Games have become an intriguing benchmark for modern processors because they tend to fall somewhere between the benchmarks that rely heavily on clock-speed and those that rely heavily on multi-threaded performance. Most games need a nice balance of these qualities to run well.
As was demonstrated above, the single-thread performance of the new AMD FX processors is lacking. Perhaps this can be compensated for by flexing the power of eight cores? Let's start by having a look at The Tech Report's benchmark of Civilization V. The benchmark was run at 1920x1200 with all detail settings at high.
In this game, the new Bulldozer processor does manage to pull ahead of its Phenom II based brethren - barely. The FX-8150 scored 32 FPS, while the Phenom II X6 1100T scored 30 FPS. But the Intel competition has a clear advantage. The Core i5-2500K, which is a little less expensive than the FX-8150, managed to offer an extra 11 frames per second.
Anandtech received even worse results by running Dawn of War 2. As I can attest from my own experience, this game tends to rely more heavily on lightly threaded processor performance than some other titles. As a result, the FX-8150 comes in behind the Phenom II, and by no small margin. According to Anandtech, at a resolution of 1680x1050 at Ultra setting, the new Bulldozer scored 51.5 FPS - but the Phenom II X6 managed 61.1, and the Core i5-2500K managed 82.3.
Perhaps the only decent result came from PC Perspective, which ran the FX-8150 in the Battlefield 3 at 1920x1080 with high detail settings. Under these conditions, the FX-8150 performed on par with Intel's Core i5 and i7.
Of course, so did the Phenom II X6. What this benchmark shows is that for high-end gamers, the processor is still less important than the graphics card, because the most demanding games usually have their performance limited by the GPU long before the limits of the CPU are reached.