Why does one core look smaller than the other (between the top and bottom, on either side)? Anyway, what you are failing to remember or grasp, is that despite the existence of 4, physical integer cores, they are arranged in such a manner (because of the shared floating point resources and other quirks of this design) that they don't BEHAVE like 4 distinct cores. I am not versed in the ways of processor design and fabrication, but from what I have read, I gather that AMD intended it to operate something like hyperthreading, but better (they hoped). Except they got worse performance than expected, much worse, then, fanboys like yourself set about attributing it all to the hype of the "inability of the OS to take advantage of the BDozer's advanced design". Well, that may be partially true, but so what? That is entirely the fault of AMD for risking so much on a design that they should have known in advance wouldn't be catered to by the OS.
Now, I ask - what if they had just made true 4-core and 8-core processors? Would the power requirements and heat dissipation requirements go through the roof? Maybe, but those aspects already weigh somewhat against the FX chips as they are, along with the sub-par performance, seriously, they get beaten in a lot of tasks and benchmarks by their own 45nm predecessors.