It is very simple,
When Bulldozer was launched, games and apps were not written for his architecture, new games and apps are, thus the performance is higher than Thuban.
No consiparicy here.
Sure, LOL. The X6 1100T has anywhere from the same to slightly lower total computational performance compared to the FX-8150. It's not a matter of it "not being written for the architecture" when it's a FACT both the Bulldozer and Piledriver architecture are slower than K10.5 whether it's in IPC or in per-core performance. This demonstrates it plainly:
iTunes is completely single-threaded, and here you can see that despite running at a higher frequency and having a newer architecture, the FX-8150 has lower performance. And let's not forget that since this is a single-threaded test there is zero penalty from the modular architecture.
Now, the FX-6100 can address the same number of integer threads as the 1100T. It also runs at the same clock speed. Using a single-threaded program we just proved that the K10.5 architecture is faster than the Bulldozer architecture. Please explain to me in a coherent, rational manner how the FX-6100 performs faster than the 1100T in gaming when it has LOWER computational resources at its disposal. Could you also explain how the Phenom II X4 went from competing with the 1st gen Core i5 to being slower than a 1st gen Core i3 in gaming?
Planned obsolescence, that's what.