melikepie :
Well Then How Does The FX Not Beat The I5 I Know The FX Acts Like A Quad Core But The I5 Is A Wuad Core
Length of the Execution Pipeline is mostly responsible for that discrepancy based on my understanding of the current reviews. In other words... AMD lengthened Bulldozers Execution Pipeline (adding more stages) in order to bolster the potential clock speeds. So Bulldozer does less work per Mhz (per clk) than Sandy Bridge. They could have done this for several reasons... they haven't been exactly upfront as to why, it would seem, they've gone the Netburst route.
One possible explanation could be, looking at other "similar" architectures in terms of execution pipe-lining, the fact that Intels P4 ran its ALUs (execution units) at a higher clock rate than the core itself (so that if the branch predictor returned a bad result it could be flushed and re-executed without too many issues).
AMD may have opted to do the same with Bulldozer. Given that the ALUs run at the same speed as the rest of the CPU... AMD could have had to rely on higher clock speeds on the whole (akin to how AMD GPUs run ALUs at the same core speed as the GPU whereas nVIDIA run their SPUs at a higher rate than the core).
I couldn't tell you for sure exactly what is faulting Bulldozer only that Cache wise, FPU wise and even Execution unit wise (ALU) it is inferior (per/clk) than Sandy Bridge even a lowly Core i5 2500K.