Not trying too troll, but why does this site seem to be so anti AMD?

If someone is restricted by budget then they're restricted by budget. That's fine, many people have different budgets to work with. If we could all afford top of the line there would be no reason for multiple products. It depends on the task at hand. If someone is looking at gaming, most games perform just as well on an i3 than an fx 8350 and the i3 is cheaper - without even considering skylake. If someone isn't gaming and instead video encoding then the fx 8350 might be a fine budget choice, a bit better than the i3 and around the same as a slightly more expensive i5 so in that case it makes sense.

If someone were considering the 9590 (since fx 9000 cpu's were mentioned) they would be better off going with intel. The 9590 requires a high end board like an asus crosshair v formula z (around $216) or an asrock 990fx extreme 9 (around $170). It also needs decent liquid cooling like an h100i or h115i, something along those lines which runs another $100-120. The cpu itself runs right about $200 and is clocked so high at the factory it often has very little headroom.

Working with a budget like that someone could afford an i5 or i7, pair it with a decent motherboard (it wouldn't have to be bottom of the barrel) and a decent cooler and still end up with a stronger/faster pc whether for gaming or other tasks. Not to mention sidestep the power issues common with the fx 9590 and use less power while generating less heat, all additional fringe benefits.

With zen being on the horizon it hasn't made much sense to invest in the fx platform, not when zen will mean a new cpu, new ddr4 ram, a new motherboard, a reinstall of windows. People looking to buy new systems are often pointed to intel where it makes more sense to invest their money. The ability to start with an i3, have the rest of the system in place and making a cpu only upgrade down the road pretty painless with decent gains moving to either an i5 or i7. If someone chooses to invest in an fx 4xxx/6xxx then 8xxx is really the only place they have to go. Performance just isn't that greatly different between a 6xxx and 8xxx so there's a low upgrade ceiling there. For significant performance improvements for say a gamer, they'd be better off moving to intel at the moment than adding two more relatively weak cores to the ones they already have.

Amd is aware of their issues and it's what they're looking to address with upcoming zen. Improvement in ipc performance and improvements in efficiency. If the current fx line were just fine despite what people say then amd would likely go with another round of fx cpu's. Benchmarks highlight the differences. Unfortunately amd hasn't been in the position to develop an fx replacement any sooner than zen, they're likely working as hard as they can to get it to store shelves.

I don't think it's a matter of people hating amd, it just makes little sense in most situations either for budget or upper end. Having such a small niche where it proves to be good bang for the buck has given them an uphill battle. That coupled with the financial or technical inability to hurry up and put the lid on fx with a more competitive replacement. They wound up stuck with the product they had for 4-5yrs (which is a long time in tech) and what can they do besides try and walk a fine line between pricing adjustments and giving their product away entirely. Intel has made similar mistakes in the past but due to their size and resources they had the ability to quickly overcome and redesign their cpu to push forward.