A 2011 system is too expensive for most users, not only in absolute terms, but also in terms of general economy. Most users don't need CPUs that cost more than 100 USD. Even for gaming, an i3 or Athlon or APU is more than enough. With higher end parts come higher end peripherals, cooling, motherboards with heavier power assemblies, etc... most of that is just a waste of money. I do agree that the Intel 1150-offering is ambiguous, in that it blocks a lot of highly necessary functions like hardware virtualization.
That's what makes the AMD platform attractive: AMD doesn't have the ambition to sell high end stuff, not in their CPUs, not in their GPUs, not in their embedded solutions, they aspire to bring full-featured, stable, affordable hardware, and for instance require motherboard manufacturers to support all the chipset features in their products, whereas with Intel, motherboard manufacturers can block chipset features. AMD also doesn't invest in high performance GPU card development, they just leave that to the GPU card manufacturers, and they don't limit the range of performance optimisation the GPU OEMs can do, whereas nVidia does.
Since AMD is not a US controlled company anymore, but depend on ATIC for the most part of their hardware and technology decisions, they have really come a long way and have stepped out of Intel's shadow. They have adopted the "Volkswagen Golf" business model, and it's working quite well for them. Even an FX 9590 is sold a a lower price than an intel i7-4770k, and both require about the same price range of motherboard and cooling solution to work at maximum potential.
Intel fanboys are those that buy an i7-4770k to run it on a cheaper motherboard and with a cheaper cooling solution... result: the CPU autothrottles down to the performance level of an i5-4300M, the system can't do hardware virtualization which means no gaming without infecting the hardware with Microsoft malware, etc... so a lot of money being thrown away, and for the same money, even by sticking with Intel CPUs, a much better system could have been bought, for instance with an i5-4670 (non-k), which shares the "sweet spot" of performance per buck for an entire system with the AMD FX-6300/6350 for instance. Both work with less expensive motherboards, are less expensive to buy in the first place, deliver more than enough performance for most users, and leave place in the budget for hardware that really improves the system performance, like for instance a good SSD and a stronger GPU.
People that need a stronger CPU than an i5-4670 (non-k) or AMD FX-6300/6350, should consider an Intel X79-based system, but many of those users, should really be looking at C226-systems or other real workstation and server boards. The X79-systems and AMD FX-8/9000 series systems cater for a very specific category of users. The general market for 1150- or FM2/AM3-systems with less cores, is much larger, the strange thing is that many users buy the least balanced configurations within that range, but hey, that's how Intel makes its money, and that's why Intel can get away with blocking vital functionality in it's most expensive 1150-products...