Two surprises right here, first, the FX60 does not draw more power than the X2-4800+. Second, unlike the Venice that, when overclocked, showed a substantial increase in power consumption, the FX60 is almost completely agnostic to clock speed ( e.g. 2860 MHz) - as long as there is no increase in core voltage.

AMD Board posted a review on the AMD Athlon FX-60 CPU:

There isn't really much to say, the FX60 has stolen the crown in almost every single benchmark we ran, and did so at power consumption levels that were partially below that of its own, lower clocked brethren. Officially, as we mentioned earlier, there is no change in silicon between the earlier revisions and the FX60. During some of the benchmarks, we thought we had seen some more dramatic increase in performance, however, retesting and retesting over and again showed that even a different driver revision for one or the other system component can easily fool us into wishful thinking, while at the end of the day, the carefully construed card house collapses under the burden of repetitive benchmark results. Which showed us that there are still no miracles in the AMD camp.

On the other hand, the FX60 does not need any miracles, it is fast enough as it is and essentially without competition in raw performance. If a performance per Watt metric is applied, naturally, single core CPUs are somewhat better since they don't carry the overhead of a second core under reduced load. On the other hand, even in that case, The FX60 has beaten all our expectations, running cool, quiet and at low power while delivering stellar performance. What else could we want? Well, there is this little problem with the price of US$ 1031,- at launch....