^Mega points for sticking with AMD all those years. I jumped ship when my 6400+ was stuttering like crazy in S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Crysis with a brand new and expensive 8800GTX, and AMD's quad core parts kept getting delayed.
i rather die than use Intel in my main rig. There is nothing wrong with their processors (except Netburst), i just cant stand the way they handle things (demands, monopoly, prices, etc)
dont forget that we have i3 with 4 cores, i5 with 6 cores, i7 with 6 cores/12threads, i9, etc because Ryzen. If it wasnt for Ryzen, Intel could still selling i7s with 4cores/8threads like high end at crazy prices...
I know. Who could forget the scandal in 2005-2006 with intel coursing OEMs to use intel chips exclusively. Nvidia is doing a similar thing nowadays - messing up drivers for previous gen cards to cripple performance, locking then unlocking overclocking on laptop GPUs, that Gameworks bullshit, locking clocks on the upcoming GTX 1070ti so it won't eat in GTX 1080 sales, releasing mid-end cards at enthusiast price points, then releasing the enthusiast cards at gargantuan prices, screwing board partners with their bullshit founders edition cards, and being a dick in general - but hey - when I got my 1070, AMD had no alternative to offer. Even now the Vega 56 is hard to find in stock in some places, and in my country it costs as much as a GTX 1080 while the vega 64 costs as much as a 1080ti.
As for the CPU side, intel may have released mainstream 6 core chips, but they still insist on locking their chips and having us pay a hefty premium for the K series. That alone makes me want to stay away. I was hopeful about the 8350k i3 quad core part, but it turns out it's quite a bit more expensive then a Ryzen 3 quad core (and that's just the chip - if you factor in the cost of a Z370 vs a B350 the price gap widens even more). Now why would someone get an 8350k + Z370 when for the same money you could get an R7 1600 + B350 and have two extra cores to play with is beyond me. Single thread performance? Meh. Most ryzen chips will do 4GHz on air, and even if they won't go over that speed, they are more then fast enough for me. The only advantage skylake/kaby lake/ coffee lake cores have is higher clocks. Performance per clock is extremely close to ryzen.
But I degrees. I bought intel chips in 2007 because AMD machines were struggling with the latest games, and I like my games smooth and shiny. The Phenom II line was pushed back so far it became sort of irrelevant when it launched, and the FX series released in 2010 was a huge mess. 8 core chips with 4 crippled floating point units and memory controllers with L3 cache that ran at half the CPU speed like it's 1998 made them poor gaming chips. Cache latency made some games stutter like crazy, even if the overall framarate was acceptable.
If the Phenom II launched the same year the Q9550 did, I would have stayed with AMD - but their first quad core parts were late, underclocked and were not very impressive. Oh well - I'm just glad they caught up now, and can't wait for to mess around with my R7 1700 rig (when it's done).