Have you seen this:
Or perhaps this:
Now, nobody is arguing that AMD has better architecture. Intel has better architecture, hands down, period. However, it's interesting to note that some gaming benchmarks put the 8350 ahead, while other gaming benchmarks will put the i7s ahead. Your benchmarks make the i7s look a little better, while Passmark CPU Mark scores make the AMD look like it's giving it a run for its money. Let's not bicker over tiny discrepancies in benchmarks, and let's just say that the 8350 and some of the i7s it's compared to are about evenly matched.
It's still an 8-core 4.0GHz CPU just barely keeping up with a 4-core 3.4GHz CPU, which just goes to show how much better the architecture of the Intel i7 is, but it DOES keep up, and it keeps up for about $90 less. So no, I don't think it's fair to say that value does not matter and the Intels are flat out better. AMD does give way better performance for the buck, so for someone on a very tight budget, or even someone who wants to get about the same performance for $90 less, the AMD 8350 can make a lot of sense, especially in applications that take advantage of those 8-cores. AMD's APUs are also a good value and people here have already pointed out what a great value the Radeon cards are.
Now when Intel starts releasing 8-core i7s, then it's TOAST. But what do you think Intel is going to charge for a next-gen 8-core i7? Probably over $1,000. The 8-core AMD at $200 is still pretty appealing. Hopefully AMD will have better tech out by then but I doubt it. It's almost like AMD has given up on CPUs. The 8350 might be the last "high end" CPU they ever put out. They're going to focus on servers, APUs, GPUs, and mobile solutions to break into the tablet market (good luck...). Personally I'm going with the 8350 because I want an 8-core, I don't want to wait for Intel to release an 8-core, and I don't want to pay what Intel will probably want for an 8-core. It does what I want for less money.