What's the chance your taking? Intel has dropped the ball in many ways, both long and short term, from their handling of Spectre/Meltdown, to pricing, to technology rollouts, and more. AMD has been a reliable player in the CPU hardware space for decades.

So, please explain what risks you are taking on by choosing a device that satisfies your needs but has an AMD CPU inside instead of something else.

I'll forever be baffled at people treating one of the biggest semiconductor companies in the world which has historically released products which easily outlast the rest of the components in the system as some fly-by-night alternative to Intel.

This sentiment also caused my family to get a Pentium4 over the superior Athlon64 years back and I'm still salty.

...and the Athlon XP in early P4 days (Willamette and Northwood).

...and the Athlon in P3 days, but that was a closer call.

...and (IIRC?) the K6 in P2 days, but that was before my time.

In retrospect, AMD's fallout past the Athlon64- and prior to the Ryzen-era is actually the odd one out in the company's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_microprocessors

I think most consumers are not very knowledgeable of chip manufacturers. A business guy buys Dell/lenovo, couldn't care less what chip is inside.

At most they might check if it has a graphics card, or number of cores

IT professionals usually buy the hardware, and they're typically somewhat familiar with the market. As far as CPUs go, their options are "does this person need an i5 or an i7". When buying server hardware they'll gloss over the selection of Xeon systems their budget can accommodate.

You rarely get consequences for buying Intel/Cisco/etc, no matter how overpriced and otherwise maladapted their products may be.

So Intel ~= IBM? Things make so much sense after realizing this.

Users don't switch. They buy whatever is in their price range