i5 3570K, actually I'm changing into it from a 1055T. The single-thread performance of FX-8350 is quite abysmal, and even though parallerization or multi-tasking is the future, for some tasks you just need one core to pack a decent punch. i5-3570K would be better for games and applications that don't benefit much from hyper-threading or lots of cores. Also because it lacks the said feature, it runs cooler and thus is easier to overclock higher than i7.
Where I come from, the FX-8350 is 199,90€, and i5 3570K is 234,90€. For such a long term investment, 35€ more is hardly worth saving because you'd favor a "bang for the buck" brand, especially when the said brand doesn't deliver the said bang for hardly any less buck than the more expensive competitor.
Yours truly, the third ex-AMD fanperson of this thread.
EDIT: Make no mistake, more clock-speed and more cores doesn't make a processor automatically better, if the architecture is weird and doesn't make the CPU calculate any faster in comparison to better designed alternatives like the i5 and i7 series from Intel. You can't compare the clock speeds and core counts of different architectures directly. These are sometimes called the "per Hertz" and "per core" performance of a CPU/architecture, and Intel has them both better at the moment.
In favor of FX-8350 are several programs that scale well with core increase, such as rendering: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-8.html
Still, if I was you, I would be underwhelmed that at 4.0GHz and twice the amount of cores it can hardly surpass a 3.4GHz CPU with half the amount of cores.. something just isn't right there.Edited by seepra - 10/31/12 at 4:40am