I don't understand when people say that Intel wouldn't/couldn't or that they'd shoot themselves in the foot if they did.

We represent no market to them. Plus, let's face it, it's not like stopping all overclocking would stop us from buying computers, we just wouldn't spend as much money on add-on products like cooling. We might even upgrade more often on average due to that savings. When AMD was strong there could have been an argument that we would jump ship and move people to their competitor... but in an age where you'll be able to buy a stock Intel CPU that will wipe the floor with anything but an LN2'd AMD... the attraction to AMD is pretty much lost on us. Cost to Intel = slight. Let Intel save ridiculous amounts of money by not seeing so many CPU's RMA'd because of amateur OCers? They'd probably come out ahead.

And so they make us mad? So what? Realistically, what are you going to do about it? If you actually want the best performance, you're going to buy their product anyway.

But can they do it, technically? Yes, if they wanted to. If they were really so inclined they could lock frequency and multiplier. I'm sure we'd find a way to do *something*... but it wouldn't be the same as it is now, not by far. As another user also stated, they now have the opportunity to cut off 90+% of all memory overclocking options.

So - would they try? Absolutely, yes. They've limited it before when they started locking multipliers. How far with they go? I don't know, but I hope they won't block us out.

Ultimately, I think it could go either way *if* AMD ceases to be a competitive force.