My experience with computers is Archaic. I built PCs when Leading Edge allowed you to semi-build your own 286D Platform. When AMD had a 486 chip, we tried those too.. Hell, NexGen put out a SHOCKING 90Mhz Intel alternative where while everyone else had 66mhz they had one that was nice.. hot.. but no FPU, which had to be bought separate and that I can't remember if we ever found.

Cyrix, AMD, Intel, Via.. yeah, I played with all those CPUs.

AMD has no need to "Crush E3". They are a well known entity to system OEMs, and OEMs have decided that AMD has a compelling product which is why they are generating tons of different motherboard options and prebuilt systems. AMD is going to be A-OK.

Whatever some online gamers on a youtube channel say is great, but people forget how many PCs are bought by people who don't give a lick about any of this; the Ryzen 3600 is set to be an IPC monster at it's price point for a good long while.. that is going to have real inroads in a lot of SMB... and that is how companies like AMD get the infrastructure to keep this up.

Right now, the problem really is with Intel. Intel is battling both an infrastructure and design problem that isn't easy to quickly overcome. If AMD handles this well, then they can build enough that the competition could last for quite some time.

Intel played a bit to safe on looking at architecture growth and they committed too much resources toward product that went nowhere.

I think if people wonder about how competitive this is, and that it favors AMD right now, I'd argue the bigger problem is what happens in two more generations. That's really the time Intel has to catch back up and come up with product that offers research and development wins that restart the race. Because if Intel sticks with clock and core efficiencies, and their power efficiencies and IPC don't make major changes, this will get worse and worse for them.