Congrats to the OP for a great OC on a relative low budget chip, however you didn't earn $650, don't kid yourself. You SAVED $650, unless you're an A-hole who sold the chip to some sucker for $800
While I agree that the FX line is absurd due to pricing, it has advantages the "lowly" 3000+ does not. The price isn't worth it in the extra cache, nor the unlocked multis, or even the choice silicon, of which the 130nm FX55 can still overtake the matured 90nm Venice 3000+ in max air OC...but it has all those advantages and you PAY for them - out the arse no less.
You SAVED $650 in performance by buying budget and then overclocking to higher levels. However paying $800 for an FX55 you also can "save" some money by squeezing out more performance to obtain the performance of a product that is not even on the market. To some enthusiasts the money is then justified.
I'm sure that many of us 3000/3200+ owners who have overclocked near/to/beyond FX55/57 levels would still love to have those particular chips, it is just that we chose to save our money. I know I'd definately enjoy pushing an FX for all its worth, but it simply is not practical for me to do so, whereas a 3000+ was perfect for the job.
Originally posted by: Shimmishim
fx-55 can overclock to 3 ghz on air... it's not unheard of...
i'd pick a fx-55 over a 3000+ anyday
as for your method for determining your processor is faster... sandra isn't a good benchmark...
you also have to remember that the fx-55 has an extra 512kb cache which can easily make up for some of the difference in speed between your 2.74 ghz and 2.6 ghz...
While I mostly agree with you, saying the extra cache helps more than the extra 140MHz is pushing it. It will help close the gap but it won't "easily" close it.