Most of Intel's desktop Core i3s are STILL running circles around AMD in single threaded performance tests. Sure, if you can use 8+threads AMD has a few decent options, but that's not most consumer workloads.
Most consumer workloads won't tax either processor, the AMD chip costs a lot less, and the AMD chipset costs a lot less, too. When the system is "good enough" (even my old-ass 1045T is peppy both when puttering around and also when the system is heavily loaded) and literally a couple hundred dollars cheaper between the cost of the CPU and the cost of the motherboard, a lot of people are going to go AMD. I have other places to spend my money, and wringing a few more FPS out of a game isn't worth adding 20% or more to the cost of the system.
For highly-parallelized tasks, AMD is still cheaper than intel flop for flop, and if you're planning to throw all your servers away every few years as many businesses do, you can punt on the power consumption issue. For a home user, it's usually not even on the radar. And it's not like AMD is just burning power, either. The lowest-end systems still have better graphics than intel; though I'm certainly no fan of ATI graphics, intel is only now getting serious about graphics performance, or perhaps that's becoming competent in.
If you need/want balls-out single thread performance, or can be convinced that it's important to you even when it isn't, sure you're going to buy intel. But you're going to pay a premium. It has been ever thus. At times, it made great sense, because for example around the P55C vs. K6 days everyone else had apparently forgotten completely how to make a chipset. Today, not so much.