Instead of trying to show how good your economic knowledge aged maybe you could point us what were the underlying factors that resulted in the 1995 price structure and if the same factors are present, or could be replicated in the market today. I can tell that two of the elements aren't. There isn't a boom in the market like the 1990 and there isn't low hanging fruits as before, as the amount of efforts you have to put on fabs, R&D and marketing effort is orders of magnitude bigger than before. They need a lot of money to run all this. This somehow limits how much Intel can charge for a processor, as they must balance not only their gross margins but also cash flow to fund R&D and CAPEX on their fabs. That said, I do know that competition is good for the market, but that competition isn't AMD. AMD had some nice years ten years ago when Intel was totally disoriented. Hyper Transport, the highly efficient Athlon and Athlon 64, the DDR push, all those were good things to consumers, but those were all in the market in 2003. From there AMD basically spent the next 8 years (!) milking the same architecture and then gave us the 8th wonder of the world, Bulldozer. In the mean time Intel woke up, reclaimed the performance crown in desktops, wiped out AMD in servers and workstations, and has been pushing innovation in the x86 space regardless of AMD. It is AMD copying Intel, as it was before Athlon, not the opposite. AMD simply isn't relevant in the x86 market for innovation. It does not have the resources to compete, let alone innovate. If AMD goes under tomorrow we probably would see prices stop falling.