I think you're misreading the graph. They were on a pretty steady upward trend until 2006 when the market was waiting for a quad core part. They flubbed it, their share dropped between 5 and 10 points (definitely more than 5) share--which was a decline of almost 50%--by the end of 07. They went up a little bit once they started shipping again but after that it was just a long slow downhill trend. They never recovered the positive momentum they had from 2003-2006.Intel has had various hardware errata over the years so it's not just AMD who has TLB. Infact even Nehalem had TLB (contrary to the claims which say the opposite) and Intel acknowledged it too (which required bios workarounds and patches). Sure AMD's reputation was damaged with the TLB issue but it didn't mean they exited or have their market share drastically affected. That point only really came about with Bulldozer's launch and this verifies that (only a 5% drop in market share attributed to TLB):
[snipping a lot of fanboyism]
There's no point in trying to convince me that the parts aren't that bad, they haven't been selling and no amount of arguing on the internet is going to change that. If you take away the fact that there are a lot of cores, the single thread performance is still meh. So this comes down to "does the market really need a 8 core desktop processor"? The thing is, it's really hard to utilize a lot of cores. There are certain workloads which are embarrassingly parallel, and people doing that sort of thing are obviously happy. And certain overclocking performance fetishists will just love having a bunch of cores whether they are practical or not. But I'm unconvinced that many people will actually be able to maintain good utilization of an 8 core desktop--which is why intel hasn't been selling them (it's not a technical challenge). All of which raises the question: so why is AMD trying to sell high core count desktops instead of pushing these things right at the server space (where it's a lot easier to utilize cores, and where a cheap 8 core is a really compelling part next to a cheap quad core)? I'd guess at least part of the answer (coming full circle) is that AMD is having trouble convincing integrators that they can actually deliver on time and in quantity. I suspect they're also consciously focusing on the high end of each segment (they're debuting naples at 32 cores) and not releasing more practical parts in order to shake the bargain basement reputation they've acquired over the past few years. Eventually I assume they'll come out with 4 core desktop CPUs and 8 core server CPUs, and depending on pricing (and availability!) that might be where they really shake up the market.