Well, perhaps it's a pragmatic thing after all. Let's look at some history of processor pricing to get an idea (US prices for reference, but it should be a decent reference point).
Way back when Intel released the Pentium 2, it was on a different interface than the previous consumer cpus. Prior to this, AMD and Intel processors shared the same motherboards in many cases, K5 and K6 series in Socket 7 alongside Pentium and Pentium MMX, and if course before that, 386 and 486. Aside from some various leapfrogging, the general rule was that Intel was often faster, but also more expensive. In these days however pricing even for modest PCs were still fairly high.
When P2 hit, essentially a consumer version of the Pentium Pro / P6 with some enhancements, using a cartridge format to store a good bit of local but off-die cache (contrast to previous gens depending on motherboard cache!) and generally being a pretty expensive upgrade all around but with some definite advantages. AMD was forced to stay on Socket 7, working with some mfgs to create 'Super 7' motherboards to stay in competition, and pushing faster FSB, more cache, and instruction set innovation like 3dnow to try and compete. Pretty quickly it became a mixed bag. Very competitive in some areas, but badly behind in others, AMD really needed a new architecture and new motherboard design to compete with the higher range Pentium II and III CPUs. But, the pricing tended to heavily favor AMD for value, but high ASP for Intel.
So, AMD K7 on Slot A, Irongate Chipset. This first gen was basically a head to head equal footing with Intel, and, the pricing reflected this. Then process tech improved to no longer need off-die cache, so cheaper interfaces went back to sockets for both AMD and Intel, but they didn't start sharing motherboards again. Socket A vs 370, Athlon, Duron, and Athlon XP vs Pentium III and Celeron. Aggressive price wars brought PC prices way down for pretty reasonable performance, savvy overclocking could make for some stellar systems with wise choices of particularly good AMD or Intel options.
Some funny things happened during this time frame. Race to 1Ghz, and at least twice, Intel released CPUs that were basically overclocked/barely stable at stock speeds. The initial slot 1 Pentium III 600 used 2.05v instead of 2.0v, and it was not uncommon for them to fail in benchmarks. It happened again when Intel tried to go beyond 1Ghz and a 1.13Ghz P3 was so bad it had to be recalled.
Looking forward a bit, Intel really hit a wall with the move to the Pentium 4 Willamette on Socket 423. On paper, the new CPU sounded amazing. Huge leaps forward in clock speed, new buzzwords like netburst, new technology like Hyperthreading. And tied initially to a very fast but VERY expensive new memory called RDRAM, aka Rambus. This was something of a Waterloo for Intel, as it fared rather poorly in a lot.of things compared to ever faster Athlon XPs, using way cheaper motherboard, DDR memory, and CPU pricing. This gave Intel a black eye for most of these years in terms of value and even performance amongst many enthusiasts.
The interesting thing is that once Intel got to the improved generations of the Pentium 4, it was actually a very good CPU. Northwood revisions on 533 and 800 bus, with improved DDR memory remained equal or faster than Athlon XP for basically the duration of these generations, with both AMD and Intel also offering compelling lower models that were very capable of overclocking to the top echelons to compete with $1000 models. And whether you hit Athlon XP 3000+/3200+ or 3-3.4Ghz P4, you had a monster for the era.
Then we got to the most vulnerable period in the history of Intel. The new Prescott die shrink of Pentium 4 was a bitter disappointment, offering little improvement to speak of, and even having worse thermals and some IPC drop compared to the outstanding Northwood C variants. This couldn't be more poorly timed, as AMD began rolling out first Opteron Socket 940, and then Athlon 64 on both socket 940 and 939. A profound performance lead opened up favoring AMD in most cases, particularly so when looking at clock speeds and efficiency. In the very beginning it was more subtle, but as AMD moved beyond the initial 3200+ range to 3500+, 3800+, and beyond, Intel was unable to ramp P4 Prescott up to remain competitive, eventually having to scrap plans for the entire roadmap they had planned.
