1 of 1 people found this helpful
There is a lot more going on in the background.
AMD usually gets thrashed for having products that don't make current software run better. Many who compare benchmarks at product release are looking for any excuse to nitpick a product, often without statement of the product's design focus. AMD's advances into the multi-core CPU technology made a very large impact, but even to this day few applications fully support it; those that do provide a very interesting view at just how powerful this processor design is. They were also the first company to bring 64-bit consumer processors to the market, which was vital to running the games and applications that we have today.
For GPUs, it's already been a proven fact that Nvidia works harder on individual optimizations for applications than they do on the actual hardware strength. These optimizations are great if you're the type of user that is impatient and doesn't mind having a product tailored for a very specific task, as opposed to having a product that is overall stronger but isn't finely tuned for specific tasks. This doesn't come without drawbacks, though, since many NVidia fans are very quick to insult AMD about driver support even while NVidia drivers aren't so great, either. History shows that Nvidia has had far more serious incidents occur from driver problems, such as the catastrophic incident around their 196.75 driver... which resulted in heat management failures.
In the end, it is vital for a choice to exist between Nvidia and AMD products. Without one, the other would be unchecked in their prices, and they wouldn't have competition to drive innovation. Sometimes it feels as though many fans of AMD competitors don't realize that they -need- AMD, even if they don't need AMD products. CPU/GPU technology would stagnate without them.