Why do the manufactures let us OC at all?

[TUK101]

Why do you think that Intel and AMD let us OC our processors at all? I would think that they would lose a bit of money in letting us OC our chips to higher specs rather than just buying the faster more stabile chip in the first place. Or do they make thier money back in letting us ruin our chips and having to replace them? I have an 800 Celeron that I am able to clock up to 1066@133 fsb, and if I didnt know that I was able to do that I would have bought the faster 1 gig Celeron or the PIII 1 gig chip instead, but I saved between 50-100 bucks when I bought this one instead of the faster chip. Any ideas on why they continue to let us OC at all? I know that they locked the multiplier on the Intel chips long ago to fight OC'ing, but they continue to let us do it through the fsb. Is that because they use the fsb when manufacturing the chips?

[Godfodda]

The only thing they can do to have any control over the FSB is build their own motherboards. The bus speed is motherboard regulated, not controlled by CPU.

[TC]

They locked the multiplier to prevent remarking, not to stop overclocking. Overclockers represent such a small market segment that they couldn't care less about it.

[CrystalMethod]

Not to mention that when we burn chips we have to go out and buy new ones.

[Yodums]

Well like they said they do try to prevent it as they locked the multipliers... Thats basically all they can do. Well if I'm wrong the population of overclockers is 1% so they do lose profit however they probably won't lose much as alot of people kill chips in the process :D

Yodums

[Ebola]

but then again companies like abit make many boards for enthusiests and the extra "overclocking" functions help sell boards.

[TC]

Originally posted by Ebola
but then again companies like abit make many boards for enthusiests and the extra "overclocking" functions help sell boards. They do make boards with overclocking features, but if you examine a company like Asus for example, you would find that these models actually reperesent a fairly small amount of their total production. Most of their boards are manufactured for oems, and while they share similarities with the boards we buy, they lack the overclocking features.

[SkyHook]

I would be interested in seeing some numbers representing the frequency with which typical OverClockers purchase new CPUs as opposed to the general public.
What I mean is, it seems that OCers appear to purchase more CPUs, either because the one they have has been successfully OCed and is therefore no longer a challenge, or because the one they have appears reluctant to be pushed and therefore doesn't deserve spending time on. But either way I have yet to meet an OCer that doesn't have plans for a new CPU or is in fact waiting for the delivery of the package containing their next quest.
I would think the sales of CPUs, Boards, and the like would deminish noticably if the Hobbists and Experimenters were to stop their activities and simply be satisfied until such time as their equipment died a natural death.

Just an Opinion, everyone is entitled to at least one.

[TUK101]

I like SKYHOOK's point of view. I mean, the peaple that I know that do not OC, will hang onto thier propriotory based machine for years, thinking that it performs just as well as the latest machines on the market. I on the other hand have built 3 comps in the past year and am planning on building another. LOL, now which of us is the fool? Me for going through 3 comps in a year, just because I like to play around, and learn through trial and error? Or my friends and reletives that hang onto thier dinosaurs and swear that they function just as well as my newer faster comp? And also, where is Intel and AMD making most of thier money? From us hobbiests, or from the basic homeowner that buys a comp out of the nearest Wallmart and thinks that he has the biggest Hot Rod on the block just because it says P4 on the front of it? :eek: