This was a lot to read so I tried to find a quote that boiled it down:
"The reality is quite clear by now: AMD isn't going to solve its CPU performance issues with anything from the Bulldozer family. What we need is a replacement architecture, one that I suspect we'll get after Excavator concludes the line in 2015.
"
And from the last paragraph I took that it would be a good CPU for a budget gaming box.
One of the prominent features of Kaveri we will be
looking into is its HSA (Heterogenous System
Architecture) – the tight coupling of CPU and GPU,
extending all the way down to the programming model. Gone
are the days when CPU and GPU cores have to be treated
like independent inequals, with tons of data copies back
and forth for both types of cores to cooperate on the
same problem. With Kaveri, both CPU and GPU are treated
as equal class citizens, capable of working on the same
data in the same place in memory. It'll be a while before
we see software take advantage of Kaveri's architecture,
and it's frustrating that the first HSA APU couldn't have
come with a different CPU, but make no mistake: this is a
very big deal.
It's not a reason to buy one for a gaming box today, but the article is right: this architectural change is a very big deal.
It's good for a small form factor budget gaming box. Kaveri closes the gap but at this point you can still buy a cheap non-APU processor + $100 faster discrete graphics card that will perform better at about the same cost. Even if simply buy the same-ish GPU in discrete form with GDDR5 (~$80) it will perform better than an APU paired up with DDR3. Even more so if you don't pay the premium to get fast DDR3 modules. APUs take a big performance hit when paired up with less expensive / slower DDR3 modules.
For as much as AMD shows promise in their graphics line, if one thing is clear it is that the Bulldozer architecture has been a humiliating failure on the CPU side: extremely high TDPs and terrible performance vs. equivalent Intel *y Bridge/Haswell cores. It's been universally panned for most workloads since its release date made worse by AMD's marketing efforts leading up to its launch.
I wonder what has happened to the Bulldozer design team at AMD at this point and whether or not they even still work there at all.
I remember reading an article a while back re: changes from hand-drawn manual layout to automated layout methods for the chips. The assertion was that manual layout is often better for compute performance, while automated layout makes more efficient use of die area.
AMD, of course, spun off GlobalFoundries years ago and now pays a 3rd party to fab their processors. They also led the charge to incorporate graphics cores into the same die, and modern GPUs are very transistor-intensive.
Basically, I would not be surprised if this is as much about process as it is about design.
"The reality is quite clear by now: AMD isn't going to solve its CPU performance issues with anything from the Bulldozer family. What we need is a replacement architecture, one that I suspect we'll get after Excavator concludes the line in 2015. "
And from the last paragraph I took that it would be a good CPU for a budget gaming box.