I do agree to some extend and I would also go with an AMD video card. GPU wise Battlefied 4 may run better on AMD components but this is only true for the GPU part of a system. The truth is in the high-end desktop (I5, I7 FX 6***, FX 8***) AMD is at a big loss.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html
// note that this bench doesn't show Haswell. Stock Haswell is even faster then the AMD chips.
With the exception of few titles, in which the FX catches up to Intel, all others result in 10-20 frames in favor of Intel. What I am trying to point out is - even if a game is highly optimized for an AMD CPU, this will only make Intel and AMD equal. If the game has no optimization for either AMD, nor Intel CPUs - then Intel wins by a wide margin.
The FX will bring you so much improvement that probably you wouldn't notice it. The bench I posted in the previous post shows that in 80% of the time, the 920 and fx8350 are side-by-side.
Now, I am not an Intel die-hard fanboy, I just use and recommend what is best. If I have to confess, I am an ATI (I know, I know, it's AMD now) fan. Currently I am using an nVidia and it is the first nVidia I have ever bought. And probably the last one - the software I use is finally migrating from CUDA to OpenCL and AMD rules that region. I would just love to pick an Asus HD7750 with passive cooling, slam it in the box, kick the screw in place, bang the case panel and enjoy some awesome OpenCL performance for the price. But alas, my software still uses CUDA. The point I am trying to make is that you should buy what suits your needs, not the brand.
Cheers.