Matrikz :
iam2thecrowe it's called google, there are a TON of benchmarks out there showing how well the FX Bulldozers are doing... try using it
all the benchmarks from reputable sources say the opposite, and most people know this that arent amd fanboys. the fx cpu's are slower than equivelant Phenom II cpu's and a hell of a lot slower than equivelant priced intel cpu's. heres jsut the first few reviews from google, maybe you skipped these, but there are plenty more with same conclusion:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/13
conclusion - "Whether or not we’re correct about Bulldozer really being a server and workstation CPU, it’s terribly unsuited to the kinds of software we’re currently using on consumer PCs. This software is still heavily reliant on single-thread performance, and the FX-8150 just doesn’t have that. As such it’s woefully slow in a range of everyday applications.
Worse still, it merely had mediocre performance in well-threaded desktop applications that should have played to the more parallel design of the CPU."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html
conclusion - "Ironically, consistent, scalable performance is one of the attributes that AMD claims it gets from its Bulldozer module. The issue we see over and over, though, is that it relies on software able to exploit scalability in order to compete. When it doesn’t get what it wants, performance steps back relative to the previous generation."
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_fx8150/13.htm
conclusion - "Running the FX-8150 at 3.2GHz (1866MHz memory) with two cores disabled against a 1090T at 3.2GHz (1600Mhz memory) for a direct six-on-six core processor comparison, the FX-8150 ran roughly 10% (at least) slower, based on our benchmarks."
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/21
"You have been able to see that the FX 8150 mostly is competing with the Core i5 2500 (which costs 180 EUR by the way). Once multithreading kicks in well, performance quickly rises and you'll see Core i7 2600 (260 EUR) performance. Surprisingly enough, even the Phenom II X6 1100T (170 EUR) stands ground and is mostly on par with the FX 8150 a lot of the time, that complicates things even more. So where do we need to position the FX 8150 then? I mean, this is supposed to be AMD's fastest processor."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested
conclusion - "Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so. AMD also makes you choose between good single or good multithreaded performance, a tradeoff that we honestly shouldn't have to make in the era of power gating and turbo cores."
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/AMD-FX-8150-vs-Core-i5-2500K-and-Core-i7-2600K-CPU-Review/1402/18
this conclusion sums it up best - "We can summarise the AMD FX-8150 in one word: "disappointment""
now given these are not all specifically fx6100 reviews, its pretty clear that if the 1100t is faster than an 8 core bulldozer in the majority of situations, its also faster than the 6 core bulldozer. please don't bother to argue your point any longer, its simply not valid and is only a biased opinion. Good day.