Still something doesn't add up. Before the Interlagos was "scaled down" clock-wise( from roughly 2.8Ghz base to 2.3Ghz base we will have now),integer and spec fp rates were listed at roughly 48% and 77% better than 2.3Ghz MC system. This would lead us to believe integer performance per core and clock was slightly better (~3%-counted in non-perfect scaling with more cores and more clock and 80% scaling AMD lists for integer cores) while FP performance was noticeably better,between 15 and 20% per clock at same core count.
The sisoft results for 6282SE suggest 2.5Ghz base clock and 14% better integer and 76% better fp throughput than 2P MC @ 2.5Ghz.
We are left with few possibilities:
1) 6282SE/6220 results are not real.(ie. they are fake) This may very well be the situation here .
2) 6282SE/6220 results are "kinda" real. The problem is the Turbo is not working. I'm personally leaning towards this. We have 2.5Ghz in both integer and multimedia tests(and for both platforms 2.5Ghz). This equates to 7-8% better per core result in integer and 32% better per core result in Multimedia. 80% scaling in integer throughput was used to calculate how much better per core is Bulldozer : 232/0.8/16=18.12Gops for 1 BD core @ 2.5Ghz Vs 202/12=16.83Gops for 1 MC core @ 2.5Ghz;for fp it was simpler, just divide the result by number of "cores" for both and you get to 32% faster for Bulldozer per core(or per FMAC if you like ). Note that 6220 posts almost identical results as 6282SE,of course adjusted for difference in core count and clock(2x less cores and 20% less clock speed).
3) Results are not fake per se,but they are not accurate(bios/platform/CPUs are not final). It means we can't use them as reference point for anything. This one may be true too.

Number 1 and 3 are the ones we might consider the most. Number 2 is there since the results are there,but hinges on hope that Turbo was disabled.