Both companies make very good chips, and whether individual products or the whole product line are superior is often genuinely debatable. They duel with performance benchmarks, and often end up arguing over whether a benchmark is biased. Sometimes the difference isn't so easily quantifiable, like the accessory features you're talking about.

Given that, I was examining the externalities that might explain why two competitors with closely comparable products might perform so differently in the marketplace. One thing to keep in mind is that very few consumers buy chips. The companies that make the computers that consumers buy, purchase the chips, and their decision is influenced by such things as pricing, volume discounts, co-marketing agreements (we all know "Intel Inside", but can you think of an equivalent "AMD Inside"?), delivery schedules and guarantees, developer support (Intel provides large software libraries optimized for their chips; most software has a little bit of Intel Inside, too), and on and on and on. Intel periodically gets called on the carpet to answer for allegedly anticompetitive features of their OEM agreements, suggesting that they play aggressively right up to the edge, and perhaps AMD is a bit more conservative in their business practices.

Business is complex. A marketing guru I worked with many years ago boiled it down to its essentials: "A good product with mediocre marketing will fail. A mediocre product with good marketing will succeed." The world might not beat a path to your door to buy your better mousetrap, if along the way they're diverted by a slick sales pitch for your competitor.