The issue is AMD has been here before. Before the Athlon 64 they were all about value for money,longterm platforms,etc(sound familar?). People forget the whole socket 754,QuadFX,etc motherboard moves. Then after that they jacked pricing up,split platforms,features,etc. That about turn from AMD happened very quickly and I just managed to stay with my Athlon XP long enough to not get caught out by it. Then AMD kind of stagnated with its pricing,until the Core and Core2 came along. If you read reports of the time AMD actually held back on 65NM and the Phenom,because the 90NM Athlons were quite profitable(at least that is what I remember,I might be wrong on the details).
You saw that after Zen2. They started with trying to screwover 400 series users from using Zen3,then artificially locked out PCI-E 4.0 from 400 series motherboards(OEM ones worked),making sure 500 series motherboards won't work with Zen and Zen+ and then finally making their CPUs even more expensive core for core than Intel. Even Zen3 compatibility happened with the 400 series motherboards due to the huge backlash from consumers and OEMs. AMD delayed the B550,made the B450 the only Zen3 compatible Zen3 chipset,implied it would work to people who bought Zen2 and a B450 motherboard,and then said no it won't work. They even told their OEMs who got were promised it would work. MSI also didn't expect it either.
Then the whole resizeable BAR thing - which was implied to need Zen3 and 500 series motherboards. Nvidia went and showed it works with Zen2,400 series motherboards,Intel CPUs,etc - see how SAM now apparently works with Zen2 and Zen+ now:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/joao-silva/asus-and-msi-confirm-that-zen-and-zen2-processors-also-support-amd-smart-access-memory/Imagine if Nvidia hadn't showed their Resizeable BAR working with other CPUs? Would we be getting it on other CPUs?
They even copied Intel and ditched CPU coolers for most of their SKUs. The one SKU which has a cooler,has the same crap cooler as their £100 CPUs. They also copied Intel with the Wraith Spire,and made the heatsink worse(they quietly removed the copper core),and replaced it with a noiser fan.
The fact that AMD went to outcompeting Intel on per core price,showed that all their value for money marketing was more because they were behind. They want to be Intel,and they did that during the Athlon 64 era. Look at the last 2 years of things AMD did?? These sound much closer to what you would expect Intel or Nvidia would do?? People give AMD the pass because its the “underdog” but the issue its still another large tech company,who wants to be the rest. It clearly works for Intel and Nvidia as they making tons of money.
With their GPUs they tried to price the RX5700XT above £400,closer to the RTX2070 but Nvidia made its moves beforehand. They essentially tried to replace the RX5700 with the cheaper to make RX5600XT,then kind of screwed over their board partners with the 5600XT last second BIOS changes. They said it was “jebaiting” when it was quite clear they forgotten Nvidia can drop prices too. Now with the RX6000 series,look how they positioned them?? The RX6000 series has better performance/watt but it has worse feature support,very poor RT support,etc but look at the pricing?? RX6700XT RRP made it poor value against the RTX3070 and RTX3060TI. RX6800 is only marginally faster than the RTX3070,but is priced halfway between a RTX3070 and an RTX3080,so as to not directly complete.
Even when the market settles down - I suspect AMD/Nvidia will try to just put products which don't directly compete with each other. Its quite clear the RTX3000/RX6000 RRPs are just targetting the gaps in each other's ranges. So as much as we laugh at Intel and its misfortune we really need to have something reasonable to keep AMD/Nvidia on their toes.
This is just the last 2 years or so. So now think if they further outcompete Intel and even beat Nvidia - just wait for the £300 Ryzen 3 7500X which is 6C/6T. But its faster in gaming than a 6C/12T Ryzen 5 5600X,so its all OK. People who defended the Ryzen 5 5600X pricing,can't see Intel did the same. They used the faster cores of newer generations to push higher core count CPUs right up the stack.
So it wouldn't surprise if Intel can't push as many cores as AMD for the next few years,we will end up with 6C being the new 4C,and we won't see much core progression at under £300. Soon 6C will be the new 4C meme.
The thing is Lisa Su isn't like previous AMD CEOs - the whole “we don't want to be perceived as a value brand” is because she is razor focussed on increasings margins,more than previous AMD CEOs.
So basically its why people need Intel and Nvidia to be competitive - AMD will be quite happy to replace Intel and Nvidia in the premium pricing game,EVEN if they lose some sales. Apple basically showed the way forward - overall their smartphone/tablet marketshare have shown declines outside launch peaks,but they are making more per sale,so its evened out for them. This is because Wallstreet cares less about profits and more about margin increases each quarter. The return is more important than the physical numbers. Its why lower margin mainstream phones are now made by Chinese companies - not because it isn't profitable(Nokia made enough money doing this),it isn't profitable enough,and is more constrained in margin increase per quarter.