You're comparing business scenarios that are not directly comparable. In the exclusive game scenario, the console maker isn't selling anything...they are buying smoething. They are attempting to entice the game developer to create an exclusive product for their console; but all console manufacturers are able to openly bid for that exclusive. And it also has to be considered that, although we often have spirited debates about which console is "winning" in this or that generation, historically all of the modern console companies have actually done pretty well for themselves...i.e., no one console has 90% or the market, or whatever.
But the same is not true in the chip scenario. Intel is selling their chips to OEMs, and they are offering deeper discounts to companies that legally agree to not buy from AMD. And again, it doesn't help that Intel has an overwhelming majority over AMD. The scenario simply does not pass the smell test for anticompetitive practices.
If you really want to compare this to console exclusives, the scenario would have to be something more like Sony tells Rockstar that unless GTA4 is a PS3 exclusive, they will not allow Rockstar to publish any game on the PS3.
I don't think I can explain this any better. If you still don't get it, I almost think you don't want to get it because you don't like it very much. But laissez faire economy was tried 150 odd years ago, and it didn't work; so what we have is actually good, whether or not you or anyone else understands or likes it.
There are always two sides to any given story, the fact that Intel has not settled this out of court tells me that either too much is at stake for them and/or they feel they have a strong case. I feel that in the US this case would have little merit, AMD had constantly increased their market share and profitability during the time frame of the alleged anticompetitive practices. Does anyone recall what the athlon 64 x2 cost back back in 2005? The x2 3800 cost upwards of $350(that price gouge still irks me) ...
If Intel forced large OEMs to agree to not use AMD cpus then yes that would be anticompetitive... However OEMs like Dell, Hp, Compaq ect are all about margins, expensive CPUs(like x2s back in 05) do not help those margins. Nor would AMDs lack of manufacturing capacity which recently has been outsourced to Chartered and TSMC en mass. All I'm saying is I doubt it took much (if any) arm twisting to get the OEMs exclusivity.