But, it's a direct admission that they were basically gouging for want of competition.
We live in a world with the most complex market dynamics in the history of human civilization (by a landslide) and this is all you've got?
AMD's new design probably has a sweet spot. I'm sure Intel's existing designs also have a sweet spot. According to Plato, Xeonophon, Hume, Smith, Kant, Thoreau, Mises, and Hayek's theory of division of labour, price signals on both sides must adjust to achieve optimal resource allocation internal to both firms, with Intel's volumes around their comparative sweet spot rising, and Intel's volumes around their comparative disadvantage falling.
That's just one additional component of the price signal. There's also the possibility that the price signal is being used to fire a warning shot over AMD's bow, that Intel is preparing to use their enormous war chest to engage in scorched-earth, oxygen-sucking anti-competitive tactics.
Pricing theory. There's more to it than derp derp derp "gouge".
Direct competition aside, the threat of power-efficient ARM designs in the data center might not have pressed Intel's feet to the fire, but I'm pretty sure Intel's feet have remained at least somewhat toasty, over this long decade of mainstream-CPU quasi-monopolistic seller's market.
You make the difference out to be going from a lawn-chair lemonade stand at the ultimate congestion point in the Medina airport to breaking rocks in a South African prison camp. No, it's more like going from a light sweat to a heavy sweat. Of all companies, Intel has never not proceeded by the sweat of its brow.
Only the paranoid survive.
Hike the margins while you still can!
More IPC, more SOI, more FinFET!
You want to see gouging? Ask any Intel engineer to lift his (or her) shirt.