Originally Posted by Partol
From a "maximize profits" perspective, I think it's a mistake to restrict overclocking on non-k boards.
If a person can afford to buy a Z board, he/she probably can afford to buy an unlocked core i5/i7.
People who buy non-Z boards (such as me) for overclocking, may be enthusiasts, but most are probably not rich.
Why buy a non-Z board except if you can't afford a Z board? A rich enthusiast overclocker would probably buy a high-end motherboard because he understands the importance of a quality motherboard for overclocking.
A non-enthusiast, amateur overclocker (assuming he has extra money to spent), probably would buy the Z board because it officially supports overclocking. A poor overclocker will rarely buy the Z board because he/she is poor.
There is a plausible explanation. Perhaps non-Z overclockers are more likely to damage cpu's and motherboads?
If intel has a liberal return policy, then I can imagine they could potentially lose much money on replacement of cpu, chipset, etc.
But this problem can be addressed by changing their return policy or by lowering the cost of overclockable cpu and motherboards for people who agree to no returns (or very restricted returns), or something such as that. Perhaps intel should add more voltage/heat protection to their cpu's?
Trying to "force" people to spend more money, often does not work because people have limited budgets.
Why exactly is intel disabling overclocking? because of profit loss via returns? legal reasons? what?