1] 2600K gives you no benefit over a 2500K at the price its rather hefty premium to pay for no gains.
2] Buying a new SB setup with IB out is rather pointless....3570K + Gigabyte GA-Z77-UD5H, can't really do much better and its cheaper than a lot of sandybridge setups.
3] Bad time to buy AMD with Piledriver and Trinity on the horizon.
4] The real difference between AMD and Intel is unnoticable, lay of the synthetics they result in myopic societies.
1] Agreed, sort of. No, it doesn't matter now, but he's looking towards the future (when more games use more than 4 threads).
2] Agreed there too, except for someone that wants an extreme OC.
3] 100% Agreed
4] You HAVE to look at synthetic benches to get a general idea of performance, otherwise you would just be going into it blindly, but most gaming benches are close to real world, so I'd say that's a good gauge of performance. Just don't get hung up on the synthetic stuff. In general use and most games, it's true that you wouldn't notice the difference between Intel and AMD, but the difference is quite large (in gaming) nonetheless. How much that means to you is completely up to you.
However, since the AMD system costs less than the Intel, I would have a longer satisfactory gaming experience, for less money.
Just a thought, wondering what you computer experts think, I am not a computer expert.
What you say is true. Intel i7-2600K is for people who are willing to pay more for more than what is needed. If you are focused on what you need rather than what you may want, AMD generally does the job at a lesser cost for what may appear in the surface as the same (ex: i7-2600K & FX8120/8150 will both appear as 8core in task manager although we all know deeper that performance is not the same but whatever extra performance from the i7-2600K is generally excess & will remain untapped under normal usage anyway).