im hoping it can head to head with i7 extreme. now thats call badass

Not neccessary. If they can match 80% of Intel performance at 50% of the price, I'm sold. 

I read some really impressive marks.
FX-8100 on stock is as fast as i7 2600K (OC-ed to 5GHz) in single threaded workload.
A beast is coming.

I take 1 module as 1.5 core instead.
Larger than HT core.

Although it is true that Intel is Chipzilla and they are very good in what they do but it won't help them if the market is trending towards the mobile and ARM is the dominant processor in that segment due to its low power consumption. When it comes to the mobile, less power consumption is more important than more performance. To put into perspective Intel has to put all kinds of special methods like the recent Tri Gate and 22nm or smaller just to compete with the plain 40nm ARM. If Intel doesn't improve Atom soon they will be left behind but since they have tons of cash that may not be true.

As for BD, AMD has their direction and I am sure they know what market they are targeting, I can elaborate but too lazy to type. 

so close yet so far... 60-90 days for BD wor... by then everybody will be thinking, "hmmm... maybe i should wait for ivy bridge" 

If you really want a powerful dual core that overclocks like mad then get the Core i3 2120K if it ever comes out.

You mentioned that your software doesn't take advantage of quad cores but I'm talking about multitasking which refers to running multiple different programs at the same time that would take advantage of a quad. Lets just say you're running 2 of the programs that you mentioned simultaneously. So if 1 of your programs can only make use of 2 then that means you can run 2 at the same time. As for the case of your Core i5 2500K, if 2 cores are occupied with the program that you run then you have 2 more cores to use for browsing or watch a movie while you wait for it to complete(if it takes hours).

You're not going to get a huge turbo just because Intel is selling a quad core as a dual core. You can overclock a Core i5 2500K as much as a Core i3 2120K because all SB processors have a max ceiling. No doubt the Core i3 2120K is marketed for the overclocker but it will still be sold with a lower TDP compared to a Core i5 2500K. The Core i5 2500K has the same TDP, as a Core i5 2500 despite the latter does not have an overclocking feature.

Since Turbo Boost is based on the processors TDP, you're not going to get huge boost (0.8-1GHz) than If you're really serious moving from your current Core i5 2500K to a Core i3 2120K then I would consider that a downgrade rather than an upgrade. Keep your Core i5, it will serve you well. 

It is sort of a big issue with BD but throughout 2005 there has been a lot of changes in design. What we are looking at now is not what it was back in 2005.

BD is made not made exclusively for enthusiasts. It should focus more on virtualization, cloud, database, web and HPC where the softwares used are not restricted and are able to use the full potential of multicore processing.

Even if you do not agree with AMD going with more cores, that doesn't stop the progress method that most semiconductor companies are going with. True the current SB is 4 core and most applications are still within 4 cores/threads but does that mean that the upcoming Haswell with 8 cores that would come after Ivy Bridge in 2013 is useless?

Since Intel is also going with more cores like AMD does that mean Intel is going to a path of failure as well? Of course there will be more and more programs developed to take the advantage of multi core but games are slow to catch on. Doesn't mean that you are very satisfied having 2 cores would mean that the majority of users will. For games I think that most PC gamers should be worried more about games being ported from console to PC rather than the other way around. Due to the fact that games are ported from console, having the most uber powerful CPU or GPU is not going to make your game have lifelike graphics and physics.

Despite Intel having a higher per core performance, for applications like VM having more cores is an advantage. You can cram more cores in a server tower means yo can run more virtual machines. When you are depending on thin clients to run your business, having a powerful core is not going to make a difference when most of the office work that involves word processing are not very CPU demanding. So in practice having 8 cores from AMD allows me to run 4 VM while only 2 VM with an Intel if I allocate 2 cores per system. That is already a 50% increase in the number of people that could use. Powerful single core performance has its place in the server market where more cores are not necessary but virtualization, cloud, database, web and HPC which is only a part of the server market can benefit from more cores.

AMD is aiming at the server space with BD because there is a lot of money to be made in the server space and also they want to regain their dropping market share in the server space. Consider that Intel can sell a Core i7 2600K with a die size of 216mm2 versus a Intel Xeon E7-8870 server CPU with a die space of 513mm2. That is 2.4x the die space but if you compare the price of Core i7 2600K which is $320 and Westmere-EX which is $4616, that is a 14.4x increase in profit when you consider the small 2.4x increase in die space.

All along I'm talking about mobile. For desktop, maybe HTPC? But seriously, how many ppl build a rig just for HTPC? So AMD is probably trolling with Llano desktop until Bulldozer arrives

AMD sells the chips to OEMs first, and then OEMs do the pricing.

Basically, AMD's demand comes from OEMs and it's up to the OEMs to make it competitive. AMD has little to no say in this. Much like graphics. They can only suggest a Recommended Retail Price, not dictate them. Although the thought of putting an insane price tag on the notebooks is beyond me, my point sticks.

As for the value for money part, you're repeating what I said. The point of it being value for money is very subjective. Everyone has a different perspective on what's of good value. Hence I said value for money instead of price. I bought an XPS 15 for my bro recently and it was priced insanely at 3.7k yet I took it as good value. That's my view.

---

Added on June 14, 2011, 4:53 pm
I wouldn't want to build a white elephant (and bulky too) just to sit in my living room and allow me to watch (dl-ed) movies. However, I ain't gonna challenge your right to do so. To each his own 

Whilst your drive affects game load time, it can be bottlenecked by either the drive or processor or graphic memory or physical memory.

Been doing some research on the product life cycle and upcoming chips. I'm incline to believe the AM3+ will not last. It's likely going to suffer the same fate as AM2. It would seem that AM3+ is a refreshed 790 to support the first gen BD. The real thing will come from FMx socket.

OTOH, Intel's z68/p67 isn't looking too good either. It'd seem that IB may need a new board despite using the same 1155 socket. Although this seems a little unlikely considering the confusion this would cause. If IB works on 1155 I'd say Intel is still a better bet until enhanced bulldozer is launched.