Inceptor 1) BD performance per core is equivalent to a Phenom II (fx-8150 vs x4 965)

I want what you are smoking.FX-4100 is on par with the PII X4 810 or A6-3650 at best, both 2.6 Ghz chips. Being a 3.6 Ghz chip it never gets close to the X4 975 BE of same clocks. Neither is close to the 3.4 Ghz X4 965 and even the FX-6100 often struggles to catch 3.6 Ghz ++ Phenom II's. Of course there's some niche tests where it gets close or even scores a pirric win, but those niche benchmarks are not the kind of tasks that a Fusion platform will ever be doing. BD is also a server chip, so server-like tasks it's where they don't completely suck, but there's no salvation for Trinity in that regards, so they really have to improve it over BD. Unless it's fast in home tasks, it will be fail from our perspective. They will still sell to the masses tho, probably, but that's because they are not concerned about efficiency, ROI, such things.EDIT: I see that Piledriver is still going to use 2 MB of L2 per module. Am I the only one who thinks they would do much much better with a 1 MB, maybe even 512 KB L2 that is "a lot" (comnparatively) faster? Granted, we don't really know if BD cache is slow because of the massive amount of it or the cache size is what it is in order to try to compensate for the slow access. I really think it's the former, based on other AMD chips (and Intel's), but I'm not an enginner. Either way being things as they are for current BD, devoting almost 40% of die sze to cache seems like a total waste.