B/C the 3.2EE is an overclocked regular cpu. I mean everything in specs that the 3.2EE beats the FX in is OCable. The actual bit-cpu you cannot change. But the FSB (3.2EE leads FX) you can obviously change b/c OC=Multipler x FSB. Also i should have mentioned this first but the clock cycle is faster on the 3.2EE which is overclockable. 3.2EE leads 3.2 to 2.2!! basically what i'm preaching hear is quality and not quanity. you probably can't OC the 3.2EE as much b/c it's an 3.2 OCed even more. So naturally even though it has 478PINs to spread the heat, in proportion u can't OC the 3.2EE as much as teh FX. Imagine what would happen if AMD made more pins like a Socket 500!! Then they could take their 64-bit cpu and clock it to 3.6 with the FSB1200 and the L4 cache like 5MB!! I once read an post hear explaining how Intel overpowers AMD with just pure muscle and speed, but if AMD were to ever take their well planned well built cpu and make it more muscle and speed, then watch out! The post i was referring to was an anology to sports cars. I think the Intel was an Honda Accord with a 190HP V6 supped up with a turbo charge kit level and the car had lost like 25 percent of it's weight. Were as the AMD was an well built 300 HP V8 with no bells and whistles so to speak. I am looking for a healthy debate like people debate about who's better at WR or QB in the NFL, not about how people debate and scream and agrue with eachother about who's better and smarter! got it? Admins plz back me on this one, or this could get messey.