Originally Posted by pisstaker
It's priced according to performance
Sadly that's true. The Fx series of chips performs far worse than Thuban/Deneb in the majority of cases.
Notice the 4100 vs. the Phenom II x4 970 (100 Mhz clock difference) - huge difference in performance (in the Resident Evil V benchmark)
8-core @ 3.6 being almost equalled by a 6-core @ 3.3 Ghz in the second Civ V benchmark
(I use this example as both core speed AND clock count is lower for the Phenom II x6, yet performance is almost equal; and as you can see, the game is well multi-threaded at the jump from 4 cores @ 3.6 -> 6 @ 3.3)
In Crysis Warhead, you see lower per-core performance, and so only really in Metro is there an increase - where the eight cores do in fact come into play.
Also note this:
Power consumption at load is far higher than any other CPU tested. 229W vs. 200W of the x6 or 155W of the 2500k.
Post-overclocking, the eight core is faster than a Phenom II x6 when all cores are utilized, and is only slightly slower, or approximately the same speed when not. However, it uses up more power and generates more heat to equate to the same performance... and still doesn't compete with Intel's latest offerings. That's why the Phenom II x6 is still selling reasonably strongly.
It's also why I can't imagine suggesting anyone buy an Fx 4xxx series CPU. Phenom II x4 are usually cheaper, fit into the same motherboards and perform comparably.