Overclocking Your CPU = Stealing?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrDigital
You are aware that both AMD and Intel license out their goods to a select few companies, right?

If they were so concerned about this "lost revenue" they speak of, they would do more than simply lock a couple of features. They would shun motherboard manufacturers and chipset manufacturers that offered overclocking features. They wouldn't comment on news that someone just made 4, 5, 6ghz overclocked on one of their CPU's, which they always do. They wouldn't send out UNLOCKED CPU's to places like Tom's Hardware with the specific idea that they will be overclocked to show off performance.

You're off-base with the overclocking = stealing idea. Not even the companies making the chips believe it's stealing. It *can't* be stealing if you're *allowed* to do it.

-MrD

---

Yes, MrDigital, I've heard of licensing agreements.

Of course they send unlocked chips to TOM'S...you state the obvious.

YOU try and get one...they don't sell them though now do they?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt_E
Sorry, Gurutoo, I just don't follow how messing with a piece of hardware that's yours to do with as you please, is in any way immoral.

I am starting to get the feeling this "Immoral OC'ing" argument was brought up to somehow legitimize software piracy.

---

What you are seeing is the same people who bash and judge software pirates have no problem paying for a "small" coke and re-filling it 4 times...

Because it ain't wrong if it's "allowed"...gimme a break.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gurutoo
What you are seeing is the same people who bash and judge software pirates have no problem paying for a "small" coke and re-filling it 4 times...

Because it ain't wrong if it's "allowed"...gimme a break.

---

Are you for real? If they didn't want you to refill your drink, why would they put the machines out where people serve themselves? And put big signs up that say "FREE REFILLS!"?

No, guru, it's not wrong if it's allowed. What's so hard to grasp about that concept?

If I'm GIVING AWAY SOMETHING, are you going to say "gimme a break" when someone comes and takes whatever it is I'm giving away?

-MrD

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrDigital
How on earth is it immoral? Is buying a car and swapping the engine immoral? Is buying ANYTHING and improving performance on it immoral??

-MrD

---

That's something totally different. You're buying something in addition to the car, and all you're doing is installing a new engine that you bought.

So, it's unanimous then?
Neither AMD nor Intel suffer any harm/loss from the overclocking of low-end parts-ie no revenue is lost by them?

It's ok because you bought it...

Oh, I see.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gurutoo
What you are seeing is the same people who bash and judge software pirates have no problem paying for a "small" coke and re-filling it 4 times...

Because it ain't wrong if it's "allowed"...gimme a break.

---

No amount of explaining will convince you. (Especially now that we've found out this is indeed a meager attempt of justifying software piracy)

One more time, not to convince you, but to clarify my position.

Software piracy is wrong, because you are stealing someone's intellectual property, which you did not pay for, which is not yours to do with as you please.

OC'ing is not wrong, because the product, which you paid for, is entirely yours, and you can do with it whatever the hell you want.

Is it immoral? no
Does it hurt revenues? i'm sure it does to some extent

Remember though that the overclocking community is a very small part of the market, so I don't think we'd bankrupt a company or anything. But I'm sure there is some amount of lost revenue.

Wow it is most certainly not stealing... as for the getting a small coke at mcdonalds and refilling 4 times, that is not stealing either. Honestly, how can you think it is? If they allow you to refill your drink, then why not buy a small and get refills rather than buying a large. If they allow refills, then it is obviously not hurting their company enough for them to do away with it.

In fact, companies may even gain revenue from it. I know that when I made my last computer, I went with intel because they overclocked much better than the amd's that were available.

Intel and AMD both exploit economies of scale in their production processes. They produce a lot of chips using the same technique, and most of them have roughly the same performance limits (for instance, all of AMD's 90 nm Athlon 64s should be able to max out at the same level, because they're made exactly the same way (they do this to save costs -- it'd be too expensive to have different production lines for each chip grade)).

After making the chip, these companies lock in a multiplier value and brand the chip (e.g., "3200+, 3500+").

They do this to segment the market so that the consumer pays his/her maximum willingness to pay. Any college econ course in industrial organization will teach you this.

By OC'ing, you're simply saying (for example) "I want a 2.6 GHz Athlon 64, but I am only willing to pay $300 for it. AMD does not have a product at that price that runs at 2.6 GHz. Therefore, I will buy their lesser model (like a 3500+) and see if I can make it run faster."

By segmenting the market, the chip manufactures are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of you. By OCing, you're trying to keep every last dollar in your pocket. Where is the immorality in trying to save money?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt_E
No amount of explaining will convince you. (Especially now that we've found out this is indeed a meager attempt of justifying software piracy)

One more time, not to convince you, but to clarify my position.

