If we're talking stock vs. stock, then yeah at that point it just becomes "do you prefer coke or pepsi?" the two processors you linked benchmarks to are great in their own right, but the OP mentioned overclocking. Intel's architecture these days responds a lot better to it than amd. if the cost is equal (according to those benchies it is) and I'm going to be overclocking, I want it to be on an intel.
Back in the early 00's the big draw to AMD's was the ability to take a lesser costing chip, throw a couple points of vcore and vdimm at your components so you can push your fsb up, and then have a
faster machine than an Intel based box you could build for $300-500 more. There is a reason today that by and far, Intel dominates pretty much any benchmarking chart, whether it be stock or overclocked. AMD only peeked it's head out of their little underdog hidey hole for a second, but got a taste of what it's like to be on top and are now back to being number 2 (2 of 2 isn't bad though, is it?)
Also, completely unrelated,
this is interesting for windows 8 fans. Apparently if you
underclock your base clock via software (as I know some people do for fine tuning/testing before committing to bios) windows 8 loses the ability to track it's system clock accurately "and the inverse applies to overclocking, too." Interesting for sure, reveals a lot of weakness to the system imo.
