I look at how much work a processor can actually do in terms of 'Instructions per cycle': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle
You would think that an 8-core AMD processor running at the same speed as an Intel 4-core CPU with HT would win this battle but it doesn't.

From what I've gathered, the fanboys seem to be those who can't afford a high-end graphics cards.  Nvidia is the big "evil" corporation who excludes AMD from its many technologies and continues to increase prices, so it seems natural for someone who can't afford something like a GTX Titan XP or GTX 1080 to bash it.  On the various forums I've been on to discuss PC hardware, the fanboys seem to be those with mid-to-low-range graphics cards.  Folks with Fury X's seem to be neutral and quite pleased with their purchase, whereas it's this constant "RX 480 vs. 1060" thing to the others.  I actually think this hatred towards Nvidia isn't just from AMD fanboys, but many consumers in general.  It goes back to the notion of "big evil corporation taking advantage of little ol' me."  The same goes for Intel.  I think a little education in the realm of industrial organization could help these people.

I was an AMD fanboy in the early 2000s when my first 1ghz cpu was an AMD, then my first dual-core cpu was an AMD, and then my first 64-bit cpu was an AMD. Then Core 2 Duo hit from Intel and I think that's around the time AMD got left in the dust, and they've never caught up. I'd had Intel cpus before, and I've had Intel cpus since, and I really like them. I liked my AMD processors too. I have nothing against AMD at all, they just haven't offered me a cpu that was really enticing since maybe 2008 or 2009 or whatever.
 
Maybe they'll do that with Zen, though it'll be a little late for me, since I'm rebuilding around an i7 6900 right now. But if AMD can pull off 6900-like performance for $200-300 cheaper than Intel that'll be a good thing for the industry. I'd like to see them succeed.
 
It's similar with the Nvidia/AMD thing in the graphics space. I've pretty much just stuck with NVidia since the early 2000s simply because for my money they were always faster performing than ATI/AMD, and the quality was high. AMD simply hasn't given me a reason to switch. Now, if AMD releases a new gpu that's twice as fast as my 1080, and costs just $500, I may well go out and buy one.

Simple. People being cheap and not willing to pay for the good stuff. I don't even consider or look at any AMD cpu's or gpu's. I see AMD being a good budget brand and nothing else. It will always be Intel and Nvidia for me with cpu's and gpu's. If AMD ever got ahead for once. I might give them a glance. Until then. Yeah...

My first Cpu was a Amd the Gpu was Nvidia used with it. I played games for 14 hrs straight on it, it got so hot it shut down the computer. Once it cooled down the Gpu. I fired it back up and it still ran fine . Later I got looking @ it and it had got so hot it had warped the board. From that day on Nvidia for me. I am not a rich person but i want my products to last for a long time. Some times it not the bang for the buck but how long that product is going to last. I tried a Amd GPU 1 time after that experience. Brand new top of the line Amd Card. It got so hot you could cook dinner on it ! On top of that the Audio wouldnt work. Took it straight back to Microcenter and bought a GTX-295 plus, it still works today.

Prices are very reasonable for AMD graphics card but if you want incredible performance then you should stick to NVIDIA high end based graphics cards. 

Zuhl3156
I almost bought an AMD desktop by HP from Walmart around 2006 or 2007 but that was before I knew better. Shortly afterwards HP announced they would no longer use AMD products and that was the clincher for me. I didn't know nothing about nothing at the time. All I know is that it met the minimum specs I needed to play certain games I had purchased.

I think that is AMD's point.  They are there for those who don't know any difference.  As a community, we are above normal computer users with knowledge of benchmarks and performances.  I recently helped a friend iron out some issues with his desktop.  It was an AMD...about a year or so old generation.  Windows 10 upgrade did a number on his machine, because of all the drivers released from Microsoft.  I installed all the proper drivers for AMD chipset, GPU, etc...and got the machine back to normal performance.  Then I proceeded to show him my rig with i7 5820K, 980 TI, and the like.  His answer to me was "My machine does what I want it to do and didn't cost me an arm and a leg"  I think that is most people's answer.  They don't know any better from a 980TI to an HD6450 (used this example as a massive performance gap).  They just want functional for internet, maybe word processing and photoshop elements.  Our goal is to push every last drop of performance from our machines...so we tweak, fiddle and tweak some more.
 
I don't think it is that AMD fanboys are cheap.  I think that they are happy with the middle ground, as long as it does what they want.  I have owned pretty recent iterations of AMD GPU (HD 7850) and it was  a nice card.  I had it in my wife's rig and frankly for what she does, it was more than adequate.  It never failed, nor caused any driver problems.  I recently replaced it with a 4GB version of the 960 SSC.  Honestly, if I were of the class of user that didn't know the difference...what "difference" would it make.  Probably very little, if any. When Nvidia releases new drivers, we immediately download them and install.  Then we run benchmarks and admit that the new drivers cost me 100 points in TimeSpy...go back to earlier drivers that gave us that performance.  Most AMD users probably NEVER install updated drivers, until Windows forces them to.  They really don't know the difference.
 
