65nm is nice, but without significant architectural changes (basically a whole new architecture) nothing else is going to matter. Conroe seems to hold a 1:1.33 Conroe:A64 ratio. That might not seem so bad; until you consider that CPUs don't operate on the 1Ghz scale. A 2.0Ghz Conroe would be like a 2.66Ghz Dual Core A64. And that places the $244 2.13Ghz Conroe close to the $1010 2.8Ghz Athlon 64 FX-62.
Even with 65nm, AMD would need to clock a A64 at 3.55Ghz to compete with the 2.66Ghz Conroe E6700. And then, they would need to cut the price in half to compete with the $530 pricetag of the E6700. I'm not trying to be a Intel/Conroe fanboy, I've provided you with clear proof.
K8L isn't an architectural change. As AMD said, "evolutionary, not revolutionary." It simply adds Quad Cores, faster HT, FB-DIMM/DDR3 support, etc etc. All things that are nice to have, but nothing to catch up to Conroe. Yea, neither 65nm, nor K8L will do anything without actual architectural changes. And all revision G seems to be is a move to 65nm. Sure, that might lead to some performance improvements, but only in the single-digit %s.