Because AMD sucks? 

Just follow the money, who else has the means and the incentive to gimp the 3d performance of almost every computer on the market today? The average IGP performance of their products has increased from greater than the performance of the PS2 to about the level of the Wii today. Much of the heavy leaning for these IGP processors is infact done by the PC CPU. They did this to prevent Nvidia/ATI from subverting their business model and to maintain their X86 monopoly in the PC market. In doing what they are doing, they shunted graphics card makers into a profitable niche, unable to leverage the performance of their cards into anything but 3d graphics and therefore they were able to maintain the level of importance of their CPUs. They did this to give themselves time to release their X86 based Larrabee GPU/CPU hybrid which they can attach to the CPU and further marginalise the lower end PC graphics hardware. In the end they will win the battle with the OEMs, because simple all in one systems will rule the day in the pre-built systems market. The good guys in this equation are ATI, AMD, Micrososft and Nvidia.

Well at least thats what I just thought, what do you think?

no they don't. They have great processors for the low to mid-end PCs. Its the mid-high end Intel takes over the market with.