Earlier on (1990s, early 2000s), I liked AMD because I tend to gravitate to the "underdog" and against the huge successful corporation (Intel), similar to how (1980s and most of the 1990s), I resisted PC-compatible computers and used Apple II and Amiga computers instead, including in the case of Amiga, using on the relatively early internet.
In the 2000s, I liked AMD because they seemed much cheaper for the performance I could get out of them, at least that was my impression. I really had to keep to very low budgets. I didn't build an Intel-based PC until 2016 (and then a similar one for my oldest brother in 2017), because I was curious, and possibly fed up with some performance problems on AMD that I don't particularly remember details of now. I was mostly very happy with my Intel PC, which is now my wife's. It has 32 GB of RAM.
My one and three-quarter's-old PC I most recently built uses AMD again - mostly because I like using many Hyper-V virtual PCs, so having many CPU cores (24 core/48-thread) and a huge amount of RAM (256 GB) helps. At the time, from my research, I would've had to spend an even greater amount on a similar Intel setup. Supply issues might've also been a factor. Enough time has passed that I don't recall all the reasons, but I suppose in general, the AMD setup was too good to pass up on.
All these years, whenever I was researching parts for a new PC for myself or to build for someone else, I always research both the AMD and Intel possibilities. I'm open to building another Intel setup in the future, if the price to performance ratio is right.