AMD's Bobcat and Bulldozer

[Opteron146]

The sentence don't make any sense at all if they actually mean AM3 (non+), since existing CPUs are AM3. It has to be AM3+ as replacement for AM3.

Yes it has to be, but as long as there is no confirmation, you cannot take that for 100% sure. Maybe they really gravely misunderstood it, because they are caught in a AM2, AM2+, AM3, AM3+ confusion

Let's wait and see and let's not panic for now. It will be probably clarified in a few hours anyways.

Edit:
To the performance discussion:
2 ALUs probably wont have the same INT performance as Sandy Bridge, however, they could clock higher ;-)
As long as the power consumption would not be as bad as Pentium4's, I wouldnt have a problem with that

Furthermore, if you mix in FP code, it becomes favorable for AMD, because of the additional 4 FP ports. Intel CPUs are sharing the INT and FP ports, i.e. the max. throughput is limited to 3 Ops, either pure INT or pure FP or INT/FP mixed. If there is only 1 FP instruction, or not more than 2 INT instructions, then the AMD approach has no disadvantage.

Hans de Vries once wrote that 9x % of code could be processed easily with a 2issue core. That fact is proven now by AMD's recent statement, that the 3rd INT ALU was not used often. Intel tried to use their 3 pipes by introducing SMT, AMD now just cut away the 3rd ALU and added in a 2nd INT core, dedicated to a 2nd thread.

Due to less complexity in every core, clocks could be higher (there are some scientific papers, found by Dresdenboy about that topic, check his blog if you want to know more), so all in all, it should be the better approach - well at least as long as we dont speak about Pentium1 class like performance for a single core