock has been on a tear for months, rising to $14 (after I sold mine for $3, at a loss.) The thing is, historically, that every time AMD's pc chips grab a significant part of the PC market (15% tops), Intel has done two things: 1. Engaged in a bloody price war that hurt both their profits, but AMD just can't stand that economically, the way INTC can. (Although at most of those times, Jerry Sanders was at the helm, and he had this obsession with beating INTC, at any cost, kind of like Ahab and Moby Dick, which was not good for AMD, certainly.) 2. INTC was not above unfair, strongarm tactics, such as telling box makers (Hewlett Packard, IBM, Gateway, etc) that if they put AMD chips in their boxes, they'd be last in line to receive new inventory from INTC. It worked, as AMD chips indeed disappeared from model lines. Again, this was around the time AMD had 1ghz chips, priced lower than Intel's offering, and faster than anything INTC had. I never did understand why AMD didn't  sue Intel for unfair trade practices - well, they did, but it was 5 years later, and in a European court.) 

However, these are different times, when PCs are not the kings they were, and leveraging customers when it was a 2-player field is a far different scenario. (e.g., some said INTC could have, but didn't kill off AMD, as AMD's presence let INTC protect itself from being a monopoly.) Well, INTC is no longer king of everything, only some things. It'll be interested if AMD can score a touchdown. In the past, AMD has gotten the ball to the 1 yard line, only to fumble and lose the game. This might get interesting.