Preventing overclocking makes very good sense for Intel.
This move is NOT designed to prevent end-users from overclocking; that is an unfortunate side effect.
The real reason is because often, shady resellers will be Intel chips, overclock and sell them as faster than they really are. When the chips fail (which, if overclocking is widespread, they inevitbly will in some cases), it looks to the end user like Intel makes crappy chips; obviously this is bad for business.
Now accusations of intentionally marking chips down from what their capable of may or may not be true. In some cases that's justified; better safe than sorry for Intel: they'd rather have chips that aren't performing as fast as they possibly could then chips failing because they weren't capable of the level they were marked at.
Slashdot Mirror
So you'd rather have a toaster that you have to build yourself, takes 4 weeks to configure, and requires a team of experts to administer?
Preventing overclocking makes very good sense for Intel.
This move is NOT designed to prevent end-users from overclocking; that is an unfortunate side effect.
The real reason is because often, shady resellers will be Intel chips, overclock and sell them as faster than they really are. When the chips fail (which, if overclocking is widespread, they inevitbly will in some cases), it looks to the end user like Intel makes crappy chips; obviously this is bad for business.
Now accusations of intentionally marking chips down from what their capable of may or may not be true. In some cases that's justified; better safe than sorry for Intel: they'd rather have chips that aren't performing as fast as they possibly could then chips failing because they weren't capable of the level they were marked at.
Then again sometimes this is a sketchy practice.