>> How can you possibly compare an overclocked processor running at its max to a processor that is run stock? The debate isn't about bang for the buck. Venice wins hands down. The debate is about which is the faster processor. Venice will be eating crow if you extreme overclock an FX.
Very true. The unlocked multipliers on the FX series can give it an overclock limited only by heat (not motherboard).
Like I always say, buy a processor for what it is, not what it can be made to do. Overclocking is in no way supported or guarenteed by the chip manufacturer. I don't know if AMD even covers overclocking on the FX chips.
And yes, I recommend the 3000+ Venice on all my lowerend PC builds. Best bang for the buck with room to grow (FX57, 4000+, 4800+ X2).
Very true. The unlocked multipliers on the FX series can give it an overclock limited only by heat (not motherboard).
Like I always say, buy a processor for what it is, not what it can be made to do. Overclocking is in no way supported or guarenteed by the chip manufacturer. I don't know if AMD even covers overclocking on the FX chips.
And yes, I recommend the 3000+ Venice on all my lowerend PC builds. Best bang for the buck with room to grow (FX57, 4000+, 4800+ X2).