Compared to what? They still have the fastest desktop IGP, no matter how much you want it to be three times faster.
Now you're switching form not giving priority to not having a long term presence. AMD started from the bottom and it's all their own fault. Everyone knows that.
Nope, you're just making that up. It holds true for f*nboys, I give you that, although they probably won't jump ship either way. Price is just as important as performance, and that's what put Ryzen on the map in the first place. Bang per buck, without being the performance king in everything. Even the 1600AF is still on
todays amazon top ten CPU list.
Just look at the Desktop sales amazon. This is from last spring, six months before Ryzen 5000. The not-so-exciting 3200G and the 2600 outsold EVERY Intel CPU in the US, kind of unbelievable. I seriously doubt we can let the 3950X *halo* take credit for this, as no AMD CPU could beat Intel in gaming.
View attachment 184783
Besides, AMD took huge market shares from Intel even before Ryzen 3000, when it was 8 cores maximum.
Probably not, see OP. If Renoir was like you described, i.e better, the OP situation would have been even more relevant for its competitors.
Who knows. This goes both ways tho (and I know we're both off topic here). Why wasn't the 14 nm Rocket Lake launched two years ago? Why is Tiger Lake still only 4C?
Yeah, I know why, the eternal Intel-stuck-on-fourteennanometer++++++-tennanometer-hasn't-worked-for years-BUT---------and-hear-me-out---------::::::::::::-tomorrow-it-will-w0rKz!!111
-oh-noes-it-diduhn't------again-for-the sevenhundredth-time-----sad-face-circlejerk.
It does, but that's off topic here.
AMD laptops should be able to use Nvidia GPU's, and AMD's lacking mobile GPU lineup doesn't change that fact.
The lack of AMD GPU's is simply a different topic, and an important one, but it makes no sense to bring it up in the very same article.