People are irritated at intel for not making leaps and bounds in performance when they're already well ahead of amd's offerings. Of course if intel were to make those performance leaps and bounds they'd completely bury amd for good and people would complain about that. Why all the intel hate, if people don't like that amd is gimping along why not complain to them? It's not intel's fault they can't keep up.
In terms of the igpu taking up too much room on the chip, that's neither here nor there. There's already 6 and 8 core i7 models without the igpu, they cost $500 and $1000. The 5930k and 5960x. Amd had budget 6 and 8 core cpus and the additional cores aren't helping them out much. They have a struggle matching intel quad cores with their 8 core designs and no competition to intel's 6/8 core cpus. There's no real need for intel to make cheap mainstream 8 core cpus. Not when they're leading the pack with half the hardware.
Intel isn't ripping anyone off. They're not pushing fx 6300 equivalents for $300. As a matter of fact amd had to cut their prices due to their poor performance in an attempt to make their pricing to performance ration comparable to intel's. Amd isn't in the charity business, nor are they the 'bang for the buck' leader - "discount for the fizzle" maybe. If amd hadn't cut prices, could people imagine how ridiculous it would be for an fx 6300 with similar performance to a $120 i3 to be priced the same as a $220 i5? Of course that would be a bargain though, intel's cheapest 6 core is the 5820k at $375 so an fx 6300/6350 at $300 would be a steal right?
Do people think better products should really be no more expensive? It's free market and it's common with everything from electronics to cars to tools. Try and buy a wireless printer/scanner/copier unit capable of scanning at higher dpi with 18ppm color and 28ppm black for the same or less than a budget printer which manages 8ppm color and 12ppm black. Does anyone accuse the better peforming printer of playing games because of the higher pricetag? Especially when it has no competition? People accept that for some reason or they accept that a nicer restaurant costs more than fast food but when it comes to cpu's everyone has a fit.
Today the fx 8350 runs around $155-170, when it released back in 2012 the initial price was $195. At release, the most expensive skylake being the i7 6700k is scheduled to sell for $350, $150 more. For a cpu that will easily last 4yrs even for those who frequently upgrade, it's a $37.50 premium per year cost difference. I don't think anyone can argue it easily outperforms the 8350. For that matter it outperforms the 9590 which runs $262 (with cooler). The premium becomes $22/yr for a superior product. Where is the ripoff? True, the motherboards cost more than amd but they're also better quality, higher vrm phases, a more efficient platform and amd doesn't have anything that supports ddr4.
The last I checked, zen is scheduled for late 2016 and it won't be leading off with an fx 8xxx replacement but rather a refreshed apu about 10-15% better performance than their current apu's. So that pushes the fx replacement closer to the end of 2016 or early part of 2017. Is amd planning to leave their customers with ddr3 and 2012 tech for the next 18mo while intel's releasing 2015 tech? People hate on intel but amd have left their customers out in the cold.