I find that fairly obvious. You really have no clue?
15 years ago we simply had 2 CPU makers: Intel and AMD. They had very similar products and competed in most segments.
Intel was a bit more "pro", a bit more "sophisticated", a bit more... "American". But because AMD was smaller and more elastic and "brave", it often was the first to introduce some features or solutions.
Examples:
In 2002 AMD launched Geode - a low power processors much like Intel Atom, but years earlier.
In 2003 AMD swarmed the market with 64-bit CPUs (in all segments) to such extent they've got ahead of Intel
significantly in the supercomputer race.
(check this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500#Architecture_and_operating_systems).
But then everything changed as AMD decided to go "multi-core" and concentrate on gaming.
Result? They won great deals on consoles but almost totally disappeared from other devices: laptops, low-end home machines, office PCs.
Intel stayed on the same path doing chips for everything. And Intel won.
It's 2017 and a typical person is surrounded by Intel chips: in their office PC, in their laptop, in their tablet.
Apple uses Intel chips and are quite proud of that - every MacBook owner knows who made the CPU.
But how many PS4 owners know who made the "APU" inside? Whatever an APU is.
Even total computer laypeople say "I have an i3" instead of "I have an Intel i3 processor". Everyone knows that i7 is better than i3.
Intel became a synonym for processor manufacturer. AMD is just "the other company".
I even remember my manager from previous company saying he thought AMD went bankrupt, because he hasn't seen any of their products for years.