It's not even worth debating. Typical amd fanboy, twist the situation until amd looks competitive. Since going s.c. route, why not consider the th-2? Because it kicks the cray using xeons and has been the world's fastest s.c. for several years running? What sense does it make to brag it's the fastest in the country when it's not the fastest period. Just thought you'd stop there because that's where amd's prowess ends? It's tired, kinda like amd's fx lineup. You suggest a cpu solution, amd fanboy says xyz is faster. So you suggest a faster intel solution and the amd fanboy's cry it's too expensive. Which is it? If amd has to cherry pick their environment to shine, they're not shining very bright in the first place.
At the end of the day, the best performing mid grade cpu for the money is still likely the i5 and plenty of people have agreed in their reviews. You wanted to go off on a tangent and talk s.c.'s which have nothing to do with anything - but since you took that route, all I did was point out the facts. Intel is winning there too, fastest in the world beats fastest in the country. It's easy to look like a big fish in a small pond, however the way things have been for awhile - Intel is still the big fish in the big pond.
At the end of the day, I'm still smiling and thankful I don't have an amd in my cpu socket. No one to impress, just work to get done and amd just can't hack it half the time. I don't have time to waste on inferior hardware, all it does is frustrates me. I'm not invested either way, not like I'm getting kickbacks or anything. It's up to the companies to duke it out - the one with better performance gets my dollar which might explain why amd's nearly broke. If they were all you think they are I'm pretty sure they'd be in the top ratings instead of floating in just about everyone's tier 2 and 3 desktop lineup. It is what it is.