A budget 3.5GHz 2C/4T outperforming a 4.7-5.0GHz 4M/8C (220W) monster in 2017 games. It shows per core performance remains very important for some (not all) titles, otherwise it would be an easy win for that particular FX (faster in MT applications). And FYI, Skylake architecture launched less than 3 years after Piledriver.
You are the one who explicitly mentioned the G4560. Here, I'll refresh your memory:
Per core performance prevails here, Pentium G4560 would easily outclass any FX CPU.
The G4560 is a Kabylake part, released a few weeks ago. I'm not talking about Skylake, so don't move goalposts and try avoid the subject. I'm talking about the G4560 Kabylake part that you compared the FX CPU's to. Here, I'll even link and illlustrate the Intel Ark for you:
Note the red box, this shows the release date of the G4560 that you explicitly compared the 2011 FX architecture CPU to. Note that it was released this quarter, making it a member of Intel's latest and greatest next generation Kabylake architecture.
Link to Intel's Ark page for the G4560:
https://ark.intel.com/products/97143/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G4560-3M-Cache-3_50-GHz
Are you also aware that you're comparing 32nm 2011 technology to Intel's latest and greatest Kabylake 14nm+ process and architecture?
Everyone knows that Intel CPU's are vastly superior. That's why AMD were in such a bad position over the last few years - their CPU's have not been selling well. We know this.
Why do you feel the need to constantly write about the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture? Every time a new game comes out, you see it as your duty to mock or make fun of these CPU's. Even small children have enough IQ to read graphs and see how bad the FX CPU's are.
Wait a few weeks for Ryzen, then go compare