Quote Originally Posted by largon View Post
I have a principle not to buy CPUs that cost over $300 (300€). I don't give a crap what the chip does in SPi or 3DMark, all it matters is it's relatively cheap and overclocks. After that price point the marginal gains you get aren't worth it. It's obvious those who buy $300+ chips don't care about performance/price so their opinions about this OC-lock aren't that relevant in the end as certainly the huge majority of overclocking is done on sub-$300 chips such as E6600/Q6600/E8_00 and lesser. The second issue are the motherboards. I never buy "high-end" boards that costs >200€, and since the high-end X58 seems to be the only choice with Bloomfield for some time that's yet another no-go.

I sincerely doubt we'll see sub-$300 LGA1366 chips and sensibly priced Bloomfield mobos - but I guess it's just Intel who loses. And I'm fine with that.
Very good points, I feel exactly the same for the most part, although I don't have a principle not to buy 300$+ CPU, yet I have never bought a CPU that cost more than about 200$.
I could just simply buy AMD for the hell of it, intel would lose my money, and it's not like intel is losing money on people overclocking cheap CPUs like some of you seem to think. Many wouldn't cough up 400$ just to be able to overclock, this I am quite sure of. I am also quite sure intel makes money from the E8400 and the likes, that many seem to buy 2 or 3 (or more) of to get the best overclocker, just because they are cheap enough. Myself and quite a few people I know who overclock think 400$ is too much for a CPU. So perhaps instead of spending around 200$ two or three times on upgrading CPUs like now, we'll simply buy a 150$ AMD CPU once, and leave it at that, and spend the money on something more worthwhile, like fine wine or somehting