I'm not sure which to go with any more- still leaning towards Intel since I'll be getting a separate graphics card and I like their raw power, but at the same time, it's hard to beat the price on AMD. Good thing I've still got a month to mull it over.
You can get a cheat quad core AMD - the Athlon series of the FM2 socket come with disabled gpu and low price (70 euros or maybe lower for a quad).
I have a A8-5500 and its just perfect for my needs. I run Linux on it and so far its flawless (even the maligned fglrx driver runs perfectly). The GPU in it handles everything i need and its runs cool&quiet with its DEFAULT heatsink (which is small).
Anyway, i find all this benchmark wars a bit like pissing contests since, as PC sales too suggest, the current gen anything (hell, even core 2 duo/quads) is good enough for just about everything most people do on computers (even tablets are enough for some) . Interesting is that Intel, after touting their superior CPUs and dismissing AMD's GPU-centric solutions, have come to follow their lead with not so much of CPU, but graphics and power management improvements. Also, those high GPU improvements will most likely end up in the top tier i7s that nobody buys for their GPU.
Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.