Should AMD leave their CPU's unlocked?

[Lee H]

If they left the processors unlock then it is true that the sales of the higher-end processors would be damaged by people buying the cheaper CPU's and then running them at the faster speed. This though could also INCREASE the sales of a particular item - for example recall the 2500+ "barton" processors, as soon as people found that with certain batches the 2500+ could be ran at the 3200+ speeds by using DDR400 memory and by simply increasing the FSB from 333 to 400. I for one bought a 2500+ based system based primarily on this basis and as soon as a few friends and family seen the speed they too moved from Intel based systems over to AMD and ramped their 2500+ all up to 3200+

Now as this increase in speed SOMETIMES needs the vcore voltage to be increased a little - The processor will obviously get a little bit more hotter. People know that hotter hardware has a shorter lifespan so in theory these systems will not last as long as they would under normal operation specifications. But what does this mean. Well for a start a friend of mine who loved his 2500+ price/performance ratio recently bought a 3500+ AMD 64 and now he's spreading the good word of "AMD lovin'". In theory the 2500+ overclock has gained AMD a valued customer now and the progression of him buying a 3500+ over a Pentium 4 socket 775 just goes to confirm this.

I say there should be 3 unlocked processors - i.e Entry, Mid-range, High-end and the difference between the 3 could be something as simple as cache sizes as we know how these can affect performance, or even disable certain technology such as SSE3 etc on the lower priced "unlocked" range and only enable these functions on the higher end unlocked processor.

[muddyfox470]

the problem is if they leave all their chips unlocked, people will by the underclocked ones to up them to previous (higher speeds) so they will loose money from people buying the cheaper option

however the massmarket are unlikely to use the feature, they just buy the computer and forget about it!

amd are a great company but i think this should be left up to them, they know more about the business then us.

however i was pleased to get a 2500+ (non mobile) which was unlocked, and was pleasantly suprised! but we can all wish...

[Ben Rogers]

It would probably be easier for them to produce them unlocked. Their loss of revenue due to people buying lesser chips and overclocking them isn't that substantial in reality so all in all to AMD it doesn't make much odds what they do.

If anything, they should make certain chips unlocked and others locked, depending on their rated speed but Im far behind the times on the latest AMDs.

[oshta]

I think they should be locked, BUT easy to unlock

- so most no-tech people buy the more expesive chips

- but the "techys" can easyly in lock them to have the fun of unlokcing them


thus AMD get the the best of both worlds

[Kumagoro]

I thought the main point was that small computer companies were selling overclocked systems and the customers didnt know. So making it so only so called "techy" people can do it doesnt make much difference. I dont see why people think should get something for nothing (doesnt mean i dont want too).