re: problem with AMD is its run by an engineer.
What do you think CEOs of Intel, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove were?
did they major in advertising? They were both engineers, with extensive backgrounds in semi-conductor companies.. ie Fairchild
The difference being - as was also stated- is that AMD channel virtually all resources into pushing hardware out the door-it has an engineering mentality from top to bottom. Extrapolating from your argument AMD would have something approaching Intel's brand awareness in the marketplace. Nvidia is also run by an engineer- the difference between Paul Otellini/Jen Hsun Huang and AMD's Dirk Meyer/Hector Ruiz et al. is that the former know the value of brand awareness and how to instill brand allegiance via product support, viral marketing and every other trick in the PR handbook.
Cases in point;
1. Check this and other forums for comments following every CPU release. How often does the phrase -or variations of it- "...but I'll wait to upgrade until I see what Bulldozer brings". All the slide decks and Analyst/consumer show bombast about how the CPU/architecture is the next greatest thing* has created an enviroment where I doubt too many people are rushing out to buy the
present generation of AMD CPU's - particularly the upper tier Phenom II X4/X6
2. Why does Nvidia enjoy 90% of the professional graphics market? Are Quadro graphics cards 90% better than their AMD FirePro opposites?
Nvidia has that 90% because they actively market the brand- that means they partner with every software developer they can find, they keep the drivers and
software current and anticipate (or create) demand for new feature sets. AMD on the other hand distribute an OpenCL SDK (AMD Stream) -whose promised feature set often slips from release to release- and relies almost entirely on independant developers to design/implement software applications. Basically DIY pro graphics.
What Nvidia recognised and AMD are probably just realizing, is that Pro graphics carries a greater amount of inertia than does the consumer space. Once a customer has the ecosystem of one manufacturer in place it makes getting that customer to make a switch a monumental task. In AMD's case it couldn't/wouldn't provide funds for channeling into the pro market hence the DIY approach with OpenCL. Unfortunately for AMD, Nvidia are now in the position where CUDA is very well established with the added bonus that their propriety software ports easily to OpenCL- hardly surprising since Nvidia (along with ATI) were two of the founder members for the
Khronus OpenCL initiative
At great portion of this simply comes down to available resources. AMD made the decision to look to their future and acquired ATI - the buyout and the resultant product lines that will ensue should stand the company in good stead, it has however left them fighting a two front war with minimal financial resources, so to a degree, even if AMD wanted to invest more heavily in marketing and software development/support they probably would end up spread to thin.
* Designed to stall Intel sales, unfortunately it also marginalizes AMD's own hardware stack in the process. Note how Intel's marketing makes a clear distinction between mainstream (Lynnfield/Sandy Bridge) and enthusiast (Bloomfield/Gulftown) and it's reservation of "Extreme Edition" badging for only the top SKU's in the enthusiast product line so as not to dilute the "brand". You can bet the farm that a Core i7 2xxx CPU destined for LGA1155 P67/Z68 will not wear the "Extreme" nameplate.