Looking at this now, I think I tiredly last night misunderstood the meaning of "mutually exclusive". Corrected the posts to show how I was thinking while typing it. 
The two traits could exist together, but I focused on it as if you thought all psychopaths must be sadists/all sadists must be psychopaths. Since the two are unrelated factors that don't clash with each other, I don't see why they couldn't exist together. Sadism isn't about empathy, it's about lust, so anyone who can be turned on is capable of it.
"I think Sadism is a form of empathy or a reversed one, sense psychopaths would lack that, wouldn't that render it mutually exclusive? (in no way sure of this)"
I saw it more like a crossed wire between the mind's responses to violence and sex. "Empaths" can be sadists too, and it's not like it's difficult to have someone cross those associations.
I've seen enough sadism without sociopathy/psychopathy attached, so I'd believe so the two topics are separate matters.
Edit: Fixed.
That area's harder for me to measure since I haven't seen as many socio/psychopaths. I could see where they could have less problems with it, but I'm not sure if that is enough to make them predisposed towards it instead of easier to stomach. I'd assume it's still mutually exclusive two entirely independent traits, but that's assumption on my part.
I'd imagine asexuality being a possibility within their spectrum, wouldn't that affect that too?
Edit: Fixed.
Even if there is only a minor predisposition to it that still leaves people within the range of both rendering it not mutually exclusive. (if we assume somewhere around 1% socio/psychopath and a similar situation with sadism that still leaves people within both)
In terms of assumptions I don't think its a good idea especially since this thread is dedicated to answering the question, assuming an answer would not give me much to go on. Explaining the bases for the assumption might shed some light.
I think Sadism is a form of empathy or a reversed one, sense psychopaths would lack that, wouldn't that render it mutually exclusive? (in no way sure of this)
I agree. I only meant to claim that people who don't emotionally empathize with others in will in general tend to view social relationships in more of a strictly hierarchical manner. And that many of the people who view things in such a way will tend to crave dominance, and the process for a certain population is a route to sadism.
"I would surmise that sadism, when it has anything to do with sociopathy or psychopathy, directly correlates to the gratification of feeling superior by expression of dominance, and that dominance is conditioned within such persons to be related to self-image, and that those persons have an emotional investment in their self-image as being dominant."
Sadism and Domming aren't the same thing. One is about enjoying another's suffering while the other is more about control and power. The two can work together but don't have to be simultaneously present, making for people who can claim to be submissive sadists/dominant masochists.
That depends. To begin with, the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" are ambiguous, and are used to describe different things by different people. To give your question a sensible answer, I will give what I believe to be perfectly reasonable definitions for each term. If you really want me to go into more detail about that, I can, but I figure most people aren't interested in that, and 90% of the attention spans here are probably already fucked by this first paragraph/the length of my post.
Consider a sociopath to be a person who "learned" via environmental circumstances to be a person who developed an antisocial attitude. Consider a psychopath to be a person who is genetically predisposed toward an abnormally low level of emotional capacity compared to the populational norm. Both "sociopath" and "psychopath" are descriptive terms, and people are more or less described by how those terms are defined, spectrally.
If you consider the psychology of a person who has been conditioned toward an antisocial attitude—who generally relates to others in an adversarial manner—you should expect that many such persons hold sadistic attitudes. Why? Because they would view social relationships as inherently competitive in the absence of emotional interconnectedness. Status becomes equated with power, and power becomes equated with pleasure. The stereotypical sociopath will have some core loyalties, coated with a generally forceful character that is not restrained by social norms.
As for the psychopath, it is much harder to correlate his behaviors to any specific preferences, or with any aim at all. Hervey Cleckley summed up this topic best:
"Furthermore, it cannot be predicted how long effective and socially acceptable conduct will prevail or precisely when (or in what manner) dishonest, outlandish, or disastrously irresponsible acts or failures to act will occur. These seem to have little or no relation to objective stress, to cyclic periods, or to major alterations of mood or outlook. What is at stake for the patient, for his family, or for anybody else is not a regularly determining factor. At the crest of success in his work he may forge a small check, indulge in petty thievery, or simply not come to the office. After a period of gracious and apparently happy relations with his family he may pick a quarrel with his wife, cuff her up a bit, drive her from the house, and then throw a glass of iced tea in the face of his 3-year-old son. For the initiation of such outbursts he does not, it seems, need any great anger. Moderate vexation usually suffices.
The psychopath's unreliability and his disregard for obligations and for consequences are manifested in both trivial and serious matters, are masked by demonstrations of conforming behavior, and cannot be accounted for by ordinary motives or incentives. Although it can be confidently predicted that his failures and disloyalties will continue, it is impossible to time them and to take satisfactory precautions against their effect. Here, it might be said, is not even a consistency in inconsistency but an inconsistency in inconsistency."
Case studies of those on the extreme end of the psychopathic spectrum leaves little doubt that such persons are not only incapable of sadism, but of any sophisticated social emotion at all. But naturally, human behavior and cognition exists in gradients, and so we cannot superimpose the behavior of "extreme psychopaths" over "half psychopaths." But from all the information overlayed here, I would surmise that sadism, when it has anything to do with sociopathy or psychopathy, directly correlates to the gratification of feeling superior by expression of dominance, and that dominance is conditioned within such persons to be related to self-image, and that those persons have an emotional investment in their self-image as being dominant.