I'm an AMD fan because I've been following CPUs and GPUs since the mid 1970s (when I invented and built my first desktop from individual integrated circuits and wire and solder and etc.) -- and I've seen that the competition is "shady". I don't knowingly support "shady".

Dell (a really big name at the turn of the millennium) was making these types of statements a decade and a half ago, when AMD actually had the best CPUs. Later, it was proven that Intel was paying Dell "under the table" to only use Intel. One article back then noted that Dell's total profits for one year was equal to the amount Intel paid under the table that year. At that time Dell said nice words but never used an AMD CPU in a Dell product (to the detriment of their unknowing customers).

However, the lack of good AMD publicity from Dell and others, kept average-customers (who don't constantly read about and study the industry) thinking that Intel was best. Nope, it was only the most expensive.

Ultimately, there was an over $1 Billion settlement in AMD's favor. I'm not sure its been paid yet. That type of thing really set AMD back at the time. They never got the business they earned (by product quality). They had to sell their chip making facilities just to stay in business. This set their research back. Ultimately, Intel CPUs caught up and passed AMD technically (though AMD still had bang per buck). AMD trailed Intel technically -- until now -- now, they've caught up technically (and still have bang per buck).

But, Dell and Intel keep on "giving" -- to each other. And, I see by the above article the "press" sees it too.