Maximum PC had some interesting results, which made me think that AMD might be a viable solution for areas where CPU is more important than GPUs.
Not really, even the 3570K with 4 less threads to work with & a 600MHz dissadvantage still holds it's own against the 8350 while using less power. Spend $100 more & the 3770K wipes the floor with the 8350 & still uses about 53 Watts less power. Sadly, the 8350 is a generation to late... it is what the 8150 should have been.
BTW... that extra $100 for the 3770K on a machine running 24/7 (for example a dedicated folding @ home box) at $0.12 per KWh would be made up in just over 18 months. So if you build a dedicated folder with the 8350 at a lower cost now, at the end of a 4 year run it would end up costing you a good bit more (possibly hundreds more depending on your cost per kWh) than a 3770K system despite the lower intial cost.
Chris (Toms Hardware review) is right, the old "FX" processors used to raise Intel's eyebrows, but the new "FX" is just something for Intel to laugh at.
I could have waited & gave the 8350 a try, but this is pretty much what I expected to see from it. This is why I chose to drop $900+ on a new LGA-2011 mobo & 3930K processor instead of spending just $220 to drop an 8350
into my old 990FX board.
Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction, but AMD is barely taking baby steps when they need to be taking leaps.