Originally Posted by Durquavian
After a few releases by Intel the 8350 is less able to compete easily with the majority of Intel's top end but still is competitive. Your post was not devoid of inherent bias nor was it an attempt at honest fact.
Let's take a look at how things looked, back when the 8350 went out.
Initial expected price on the AMD was ~250$, actual price was ~200$.
Benchmarks back then showed the product to be performing around the same ( a bit better at multi-threaded, but a bit worse at single threaded situations) against what Intel got out 6 months earlier at the same price point (the 3570k).
Now, the difference was that the Intel part had ~75 watts TDP, and wasn't even the "best" Intel had to offer at that power efficiency (the 3770k was). It also had integrated graphics and north-bridge. The actual CPU with all those extras taken out would have about 50 watts TDP.
The AMD part on the other hand had ~125 watts TDP and was the "best" AMD had to offer at that power efficiency. The only extra was the memory controller, which in regards to unification levels is as advanced as an Intel i7 920.
Note here that I do not deny that AMD is competitive in regards to the balance between the initial cost and the raw performance, but I do mention the power requirements because energy is not free, in the end it's extra added cost. After using the system for a while you will end up with a lower total running cost on a system that draws less power (the actual savings being relative).
Regarding the performance of the 8350 against the 3770k, the AMD part was not performing all that good except on very specific scenarios. It would be foolish to release the 8350 at around the same price point. AMD would not just go ahead and release under the circumstances without doing something to attract buyers. A price cut would cut it though. Of course you could instead assume that the company stopped caring for profits that much and decided to cut the price as a "free" gift or something.
I do understand that those who went with AMD for high end need to justify their purchase, but in the end this rarely was AMD's strong point. They've always been more budget oriented (excluding rare cases like the Athlon 64 days). Well, "budget" and "high-end" don't really mix, no matter how you look at it.
If you're on a tight budget and want a relatively fast and capable system with a low initial cost you can go for an AM3+ board with a good VRM for about 100$ and then stick to it an unlocked quad-core or hexa-core for about 100$ again. It'll be fine for everyday usage of all kinds and able to give "something more" when the need arises.
Lastly you have (some very limited) circumstances in which the FX processors clearly excel, even against some much more expensive Intel parts. If you're to use your system mostly on the said occasions then there's no reason to go for Intel. AMD will not be just cheaper, but perform better too. In the end, it all depends on your needs and the associated costs.