Guesss what moron: You can buy vastly cheaper Intel parts that are price competitive with AMD and still having faster performance. But since you are some irrational kick of comparing parts that shouldn't be compared, LET'S PLAY: AMD was stupid enough to release a $900 CPU that's provably slower in practically every workload than my boring old Haswell part that cost $550 less and doesn't cause the lights to dim when I turn it on. Therefore, I get to say that ALL AMD parts cost at least $550 too much using your irrational fanboy logic! YOU'RE WINNER!
Here are a couple more reasons:
1. Intel CPUs are only twice the price because you ignorantly choose to compare top-end Intel parts against AMD parts that have a fraction of the performance. P.S.: I know that you are a liar and that you never owned or even used a 4670K... because 4670K goes for $229 on Newegg, while that magic A10 part goes for $150... Now you obviously went to a young-earth creationist school, but here in "reality" $229 is a hell of a lot less than twice of $150..
Oh and I also know that AMD APUs don't magically make RAM, SSDs, etc. magically cheaper so the overall delta in system price is a joke when you consider the fact that the $229 4670K is guaranteed to be faster than AMD's 2014 product lineup where you get to spend another $150+ for Kaveri then spend more for a new motherboard... in order to be slower & guzzling more power than what you could have already owned. So, please, tell me again how a new motherboard + $150 APU is CHEAPER than a system that is guaranteed to have a faster CPU, has a $75 video card that is guaranteed to give better performance, and has a lower power envelope.. I INVITE YOU.
Evidence, you stupid shill, something that you don't like to read:
Another reason why it's morally superior to buy Intel if you care about open source instead of just being some shill who acts like he is a God because he made it halfway through an Ubuntu install once:
AMD has dumped some out of date documentation on the internet for third parties to do their Linux driver development for free... Intel *pays* people to develop the entire Linux graphics stack.. and yes, that includes pretty much the entire infrastructure that makes it possible for any AMD gpu to run in Linux. If you want to be such a purist do this: Take out all the code that bad-old Intel wrote and see how well your amazing AMD graphics work on Linux, now do the reverse with AMD & Intel: guess what still runs fine because AMD doesn't do squat for the Linux graphics stack?
I choose to do the morally right thing (and intelligent thing) by spending less than 10% more on the total purchase price to get parts that are faster on a price/performance basis than AMD in the CPU and support Linux. You obviously don't choose that, but please stop acting like anyone who doesn't goose-step to your marching music should be sent to a Kim-Jong camp, OK?