OK, without getting too awfully deep into the intricacies of the board's VRM (which are probably too deep for me anyway) allow me to clarify, in simple layman's terms, why I was asking these questions in the first place.
My motherboard is rated for a 95W CPU. End of story. I assume that if I have a CPU in the socket that is drawing more than that, then I run a certain, perhaps modest or perhaps large risk of burning up the board.
Meanwhile, I have an Athlon II X3 3.0GHz which according to AMD is nominally a "95W" CPU. But I harbor more than a little doubt about that number, and I suspect that in reality, for this specific CPU, the actual nominal wattage is lower, even at rated (non-overclocked) speed and maximum load.
Why do I say this? Two reasons.
First, I cannot help but note that essentially every Athlon II CPU that ADM produces has been rated by them as being either 65W or 95W or 125W. Given the many variations of this basic CPU that they produce, the fact that there are only three wattages specified for every member of the family seems on the face of it to be clearly NOT reflective of the actual power draw of all of the specific different CPUs in this family, but rather, and more likely, these three wattage ratings are just a dumbed down simplification, suitable for marketing purposes and for the typical end luser community (who do not generally benefit from being confused by the actual facts).
Second and more specifically, I have noted with more than passing interest that the specific model of this family which is an Athlon II *X4* 3.0Ghz CPU is also rated by AMD as a... wait for it... "95W" CPU. I mean huh? WTF?
In short if we blindly believed the wattage numbers that AMD is promulgating for these CPUs, then we would have to also accept as truth the notion that one could go from an X3 processor to an X4 processor, within the same family, and at exactly the same clock speed, and thereby get something up to another 33% of work done absolutely FOR FREE in terms of additional power draw.
This is obviously nonsensical. There are plenty of ways of obtaining additional compute horsepower for a small amount of additional power draw, but as far as I know, there are no practical scenarios under which one can get additional compute horsepower at a cost of exactly -zero- additional watts of input. Not without substantially re-engineering the entire processor, at least.
So I think that you can see where I am going with this. What I would really like to know is: What is the *real* maximum power draw of an Athlon II X3 3.0Ghz CPU? Common sense says that despite what AMD says, it is something less than 95 watts. If it is in reality, say, 86 watts, then I personally will feel comfortable overclocking this CPU by 10% and would do so without any serious fear of causing my motherboard to break a sweat, i.e. by making it have to handle more than 95 watts of flow to the CPU socket.
Perhaps I am being naive in this rather simplistic view of things, and it seems to me probable that there are many many potential complications and additional factors that I have not accounted for, so much so so that someone might be able to write a PhD dissertation on the whole question. But I am a simple man and I like simple answers and I don't really have either the time or the inclination or the motivation to delve too awfully deeply into whether or not I may in fact end up burning up a $45(USD) board based on my simplified assumptions. So for now, I just simply want to know if anyone here happens to know the *actual* max power draw of an Athlon II X3 3.0GHz. That information would be helpful. And if I do burn up the board due to my over-simplistic assumptions, then I promise to hang my head in shame and report back here, nonetheless, that I have done so, for the benefit of the community.