I think that's why it is important to agree on a definition that relies more on the smallest division that a processor can be divided in to where all portions function equally (for execution, not cache). For Intel processors, that would be the HT'ed core. For AMD's new thing, that would be what they're calling a module.
If you look at it this way, you cannot be fooled by marketing. If you split the execution capability of a quad core i7 in to 8, not all 8 perform the same, and they perform differently based on which of the 8 you load. If I load, say 1 and 3, it will perform differently than if I load 1 and 2 (being a single core+HT). If you drop that down to 4 divisions though, I can chose any 2 and run a given load and have practically the same performance. Yes, a core may be capable of multiple threads, but it does so at a performance penalty compared to spreading those threads across more cores.
On the AMD side, it really functions almost exactly the same. If you take the 4 "module" system and split it in to 8. Performance depends on which of the 8 you place your load. If I run the same process on two logical processors on the same core, performance will be worse than if I chose two on different cores. If you only split it in to 4, then performance of each core is equal. I can use 1 and 3, 1 and 4, etc. It won't matter.
A module is a core.