I understand the criticisms, in the chain and the second vid (though I disapprove of the attitude and name calling in the second vid), and agree that the original test is not rigorous and really doesn't say which is the "better" cpu. Viewed in light of the criticism, I think the the first video only shows if actual game performance is your main concern, and you can't afford a high-end GPU (and don't plan to upgrade the component parts), you can save money by choosing the 8350. This strikes me as intuitive -- if the system is GPU bound, having a "better" gaming CPU will not provide much better gaming performance, if any.
I think what would be more interesting is to test which GPUs you would need for the CPU to make a difference. That would be much more helpful for a gamer trying to build a system to get the best bang for the buck. You could then figure out "I can spend the $X difference in MB/CPU on this GPU upgrade" or "I can spend the $Y difference in GPUs on the Intel" and get better performance. Unfortunately, I suspect that nobody is going to spend to money to do that kind of testing.