First of all, I apologise for my double post, a rule that i've broken because the edit action for my last reply expired.
Second, let's talk about our main subject:
1. What do you think about the perception that AMD heats up quicker than intel
These are special cases that are related with past AMD products and we're talking about both CPUs and GPUs. However, back in the days when the FX series was the best of what AMD could offer, Intel progressed with their CPUs making them better and better while AMD stagnated with their old FX series. I must say that AMD also tried to rise up from the ashes by releasing their FX 9000 series which was a total fail. That CPU was insignificantly better than its precedent FX 8000 series and consumed a monstrous quantity of power. Further details will show that it was an expensive CPU and even a motherboard that offered support for the FX 9000 series, its price was just absurd and unjustified.
Intel also had their own CPUs on which you could cook some eggs, but because of the conjuncture in witch those things happened, AMDs reputation fall down while Intel continued to grow up.
AMD FX series (except 9000) and the new Ryzen series never had any thermal problems. It must be said that there are some people who used to overclock the FX CPUs while using an inappropriate cooling system like a the stock cooler, which was really weak even for the main stock clock.
You can kind off deduce from my paragraphs the reasons of why people tend to label AMD as a brand who like to make boiler type processors.
2. Why is AMD cheaper?
From their fresh start AMDs main goal was to conquer the low and medium budget market. In order to do so they needed to make their products cheap while maintaining a high quality level. AMD is cheaper because "cheaper" is a part of their identity.
Now AMD made allot of good products but people like to forget this aspect because of the fails with the FX series.
- First dual core CPUs AMD Athlon x2 were absolutely stunning in their era
- First quad core CPU from AMD, the Phenom II x4 was a complete beast and it can still be used today. With an 1060 or RX 480 (which will be bottlenecked) you can max out today's games in 1080p and still get a better performance than consoles could offer.
- The FX series was great and the FX 8300 can still achieve nowadays 50-60 FPS (or more ofc) in the latest games in 1080p max out, when paired with a GTX 1060 or RX 480/RX 580.
Now the Ryzen series offers you much better performance than its predecessor FX, offers stability to your in game FPS, it pairs better with the new GPUs, its calculation speed is significantly higher and it makes a huge difference in video rendering or 3D modelling. It uses the new DDR4 and overall, it's just a better CPU that worth the money.
CPU vs Intel?
Depends on what do you want to be honest, but nowadays AMD competes directly with Intel and beats them in many aspects in which Intel has no reply yet. Do not get me wrong, Intel is still really good when it comes to their CPUs, do not get me wrong.
Having two rivals that can compete at all three levels of low/mid/high will bring us only benefits because in these conditions, quality is the one that will rise up first.