This isn't really that bad.
Some of the initial performance reports where very negative but this looks very good to me for a generation one processor. There is good reason now to save a few bucks going AMD as the performance penalty isn't overwhelming
It will be especially interesting to see more testing with different configurations of the processors. We simply don't have the experience to imply anything about cache trade offs as the architecture is so new.
The other thing to realize is that there has likely been little in the way of Bulldozer specific optimizations in these tests. That would be switches for the compilers. Even though some OS optimization has been done that doesnt preclude any other improvements specific to Bulldozer. In the end AMD could be sitting pretty with a hardware revision and some optimized compiler technologies.
Scaling with more threads than actual cores
Sometimes one can squeeze more performance when running the test with more threads than the actual core of the processor.
Here is an example:
X264 performance peaked at 18 threads for my 1090T.
I think thread count should be a value that can be determined by the actual tests (some other tests have no justification for such manipulation) AND the processor since some processor improve their results when loading more threads and some others don't
There is an error in the article
Last sentence on page 3 says:
"With eight threads (fully utilizing the FX-8150), the improvement was 6.05x over the single-core result while the Opteron 2394 was at 8.02x and the Core i7 990X at 6.11x."
However, 6.05x is the improvement for 6 threads, the one for all 8 threads was 7.44x