The main issue with AMD now is their focus on multithreading rather than single core performance. Compare the speed of the FX chips to the Phenom II, you will see that you have more cors but nearly the same or sometimes slower performance, this means you are taking more cores to get the same amount of work done. the problem with this is that applications that cant use many cores will lose performance.
I currently have a AM3+ board, and overclock, and I am sure many people on Phenom II systems are in the same boat.
While the FX chips have higher clock speeds and can also be overclocked, the IPS is lower to there is less of a benefit to to having a 600-800MHz overclock on the FX chip as compared to the Phenom II
that is why I want to see the benchmarks done with both the FX chip and the Phenom II overclocked (most of the Phenom II x6 chips can hit 4GHz with the stock heatsink, and 4.2GHz with a more powerful cooler such as the H80), and many articles are showing around 4.8GHz for the FX chip (and upwards of 5-5.1GHz with liquid cooling)
Since you are talking to a audience who are likely to have their CPU's overclocked, a good piece of data to have is, will an overclocked FX beat my overclocked Phenom II, and if to, will it beat it by enough to be worth investing in a upgrade.
Another thing to test is the shared core performance loss. Since the FX chips are essentially 4 hyper threaded cores, the load on 1 core will have a significant impact on the performance of the other core next ot it, for example have cinebench do a single threaded run and set the affinity to the first core, then using another application, (eg prime 95), have it also only do 1 core then repeat the test, each time changing which core prime 95 uses, you will see that depending on which core it uses, it prime 95 uses a core on the same core module, it will lower the cinebench score a lot more than if it uses a core that is not on the same core module. (A phenom II CPU will not have this issue)
PS a core I7 has this issue also, but a core I5 and other non hyper threaded intel chips do not have this issue. The main difference is that intel tells you that it is a 4 core CPU running 8 threads instead of lying and saying 8 cores running 8 threads.
Because of the bahavior of the current FX chips, I don't see how they can call it 8 cores.
Can you call a building 2 houses if both share the same living room?