That's rubbish.
If you did your research you'd realize game engines are becoming more and more multi-threaded, BF4 is a prime example where cores make all the difference, not clock speed. MetroLL FarCry3, and ArmAIII are also games which can utilize more than 6 cores.
In any heavily threaded game an 8 core FX 83xx will stomp all over the X4's due to it's mutithreading capability, not clock speed.
The 8320/50 even outperforms the i5 in many heavily thread scenarios.
Have a look at any CPU load chart in BF4 and you'll see i5's have at least 85% load on every core compared to I7 and Vishera. For this reason HT is recommended to be enabled on Intel i7's.
No they aren't. BF4 still runs better on the i5-4670k than the AMD 8350. I can go google the benchmarks if you don't want to take my word for it, I've posted several in other threads before. There is no such thing as a "heavily" threaded game, BF4 is probably the most optimized game to date and the 8350 barely breaks even with the 4670k because of it. It doesn't matter what the CPU utilization is, it matters what your framerate is, and the 4670k still wins. Here is the simple truth:
Game developers lag waaaaay behind current technology because they are developing games for the "average" user. In order for a game to sell well, it needs to run on virtually every machine from a 6 year window because *most* people don't upgrade every couple years. People who browse tech forums and build their own computers or stay on the top end of the curve are a fraction of the gaming market. Companies don't heavily optimize because they wouldn't recoup development costs if they did, we just don't make up enough of the population. You can *almost* get away with a dual core CPU today if you overclock and still get decent framerates. If the motherboards and memory were up to par I'd wager you could, the problem is that 1080p modern games are a lot more memory and bandwidth intensive and the legacy sockets wouldnt' be able to keep up.
The long and short is that it will be another 5 years *at least* before 6+ cores are common enough for developers to spend the tens of millions of dollars it would cost to do more optimization of the game engines to be multi-threaded, if ever. The second problem besides hardware capabilities is that multi-threaded development is HARD. I'm a senior systems programmer myself, trust me when I say there is a huge difference between making something that works and making something that is optimized. Games are already more demanding on the performance front, in order to be truly optimized for 6+ cores and multiple threads per core it would cost upwards of hundreds of millions in development dollars for just a handful of main game engines.
The 8350 is a terrible gaming CPU if you want to compare performance to the Intel CPUs, I'm sorry that you would rather champion a brand than performance but it's true. The 8350 only beats an i5 in video encoding, virtualization or 3d modeling applications. For gaming, daily tasks and OS use the i5 keeps up with the i7-4770k and both of those chips even beat the Ivy-E chips in those tasks. I get really tired of people who have no idea about game development, engine development or software development in general piping in talking about "trends" in the industry. If you think games are becoming heavily threaded you're very, very uninformed.
Aquinus was correct in saying that more than 4 cores is pointless for gaming. It is.
Edit: Here is the 4960k review that shows CPU performance in games. Pay attention to the fact the $1000 Ivy-E flagship CPU loses in many games to the 4 core and non-multi threaded CPU and barely wins when it does. Also note the 8350 gets stomped all around by the Intel chips.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5