If you're buying a new system, there's nothing that the 3570/3770 have over the 8350, and vice versa, when you look at the overall picture. Once you start optimising the configuration for your needs however, things change quite a bit. The total cost plus the running cost play a big role, as well as how you trade off component costs against each other. Typically Intel costs more than AMD at any given performance point upto the performance ceiling of the 8350. Let's be truthful, the Intels do offer more raw performance when (and probably only when) you look at single core performance. But even that has a limit.
For example, a 3770k offers no improvement over a i3 3220, let alone any of the AMD offerings, once you hit very high resolutions and eye candy (2560x single monitor or multiple monitor gaming scenarios). That's because at those kind of resolutions, the graphics card is the primary bottleneck, even if running two or more cards (unless game is heavily CPU-bound). I do tend to agree with the overall sentiment that there was something wrong with the way the benchmarks in the video were conducted/validated. When you are contrary to most of the established results, you need to go back and see if you were wrong, or everyone else was.
There are some issues with recommending AMD for a high-end system at a cost level however. The first is power consumption, and resultant PSU requirement. Overclocking heavily influences this and one needs to be aware that an overclocked AMD CPU is going to draw a ton of power. My system has a Phenom II x4 overclocked to a modest 4GHz and my estimate of power consumption is about 60W at idle - for the CPU alone. This is not trivial and would require one to think through the purchase well.
The second is, ironically, platform compatibility, where AMD was king of the hill till the FM1 launch a few years ago. Every AMD CPU would fit every motherboard with a few limitations - old DDR2 CPUs would not work in newer DDR3 boards. This is understandable as the memory controller is on the CPU. Now though, Intel is down to 1155 across most of the relevant product range, whereas AMD has AM3, AM3+, FM1 and FM2 coexisting at roughly the same time, and with overlapping price points. With the imminent phasing out of AM3+, any investment in Piledriver today is questionable from the standpoint of future stability.
Then there is multicore performance - there are plenty applications where the 8350 has bested the more expensive Intel rivals. If your application sets require a high level of threaded performance (video encodes, 3DSM etc) you might want to consider the AMDs in spite of the higher power consumption, and still get away with it. The cheaper initial cost of the platform will compensate for the higher running cost, and if you aren't piggybacking a bunch of video cards on the system, there should be no issues with a decent, but reasonably priced power supplies.
Since most desktop tasks do not require any sort of significant horsepower and are catered to quite easily with a very cheap platform (I would venture that even a basic Phenom II or G-series Pentium can easily tackle daily workloads without hiccuping), personal choice, brand preference and fanboyism rule the roost at the middle level of the market. The AMD platforms still hold a slight edge when it comes to price vs. performance, but Intel motherboard suppliers have rapidly closed the gap to AMD even here.
At the ultra high end though, Intel still rules the roost. And it has since the introduction of Sandy Bridge. What you have to decide is whether that is the level of performance you will ever need or use, and whether CPU performance is the only thing that matters. A 3960x running Windows 7 off a Mechanical hard drive, will feel 5x slower than a i3 2100 running off a entry-level SSD. Optimising your system does not mean buying the most expensive CPU, it means spending the least possible amount for the highest possible performance based on your specific needs.