I was a BIG AMD fan back in the Athlon 64 Days. I had a Athlon 64 X2 3400+ 939, later upgrading to a AMD FX-60 CPU in the same socket. Those were the brief days where AMD performance beat out Intels on multi-core systems. However once the i7 series came out, Intel was back on top again. I had i7 920, now a i7 4700K and will be getting i7 7700K once they released. Yes the Intel CPU's are more, but cost per performance is well worth it especially considering I upgrade every 3-4 years.
As far as AMD goes, I had a ATI/AMD Rage 128, Radeon 7000, Radeon-All-In-Wonder 8500DV, then switched to nVidia with a 7900GT, that failed on me, then a 8800GTS, that failed one me, then GTX 275, that failed one me and stupid me got dual GTX 570's in SLI. SLI never works right especially with new releases. Coupled with my fail rate of nVidia chipset cards, I went with a AMD R9 290 which was reasonable price for a video card with top performance. Still have it and still play most games I have on high settings no problem. No plans to uprgade, but when I do for Desktop systems I will be keeping with good luck AMD. For laptops, I've gone nVidia just because they have better graphics switching than AMD currently between integrated and dedicated.
They have my business with video cards, but CPU's they have a long way to go to get me to consider them performance wise. I can't even tell what their newest CPU's are. Intel makes it easy, i3 Basic, i5 mid range i7 high end. and models are easy where in WXYZ, W= generation, XYZ high numbers are faster within the generation. AMD with Their FM2 and AM3+ cores I cant tell whats low end and whats high end easy enough.