You can find a whole bunch of reviews on the X3 line now. On average they OC rather well, around 2.8ghz. Lower results claimed they couldn't push past 2.6ghz, others got as high as 3.1ghz. Nice amount of variation, but more likely due to reviewers missing out on key OC elements. At any rate, on of the more interesting reviews that I found was a comparison on the mid-range level. All the benchmarks include stock and OC'ed results for the X3 8750 @3ghz, and an X2 5000+ BE @3.4ghz. Other Phenoms at stock were tossed in the mix for deeper reference, and an Intel E6750 @ 2.66ghz. Neoseeker The differences between multi-threaded apps, and single-threaded apps are quite significant. An OC'ed 5kBE is still a damn good processor for the AMD camp. For comparison to Intel processors, I had to hit up another site (PC Perspective). Unfortunately, they didn't include OC results with their benches, so you'll have to go with the previous relative placement to make a decent guess. Games however are hit and miss across the board. It just depends on how the gaming engine handles multiple cores, and in reality is going to depend a whole lot more on your videocard. Now, being that there's a dozen sites out there, all doing their own review with different benchmarks, there's a lot left to be analyzed and sorted out. So before I go any further, let me just make something rather clear. Intel has better processors With that comes better speed, top of every review chart out there, lower power requirements, and less heat dissipation. AMD can't beat them on any of these things, even price/performance is a gray muddy world, and really depends on the moment. Why bother reading any of this, or posting in the thread if you're a Intel fan? Well, simply don't. I have an AM2+ board, with a 5kBE. These things are relevant to me, and a handful of others on this site. Try not to bog us down by stating the obvious aforementioned above. It simply makes more sense for me (and others) to continue with the platform that's already paid for and running. A single upgrade makes much more sense that a whole new system. Now then, moving along. I am curious as to personal experiences with an X3, if anyone has one up and running. Seems to me, on a general basis considering the dozen reviews that I've looked through, the price/performance is slightly less than an X4, until you consider the differences in overclocking. With a x4 9850 generally you can hit about 3 ghz. This is the same with an X3, 3ghz a little over. Considering the same architecture, where's the real benefit? The only thing I can think of that might make a difference is the L3 cache is shared between only 3 cores, instead of 4, and is the same size. (c0)512K+(c1)512K+(c2)512K+2048K= 3.5MB. The other thing, that would hopefully happen, is that they'll hit better yields by disabling the slowest core in a quad, and making for higher potential overclocking. Time will tell on that matter. Where's the x3 Black Edition? Ah, well, I'm stupidly interested in the X3, it's at a nice price point, shows better results in a handful of things than my 5kBE, and is a viable upgrade option for the summertime. Post your thoughts/observations, and OC results if ya got em. Thanks!