Software piracy is wrong, because you are stealing someone's intellectual property, which you did not pay for, which is not yours to do with as you please.

OC'ing is not wrong, because the product, which you paid for, is entirely yours, and you can do with it whatever the hell you want.

---

Ok then, so when a law is passed outlawing overclocking, and AMD, Intel begin suing overclockers, You will OC no more? just because some lobbyist paid a legislator $50,000 and a trip to Hawaii to pass a bill making it illegal?

I mean, we must all follow the letter of the law or be bad citizens, right?

You know there is more to the revenue picture then just people getting more then they paid for. There are plenty of people, like me, who enjoy overclocking as a hobby and as a result our upgrade cycle is much quicker then the the average pc consumer. That certainly doesn't hurt revenue. There are also the guys that just flat out can't afford a higher speed cpu, but rather then abstaining entirely from a purchase, they buy a more reasonably priced model. Better to include them in the revenue stream then leave them out IMO. I'll say it again, sure, many people get more performance then was advertised on the box out of a cpu, but the fact is, they weren't guaranteed that extra performance. Since they bought the cpu, contributing to the chip manufacturer's revenue, they have purchased the right to do whatever they find fitting with that cpu, provided whatever they find fitting is legal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mikead_99
You know there is more to the revenue picture then just people getting more then they paid for. There are plenty of people, like me, who enjoy overclocking as a hobby and as a result our upgrade cycle is much quicker then the the average pc consumer. That certainly doesn't hurt revenue. There are also the guys that just flat out can't afford a higher speed cpu, but rather then abstaining entirely from a purchase, they buy a more reasonably priced model. Better to include them in the revenue stream then leave them out IMO. I'll say it again, sure, many people get more performance then was advertised on the box out of a cpu, but the fact is, they weren't guaranteed that extra performance. Since they bought the cpu, contributing to the chip manufacturer's revenue, they have purchased the right to do whatever they find fitting with that cpu, provided whatever they find fitting is legal.

---

OOPS! No allowances can be made for those who can't afford a higher performing cpu, there are those here who would tell them to take a 2nd job...

Right or wrong, it's pretty much a non-issue. When you factor in every CPU that is sold world-wide to businesses and the average consumer, the overclocking community is responsible for about 0.01% of those sales. I'm willing to bet that a) Intel and AMD don't care about such a small group of customers getting more for their money, and b) If anything, we're GOOD for their business, because we prove that their hardware is actually much "better" than it claims to be.

Regardless, there are no laws or company regulations on the use of legally purchased processors. If they were concerned about it, there would be.

My question is, why are we arguing about something that will in the end be moot ???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RPG Junkie
My question is, why are we arguing about something that will in the end be moot ???

---

LOL - it's been "moot" from the beginning...:p


Happy Thanksgiving Everyone

You legitimately paid for the product. What you do with it after that (for the most part) is your business. I do not see how anyone could consider that stealing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gurutoo
Ok then, so when a law is passed outlawing overclocking, and AMD, Intel begin suing overclockers, You will OC no more? just because some lobbyist paid a legislator $50,000 and a trip to Hawaii to pass a bill making it illegal?

I mean, we must all follow the letter of the law or be bad citizens, right?

---

I didn't think we were talking about laws. To answer your question directly, yes, I would stop oc'ing if that law was passed.

But here's a pointer from reality: Such a law could never be passed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gurutoo
LOL - it's been "moot" from the beginning...:p


Happy Thanksgiving Everyone

---

100% correct. Because it was brought up to justify software piracy, somehow.

If you go to Burger King and buy a hamburger, take it home and put mayonaise, lettuce and tomato on it...are you stealing because you only paid for a hamburger but now you have a whopper jr.?

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAA!!!

Nice one!:D :D :D :D

lol, nice analogy thundergod

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderGod66
If you go to Burger King and buy a hamburger, take it home and put mayonaise, lettuce and tomato on it...are you stealing because you only paid for a hamburger but now you have a whopper jr.?

---

LOL!!!!!

I love it, But damn that made me hungry.. BK for dinner tonight!

In-N-OUT> BK

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JetForce Gemini X
In-N-OUT> BK

---

Carl's Jr > Fatburger > In-N-Out

-MrD

That would be no, because you're using your own toppings which you paid full price for. In the end you still paid full price for what you got. These are two different situations. In this situation, you bought something for a low price, but added more flavor at your own cost, just not from BK. When you overclock you don't pay for the extra performance, at all.

Pretty dumb analogy if you ask me...