Why, do you have a nice arse? lol
No, I'm not such a big fan of the FX8k series, I've said that on many occasions before. They require pretty solid mobos, and as a solution they are not the cheapest deal for every application. I also use Intel products myself, and I'm a big fan of Intel Atom in general, and if AMD isn't careful, Intel Atom based chips will soon outperform AMD APU's, because right now, it's already possible to game quite well on quad core Bay Trail Celerons, which are nothing else but Atom Silvermonts basically. Of course the IGPU only has 4 ROPs, so GPU-dependent games are out of the question, but a lot of really popular games are not CPU dependent. Nonetheless, those games also run perfectly fine on any cheap AMD CPU or APU, and an APU can also offer pretty good graphical performance for the price.
The problem I have with the Intel Core range, is that it's evolving towards the same problem as Windows 8/8.1/10... they are becoming products of which - when you look at them objectively - you ask yourself "who is this made for". I get lower power (Atom is great for this), I get more cores for better and more economical asset management, but I don't get selling pretty much the same over and over again for more money, forcing people to upgrade mobos and memory, when there is no compelling performance reason to upgrade. If you get an i5, you have better IPC than on an FX8k, yet your total computing experience isn't any better than on an FX6k, in fact, for people that stream (and there is a lot of that going on since Steam In-House streaming, which is wildly popular!), the FX6k will probably still be the better choice than the i5.
Again, the problem is not that there is a need for more IPC, the problem is that people use a lot of software that is not optimized for modern computing, and that's not even that modern, multicore processing in consumer systems has been a thing for about a decade now. More IPC can compensate for some of that, but not in a very efficient way, in fact, it's fucking expensive.
Another thing is that AMD offers a great linux experience, because the products are full-featured and just work. Intel is still developing a lot of modern operating system features, and some products lack proper support, don't perform that well, or there are all kinds of problems with them, and not only for linux, but also in general, because the instruction code contains bugs, because there are hardware bugs (from bad thermal material to mathematical errors or faulty RNG's), because of bugs in UEFI or in chipset controllers. AMD has a lot less of those, because they take more time to bring products to market. That's the price of bringing stuff first to market, it's just how it is, and if that new stuff is basically pretty much the same as the old stuff, then I don't think it's worth the money to be honest.