But, this success did not come at bargain prices. AMD moved ASP sharply up, and in 2003-2006 era, when they offered the Athlon 64 FX and X2 models, they began to outright flip and become the more expensive option in a lot of scenarios. $1000 flagship models became common, and with their X2s, their 'bargain' model was over $500, with a cheaper option not appearing until much later, and only then for $300+.
Is it possible they could have gathered even better traction with more competitive pricing? Would their shareholders understood? I'm not sure, but in my opinion at least some of their opportunity was blown here, as weirdly you could get more value from a mid-range P4 or Pentium D build for a time, despite the AMD products becoming absolutely supreme in the higher performance tiers.
Then, pretty much a Titanic moment for AMD arrived. Conroe aka Core 2 Duo. I was just looking at the March 9th 2006 Performance Preview and July 14th 2006 reviews of Core 2 Duo, and the comments are insanely entertaining. Several years of AMD offering increasingly dominant products created an atmosphere where many simply couldn't comprehend a leap forward like Conroe represented. Overnight, all previous Intel and AMD products were essentially obsolete. It was a truly monumental leap forward in efficiency. And, although they still offered flagship models ('Extreme' editions), they launched with models less than $200 for dual-core! Instead of over $500 at launch, or $300+ a year later!
The reaction initially looked like confusion, then panic, then desperation. We were told to wait for Phenom, which was supposed to be AMDs response. It whimpered out the door, buggy, slow, and with hardly a chance. Phenom I was a disgrace.
The Core 2 family continued to get faster, and with more options from dirt cheap to quad core monsters of their day. And pricing remained fairly good in the budget and mid-range areas, despite this dominance.
AMD managed to get the Phenom II out the door, which brought them roughly on par with Core 2 Quad + or - in most things. And this was very good, but perhaps poorly timed. Ph2 was was the first Phenom should have been, and then in 2009 Intel launched first the pro socket 1366 CPUs, then soon after moved to Socket 1156 and then 1155, and the Core i3/i5/i7 became more than Phenom II could keep up with. It was irrevocably forced to the 'bargain' segment, as even i3s offered superior gaming performance, and a 2500k or so could reach levels that Phenom II could not follow.
AMD had something of another 'Phenom I' moment with the AMD 'FX', compromised designs that were supposed to get them back into the flagship battles, but it was a mixed bag of ultimately disappointing products. Very good at a handful of tasks, but failing in efficiency and especially chipset features, and at its best only with fairly expensive motherboards. This replaced Phenom II as at least a decent 'bargain' PC option though.
It all changed when Ryzen hit. You'd have to back to Athlon 64 to see a time when AMD had something this solid. Class leading in various areas, and capable of meeting the competition at a huge variety of market segments, the Ryzen architecture has been a home run. You saw situations where a $300-$500 Ryzen handily outperformed $1000 and up Intel products in virtually all areas. It forced Intel to the table with 6 and 8 core consumer i5 through i9 major upgrades, and even bringing i3 to quad core status.
Unlike their leadership during the AMD64 days however, they're not seeming to push for monstrous price increases. In fact, their pricing actually dropped between 1000 series and 2000 series. Perhaps they observed Intel finding good balance during the Sandy Bridge through Kaby Lake era : $100-$300 roughly for consumer models, and this brought continued success. Intel could have been very greedy here, setting the floor at $1k for i7 models, etc, but it would have been an unpopular and ultimately self defeating move. By not going crazy with pricing despite the performance crown, Intel managed to keep respectable popularity with consumers during this dominant period.
Now with Ryzen being stellar competition, it appears that they are definitely not repeating their chase into absurd pricing like the old days.
That said, we don't know for sure what Ryzen 3000 series will bring. I am pretty confident that it will be a solid upgrade, but I do not really believe it will be anything earth shattering. However, most crucially for those buying in this time frame, it offers at least some path forward with new SKUs and upgrade potential, whereas current Intel motherboards do not.
As a very happy owner of an Intel build, it is still easy for me to say that current Ryzen options make a great deal of sense in many situations. Yours is probably one of the easiest ones to see where Ryzen is nearly ideal.