On the other hand...there are the AMD fanboys that are tech aware...trying to squeeze performance as we do.  Those, I don't get.  Curremtly, I look at the RX 460, for example.  There are 2 and 4 gb interations  of the card.  I have seen purchasers complain that the 4 GB version of overkill, because AMD had it set up where no more than 2GB of the memory is used at ANY time, until one purchases a second card for "Crossfire".  OK...yet they purchase the cards expecting performance anyways. 
 
There are all kinds of computer users out there.  Some get it and some don't care to.  That is how I think AMD sets their goals...for the average user, whom may never care.
 
Just my 2 cents.

I actually bought a Dell for my wife around 7 or 8 years ago. I've never had my own personal PC that I didn't build myself, but for my wife, she didn't want nor need what I would want or need, and it was cheap and got the job done. I replaced the hard drive with a 256gb SSD a year or two ago as a preemptive measure knowing that the hard drive wouldn't last forever, and the SSD made the machine feel snappier, which was nice. I picked up a really cheap upgraded CPU for my wife's machine off eBay that gave her like a 50% faster cpu for like $25. That machine will always be "fast enough" for my wife's purposes until someday it just dies. At that time I will consider using the cheapest AMD APU and doing a rebuild on her machine to keep her going.

Which all kind of supports what bobmitch just said. 

But that's not the way it used to be. Back in the early to mid 2000s AMD was at least tied with Intel and at times ahead of them. My first 1ghz was AMD not because it was cheaper. It was actually better. For nostalgia's sake check out this review from Anand Lal Shimpi of the 1ghz AMD Athlon vs the fastest Intel chips running Quake III Arena. AMD has 3 out of the 4 fastest framerates, including #1. In 2005 AMD shipped a dual-core server processor before Intel did, and then Intel only beat them to dual core on the desktop by like a couple weeks. And the AMD dual-core desktop chips rocked, as this gaming benchmark showed. We have AMD to thank for the x86-64 architecture that we all run today. They designed it and released the first Opteron processors. When Intel later released their own 64-bit x86 chips they had to follow AMD's lead and used AMD's 64-bit instruction set.
 
Also, AMD chips commonly used the same socket for 2 or 3 generations, while Intel was changing sockets with almost every new iteration. This made AMD machines more upgradeable. I slapped an AMD AthlonX2 4200 in 2007 or 2008 into a machine I'd originally built in early 2005 with an Athlon64 3000 single core, and it worked just fine. With Intel, at that time, I'd have had to replace the motherboard and probably also the RAM for a similar such upgrade.

So there were very good reasons for people to be AMD fans back in the 2000s. My memory is rusty enough that I'm not 100% positive anymore, but I think it really was with the Core 2 Duo release that Intel finally grabbed the performance lead back and never relinquished it. It's like AMD kicked Intel's butt into gear, and made Intel really improve, and then once Intel was pushing hard again AMD just couldn't keep up anymore.
 
It makes me sad how AMD has struggled over the last 8 or 9 years to catch up, or at least remain relevant, in the cpu space. It really will be interesting to see how they're looking once they release Zen. My prediction is that the fastest Intel chips will still be faster (they recently down-clocked an i7 6900 to 3.0 ghz to compare it with a 3.0 ghz Zen), but the Zen and other AMD chips will be as fast or faster than at least mid-range and lower Intel chips. I really hope they pull it off, because if they do, the next 3-4 years will see cpu improvements from both companies that will have our jaws hitting the floor. Competition is a great thing to have in the marketplace.
 
 

seth89
What makes a fanboy period?
Who cares what other people use?

I gave AMD a chance back in the R9 290x days.
Why? Well a 290 with a water block was 500 bucks and a titan was 1,500 bucks.
The math said get three water cooled R9 290 cards for 1,500 bucks.
Its been a good ride so far, CCC drivers were rock solid and Crimson/Windows 10 have been great too. My cards just keep getting faster.
But because I had a good run with them doesn't mean my next rig and all rigs will only be AMD, I think its going to come down to who is giving me the most power for the best price.
However using the R9 stuff in my builds and other builds I can see why people like it so much and I can also see who doesn't know what they are talking about when they start bashing it.

The CPUs are easy to figure out. They are dirt cheap and will run any game with no problems. Will they ever out perform a intel CPU, probably not. But for 100 bucks, who cares.

I still have my R9 290x GPU and use them for Folding and Crunching and I only got them to Fold because at the time Stanford had no real tasks that would run on NVIDIA GPU. Remember Core 15.
They are only cheep GPUs to Crunch and Fold on now. Would I buy a newer Model Card? No
But then I am still not so sure about the cost you now have to pay for the current models that are now out.
With this I would like to See AMD come out with a Card that would works as well as the GTX 980 Cards that would be less than half the cost of the Current NVIDIA GTX 1080 Cards. With this I end my 2 Cents.
 
So for your answer to "What induces someone to become an AMD fanboy?" The Cost, in other words they are Cheep.

Ignoring any other reasons which a person may find along their way to becoming an AMD fan, I think the root cause and the thing which triggered their desire to be an AMD fan in the first place is deeply linked to "the underdog complex".
 
https://youtu.be/wwCZF4bGQGI?t=8m45s
 
We like to support people/organizations which demonstrate to us "grit, determination, hard work, and a desire to succeed".