Cinebench and Geekbench show exactly what I said previously, single threaded performance from the Intel rapes the FX. They are synthetic benchmarks though, and most people don't base actual performance from these. Neither do proper reviewers.
Adobe rendering shows that having more threads from the AMD clock for clock didn't help in performance which actually maxes the CPU.
Tomb Raider in the past has favored AMD setups, and Rise*** although an Nvidia Geforce title using DX12 reduced CPU overhead for favor of AMD. Titles still largely coming out for DX11 though.
GTA V although claimed as a huge CPU thread user showing almost exact same average.
Blops is gay, Intel ahead. (it's also weird with hardware BUT terrifically optimized)
Dying Light is a weird title. In my own benchmarks with a 5960x, 3960x, (each in 6/8 core and dual core) vs AMD stuff averaged about the same. More of a GPU title overall anyways and favors the more GPU power you can give it over CPU. I played this game on a 940BE which we know is old.
Cities Skylines is an RTS title that generally use lots of CPU. Still though, the average well over 60fps for a dual core with 4 threads and can easily be tackled with the i3 and better accommodated with an i5 later.
The guy does too little benching with odd titles in favor of the AMD to make his point which probably would come clearer maybe in one of his earlier videos (he talked about another FX6300 video). He then says he wants to ditch Blops because it favors lower core counts and threads which is stupid AND said in DX11 Tomb Raider was better on the Intel. That'll be the case as demonstrated by the Techspot review (way more reputable than a random Youtube guy).
He talked too much about RAM which doesn't matter. Faster RAM frequencies don't help except while benching stuff like 3dmark which even then doesn't give much of an advantage. He also stepped on his own toes IMO because he mentions latencies which haven't been a thing since DDR. He also didn't mention the fact that Intel has much higher memory bandwidth to begin with.
He then proceeds to say the exact same thing I was saying earlier about the IPC but again steps on his toes with the upgrade path. You don't need a Z170 board to put an i5 or i7 in AND DX12 doesn't favor thread count it simply reduces overhead. It doesn't give much of an advantage to Intel processors running higher clock speeds simply because IPC is so high it's not a bottleneck. He also doesn't mention platform benefits like I did above. AMD's platforms are still running 3rd party controllers to utilize newer tech like more SATA3 and USB3. It also doesn't have PCI-E 3.0 at all. To reap the benefits of overclocking an 8320 and get newer tech like M.2 slots you need to buy newer boards like the Asus 970 Aurora which last time I looked was 100 bucks.
Lastly, he was running both at 4.4GHz. If you don't have a decent board for the 8320 or a good cooler you won't be overclocking high. For the cost of those two combined you can get an i5 and it's a no argument issue. In retrospect, my CPU is also 4 years old and I don't require an overclock for anything. Most people running an AMD FX CPU require an overclock to raise their FPS due to lack of IPC. To end that off, I find his #s extremely odd considering the 4.6GHz clocked 8320 failed to actually beat the i3 6100 in a lot of game tests in the Techspot review. Just look at this
from Anandtech with a 4.8GHz clocked (400MHz more) 8320 vs a stock Haswell i3 which has less IPC than the 6100. It averages or barely beats the stock Haswell @ 3.7GHz. Since he was saying he was having stability issues and a blue screen on the i3 rig I'd be 100% willing to bet the whole bench setup was skewed because you get weaker performance on an unstable rig making the whole video 100% worthless. Again, unknown Youtuber < renowned tech review sites.
Look I've said my part and without purchasing the stuff to show you myself you can rely on what I said which relates closely to what these review sites say or you can make your own decision. In the end it's up to you whatever you feel is best for your money so honestly it's not really worth any more time writing long posts to show you what the better option is. You have the info and good luck with whichever you chose. I'll still help in relation to what parts you might need for whichever setup you go for but on the term of which chip is best the info is there for you to make heads or tails of.