It shows that the Intel processors able to defeat the AMD FX procs in video editing (the benchmark that matters for my systems) are the ones that cost $100 more for the CPU. My older FX-8120 overclocked to 4.4 GHZ is probably a bit slower than an FX 8350 at the same clocks, but when I first got one Ivy Bridge wasn't out yet either. Only the Core i7's beat the Piledriver in your libx264 test, and interestingly the same was true for Linux kernel compilation, about a minute for a job that seemd to take all night with an Athlon 500 MHZ I had in 2004.
True, the TDP is less for the Intels, but I suspect that idle/desktop power dissipation can't differ by more than 10W or so. It doesn't really matter that the overclocked AMD might pull 200W for 10 minutes rendering a video if it spends most of its time in the 50W area and can drop into the low 40s when totally idle at the desktop. These tests tell me that buying an i5 setup to replace Bulldozer would always be money down the toilet if video editing is the intended function.
Too bad AMD is dumping the FX line, though I suspect at the rate they are going the Fusion chips will soon catch up due to the improvements in things like reducing branch predictor misses. They can already match the Phenom II x4 from what I understand, and that's fast enough for most of my work.