First hats off to IDC for one of the few, if not the ONLY in depth review of 8350 performance on it's own and in comparison to Intel's I5/I7 chips. This morning I checked the pricing at Newegg for the 8350, 3570k and 3770k respectively. The prices, rounded up to even dollars, are $200, $230 and $330. The 8350 is simply not equivalent to a processor that cost $130 more (8350 vs 3770k). Based on relative cost, it is closest to the 3570k. Perhaps one can find an isolated benchmark where an overclocked 8350 just beats out a stock 3770k but the overwhelming number of benchmark victories belongs to the 3770k. Why would this surprise any one? If you overclock the 3770k like you overclock a 8350 the gap gets wider. Again, a surprise? No! Comparing a $200 chip to a $330 chip usually results in this outcome. Owning both a 8150 and now a 8350 (plus 2 2500ks) I can say that AMD got realistic about pricing the 8350 Piledriver unlike the horrible overpricing of the 8150 (glad I waited till it fell to $170 when I bought it). Moreover, AMD made a decent effort to quickly improve the 8350 over the known deficits of the 8150. Is the 8350 in the same league as the 3770k ? No, but for what it costs it shouldn't be. On price alone, the only Intel chip it should be forced to be compared with is the 3570k ($200 vs $230). The Sandy Bridge, now Ivy Bridge cpus are remarkable considering their price. The 8350 is not a bad chip overall considering its price.