Intel nor AMD Have Ever Seriously Tried Why Overclocking Continues To Exist

[Robert010 0]

Have you ever wondered why neither Intel nor AMD have ever seriously tried to stop overclocking? There's been times when they looked like they would. There's even been times when I thought they would. So why haven't they? How Big Are We? Are they afraid of losing our business? No. The best guesstimates of the overclocking population seem to center around 1% of the computer population. It may be a bit higher; it may be a bit less, but that estimate is probably not too far wrong. 1% of the CPU population means about 1.25 million processors a year. Given the propensity of overclockers to buy lower-priced CPUs, I would be surprised if the average price paid per overclocked CPU was much more than $150. This means we spend about $200 million a year on processors. We'd probably not be far off splitting that 75% for Intel, 25% for AMD. That's about $150 million in revenue for Intel, $50 million for AMD. That's not a lot of money for Intel; proportionately more for AMD, but nothing earthshaking. So while it's not chump change, if overclocking were costing Intel or AMD serious money through returns or remarking, it's not enough to be a real deterrent to stop either from stopping overclocking. So what stops them? When The Cure Is Worse Than The Disease A lot of problems in this world don't get fixed because the systemic cure to a problem costs more than the costs of the problem. How much does overclocking cost Intel and AMD? If you realistically take all the factors into account, it's probably roughly a wash. Overclockers probably spend a bit less than they otherwise would without overclocking, and probably have a somewhat higher return rate. On the other hand, they probably buy CPUs more often than the average computer user. Stopping overclocking, though, would cost real money. The technology exists to stop overclocking dead in its tracks, to ensure that no processor ran faster than it should. Any real solution would require special circuitry that would require a good deal more additional design time and take up valuable silicon real estate. There's a good chance that such circuitry would make CPUs less reliable. More importantly, that change would have to made to every single processor made, even though 99% of them would never need this "cure." So to stop the 1% problem, you have to pay to cure 100%. Intel makes well over 100 million chips a year. AMD will probably make 30 million next year. If an overclocking bar cost just a dollar a piece (and I'd bet the real cost would be several times that), that's an additional $100,000,000 cost to Intel and $30,000,000 to AMD. Overclocking certainly doesn't cost either of them anything near that much. Of course, if overclocking ever became really mainstream, if not 1% but 10% or more did it, then we're probably looking at some serious revenue loss, since a greater proportion of overclockers would have otherwise have paid more for their processors. At that point, a cost like that might be justifiable. For now, though, it isn't. So Intel and AMD come up with "solutions" that really don't stop the problem, but make the task a bit harder (scaring off many wannabes) and are very cheap or practically free to implement (doesn't hurt the bottom line). Overclocking to Intel and AMD is like a stray fly buzzing around you. It's annoying, but not worth the bother to kill, so you shush it away. Get a swarm, and then you take real action.

[fabius 0]

Overcloking, is I think in some cases interesting but in other cases not. Overcloking can be dangerous for your machine (for your components). And then you have to see if overcloking does affect the stability of the computer. Overcloking can not give a lot of speed more. Usually overcloking is sometimes Mhz by Mhz.So before overcloking your CPu or Video card, you have to:- have some knowledge about computers- test the stabitlity of your system before and after overcloking- you have to check the temperature of your CPU- you have to see that the other components (ram, PCI,...) can support itSo I think that in many cases overcloking is not interesting.And the best processors to overclok are the Intel Celeron. They are cheap and are not difficult to overclok, with the right motherboard of course.

[wizzywig 0]

it is imposible to stop overclocking as the old man once said what is created but the human mind can also be crushed/crashed/hacked, or Moded i think over clocking is ok for thous taht liek blowing the s**t out of there only pride and joy

[currahee 0]

Intel if you didn't know already locks the multiplyer which makes overclocking not impossible, but much harder. Can't say about AMD's Athlons. I think AMD wants people to overclock their processors.Okay, so if you boards from Asus and VIA you can increase the FSB speed but that's not the true overclocking method. Its not the hardcore way. If you want to know the hardcore way you can go to Tom's Hardware Guide and look up their guide to overclocking the P4 3GHz to 5GHz.Overclocking is dangerous and can seriously damage your computer like fabius said. However, I think the companies don't care what users do with their hardware. If they damage it fine, its theirs. Nothing AMD and Intel have to worry about.Also it voids your warranty

[p0e35 0]

the way i see it is like this they want you to overclock and fry ur computer cause it makes them more money when u go out and buy more... its not hard to do the math...

[insiriusdenial 0]

Could we have a definition for overclocking? Just to be clear...