So it's worth to wait for bulldozer ?

Depends. It certainly won't beat SB in single core benchmarks, that is a given. But it appears to clock very well. At worst, it'll be like Pentium D minus the extreme power and heat.

Without OC. will BD beat the SB?

Oh yeah, gaming benchmark haven't done yet, now looking forward into it.

Sos : http://news.mydrivers.com/1/204/204366.htm

Bulldozer Official Benchmark Result :
Handbrake :
Bulldozer : 223FPS | i5 2500 : 188FPS
Dirt 3 (Eyefinity) :
Bulldozer 82.8FPS | i7 980X 80.9FPS

why they used different CPUs for both tests?
what about 980X on Handbrake?
and 2500 on Dirt3?
think about it 

which means bulldozer single thread performance is arnd 1st gen i7

It didn't told much, and its in chinese 

In the infamous hotel room two blocks away from IDF, AMD is our first official benchmark results of the AMD FX "Bulldozer" processor shown. Since both tests are presumably carefully chosen for the new platform to put in a good light, we can based on these numbers no conclusions. Yet we want the results do not remember.

First they showed a comparison between a new unspecified AMD FX processor and an unspecified Intel processor i5 Sandy Bridge, with the help of the program Handbrake a video of 5 minutes is converted to H.264 video in SD resolution. The AMD FX processor with eight cores perform this function with an average of 223 frames per second, the i5 with four cores came in at 188 fps. Both systems will be comparable in price according to AMD, which it wants to show that AMD a better price / performance offering. That may be the case, but who has a more negative view would conclude that AMD is looking to double the number of cores needs to less than 20% better performance available.

In the second demonstration showed up one game in three Dirt 2560x1600 resolution, running on two Radeon HD 6790 cards in Crossfire. In one system, the cards are combined with an Intel Core i7 980X, in the second system with an AMD FX processor. The Intel machine could produce an average of 80.9 fps, the AMD machine averaged 82.8 fps. The much cheaper AMD FX processor is faster than the Core i7 980X - if you want to show - though we should really stick through it: Dirt 3 to this resolution and the chosen card is very GPU thus limited. The extra 2 fps of the AMD-101 system can be explained ways, all of which are not necessarily traceable to CPU performance.

For real benchmarks, we'll have to wait for the AMD FX processors actually available. Fortunately, that probably will not take too long.

However revealed also a working laptop with AMD processor Trinity, the next generation AMD APU based on Bulldozer cores and a next generation GPU. Trinity middle of next year will reach the market.


Intel vs. AMD ... Fight!


AMD's laptop Trinity demo

their fps are close, maybe gpu bottleneck also.

To sum up BD facts
BD is physically a 4 core 8 thread part.
It has no coldbug
Samples can bench at 5+ on stock cooler, 6+ on phase change and 8.4 on lhe.

Try this, the original article: Hardware.info: First official benchmarks AMD FX processor...They only compared with Sandy Bridge Core i5, and not Sandy Bridge Core i7? From the pre-order pricing leaks, it does look probable that AMD is targeting FX against Core i5 2500K range. 

one member of the 8.43GHz team chew* has pointed this:

Bulldozer Official Benchmark Result :
Handbrake :
Bulldozer : 223FPS | i5 2500 : 188FPS

So its actually like i5/i7 instead of having 8 physical cores? 

Why is there still an on going discussion of core's modules.........

I don't give a rats ass what Marketing calls the chip.

AMD's patent draws a clear picture. They say a picture says a 1000 words right? AMD's own picture for there own patent.

Note core 100 not module 100 aka core 0, and then inside core 0 is 2 clusters A and B.

Case closed.

Yes, its more like Core i7 with 4C/8T. Check out this quote from Chew* (one of the overclockers at AMD FX overclocking event)...