What doesn't look good?
It's a nice chip for 155/185 bucks that will perform adequately in that price range.
Having 229 FPS in games with a i7 2600k for $300 or 156FPS with a FX-6100 for $155, I know where my money will go...
Why would you compare a $300 i7 2600k to an FX-6100? How about an i5-2400 $189 vs. FX-6100? or even $219 2500k? 2600k is not better in games than the cheaper i5 quads.
Now in the context of a $155 CPU vs. a $220 CPU. The total system cost is at least $500-600, correct? $65 more is 10% more expensive....for a platform that overclocks to 4.5ghz+. Even if you consider on a per part upgrade, AM3+ users purchased X4 /X6 CPUs and now are going to outlay even more cash for BD? They would have been better off getting any of the previous generation i5/i7 or even SB now. I don't understand the logic of buying slower X4/X6 AMD cpus, only to throw more $ to upgrade to a still slower BD core.
Focusing on more cores for less $. That has been AMD's strategy for 5 years now. I still don't understand how some expected Nehalem like IPC for the 8 core CPU. That would have meant an 8 core i5 760 CPU @ 4.2ghz clocks.......for $300. If such a monster CPU was in the pipeline, why so many delays? Also, how would an 8 core i5 760 style 4.0ghz+ CPU fare against a 2500k/2600k? Ya, it would
crush them, literally by a magnitude of 50-100%! (Since SB is only 15% faster in IPC over Nehalem).
If FX-8150 =
8 core i5 760 4.2ghz CPU, that would probably even beat the $999 SB-E chip without much trouble. Also, going with Module design hinted at minimum 10-20% loss in performance vs. a dedicated dual core design. This was also
documented 13 months ago. In other words, BD would have needed at minimum an IPC increase of 15-20% over Phenom II dual core just to match Phenom II's IPC (80-90% module penalty * 1.20 IPC increase = 96%-108% of Phenom II per clock). I think I repeated this many times and most people dismissed my comments.