Once you accept that none of the next generation consoles will have an Intel based Core i5/i7 due to cost and Intel's high profit margins, what's the next best gaming processor in the world for a console that is expected to last 6-8 years? Bulldozer/Vishera. Say it isn't so?

Also, you forgot another key word: Context. 

While on the PC, gamers care a lot about CPU performance because the most popular gaming genres are MMOs & RTS/strategy games which are notoriously poorly multi-threaded and are very CPU limited style games. Furthermore, enthusiasts tend to spend $100-200 for small performance increases on the GPU side (like $100 extra to go from GTX670 to GTX680 or $200+ extra for 25% more performance to go from GTX660Ti to GTX680, or HD7950 to HD7970GE, etc.). For those users, especially if they overclock their CPUs, every little bit of performance and reduction in power at overclocked 4.5-5.0ghz states matters.

None of these things apply to consoles: (1) Console CPUs aren't overclocked (2) Consoles don't have RTS or MMOs (3) Consoles won't use high-end or dual-GPUs.

So why does context matter so much? Because when you put Bulldozer/Vishera (FX8150-8350) and pair it with a GTX670 in a wide variety of "console style games" games, the performance difference between it and Core i5/i7 is almost non-existent.

- Alan Wake, ARMA II: Operation Arrowhead, Assassin's Creed 3, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, F1 2012, Far Cry 3, GTA IV, Hitman Absolution, Max Payne 3, Metro 2033, and Sleeping Dogs you end up with this:

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/graficke-karty/25994-vliv-procesoru-na-vykon-ve-hrach-od-phenomu-po-core-i7?start=16

At 1920x1080 with Anti-aliasing, when FX8120-8350 are paired with a GTX670, they are only 2% behind in performance! In the type of games that are on consoles (non-MMO/RTS games), the console will be primarily GPU limited. The context matters even more because it's almost a certainty that none of the next generation consoles will have a GPU as powerful as a GTX670. Essentially if you were to put an FX8000 CPU with any GPU slower than GTX670, the console will be 95% GPU limited for most of its life going forward assuming the games are running at 1920x1080 with some anti-aliasing that stresses the GPU. Most professionals reviews run CPU tests at useless resolutions like 1280x800 or 1680x1050 with no AA to show the differences in CPU speeds. This type of testing is absolutely meaningless if the consoles are targeting 1920x1080 with some AA, because the workload almost entirely shifts to the graphics sub-system. The slower the GPU is in the consoles, the more the workload will expose the GPU bottleneck. 

Context: FX8000 would not suck at all in a console -- that would actually be the 2nd best choice after Intel's CPUs, far superior to any processor made by IBM, and it would handily trounce an 8-core Jaguar by miles. If anything, you should hope and pray that PS4 has an 8-core (4 module) Bulldozer/Vishera in it, not denounce it, because honestly that's the 2nd fastest CPU you can get once you step outside of Intel's CPU offerings. Also, if you look at FX8320's retail price of $169 and what Sony can possibly purchase this AMD processor for directly from AMD, then it's pretty obvious Intel's offerings are out of the question, unless you are willing to pay $600-700 for a PS4 with a Core i7. But again, that wouldn't even matter unless the console had a GPU more powerful than a GTX670...

1. PS3 had a power draw of 195-240W when it first launched, and its idle power draw was incredibly wasteful:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/green-gaming-playstation-3-6303944/

They could use the FX8300 (95W TDP) and a slightly neutured HD7970M (75-100W), then you can end up very near original PS3's power consumption. I don't think that would be a problem since the idle power consumption will actually be far better this round and load would be similar.

2. They could do a custom BIOS for flexibility. Since most games don't scale beyond 4 threads, they could set up the BIOS so that the 4 cores clock to 3.6-4.0ghz when the other 4 are not in use. If all 8 cores / 4 modules are utilized, the CPU could be capped at 2.6-2.8ghz. Either one of those options (4 Bulldozer/Vishera cores at 3.6ghz+ or 8 of those at 2.6-2.8ghz) would be way faster than 8 Jaguar cores clocked at 1.6ghz. 

My bigger problem with this rumor is not Bulldozer vs. Piledriver details but other things. First, they have 2.2GB of GDDR5 which is not even logically possible unless there is 2048 MB of GDDR5 and some added eDRAM/eSRAM or special cache for the GPU? Second, based on the rumored specs of PS4 vs. 720, it looks like we are comparing a Bulldozer 8 core with HD7970M 2GB GDDR5 (PS4) to an 8-core Jaguar with HD7770Ghz DDR3 (Xbox 720). The difference between those 2 consoles in terms of power is a generational leap apart, at least 2-3x the power difference, especially on the CPU side. How could Sony put so much more powerful hardware and still stay under $600? On these spec differences alone, the consoles would not even be remotely comparable in terms of generational processing power. That doesn't make any sense to me.

1. PS3 had a power draw of 195-240W when it first launched, and its idle power draw was incredibly wasteful:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/green-gaming-playstation-3-6303944/

They could use the FX8300 (95W TDP) and a slightly neutured HD7970M (75-100W), then you can end up very near original PS3's power consumption. I don't think that would be a problem since the idle power consumption will actually be far better this round and load would be similar.

2. They could do a custom BIOS for flexibility. Since most games don't scale beyond 4 threads, they could set up the BIOS so that the 4 cores clock to 3.6-4.0ghz when the other 4 are not in use. If all 8 cores / 4 modules are utilized, the CPU could be capped at 2.6-2.8ghz. Either one of those options (4 Bulldozer/Vishera cores at 3.6ghz+ or 8 of those at 2.6-2.8ghz) would be way faster than 8 Jaguar cores clocked at 1.6ghz. 

My bigger problem with this rumor is not Bulldozer vs. Piledriver details but other things. First, they have 2.2GB of GDDR5 which is not even logically possible unless there is 2048 MB of GDDR5 and some added eDRAM/eSRAM or special cache for the GPU? Second, based on the rumored specs of PS4 vs. 720, it looks like we are comparing a Bulldozer 8 core with HD7970M 2GB GDDR5 (PS4) to an 8-core Jaguar with HD7770Ghz DDR3 (Xbox 720). The difference between those 2 consoles in terms of power is a generational leap apart, at least 2-3x the power difference, especially on the CPU side. How could Sony put so much more powerful hardware and still stay under $600? Why would MS go with such less powerful parts if much faster parts were barely more expensive? On these spec differences alone, the consoles would not even be remotely comparable in terms of generational processing power. That doesn't make any sense to me if they are both going to be priced at $350-450, especially since we know Sony cannot afford to lose hundreds of dollars on the console like they did with PS4 given their financial situation.