What strikes me as odd is that at the moment, even AMD's "poor" bulldozer CPU performance is more CPU performance than the average user would ever need. Unless we're talking multi-GPU purposes, it really doesn't matter. Same thing with AMDs APUs vs. Intel's most recent mobile Ivy Bridge processors. It's a bunch of CPU performance that whomever buys laptops/devices will never need all of that power.
So it strikes me as odd that any of these company performance metrics/projections have anything to do with actual processor performance metrics. Yields and margins and such, sure, I get that. But then we have techies jump in forums like this and discuss AMDs company performance being a reflection of Bulldozer or Brazos performance, which is a tough logic to follow.
There's no point in trying to be the winner of the fastest desktop CPU (AMD has said as much, though most people mock this statement as a testament to their failure to do so, but whatever).
I have faith that despite these reduction in evals from analysts, AMD will be fine. It's these same analysts that 3-5 months ago had utmost faith in AMD to further secure its place in the CPU market.
Meaning that these analysts--like most tech analysts--have no idea what they're talking about. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, it doesn't mean that AMD CAN'T fail, it just means that they're guessing on what the outcome might be.