It is clear you don't work for a big company IT department based on your remarks.
The fact that a company like Dell would overclock, at all, shows they do not respect reliability and are half rate. Big corporate companies are really sensitive to perceived unreliability, and IBM was NEVER stupid enough to do that. Actually, no other big company was. Someone making these machines approved lowering reliability, which overclocking ALWAYS does since it ALWAYS shortens the lifespan, and if that person is the CEO, it is a bad reflection on everything else they sell. It's just not corporate.
They could have competed with those companies easily by selling these machines through Alienware. Putting the Dell name on an overclocked machine hurts their reputation.
This machine is a good buy for someone? Overclocking is a child's game these days, it takes no talent, no knowledge, nothing. Back when you'd have to unsolder crystals and sometimes memory on the motherboard, make sure the cards you used could run at the speed, and switch out the BIOS, it took some skill. Any idiot can do it now. Plus, this $10,000 machine represents an extremely poor value, and is not a good deal for anyone. It will be obsolete in a few months, and 10K for a soon obsolete machine is a lot of cash to spend.
Your point of view is understandable, but clearly shows you do not understand how big businesses work. If you ever mentioned overclocking to an IT department, they'll look at you like your a brainless twit (I know, I did it back in the Celeron 300a days, which was a really easy, safe and painless overclock :P) and it is a huge taboo. Big companies like Dell are not supposed to do it, and it will hurt their reputation, if people find out.
It is a huge embarrassment for Intel, since up until now Dell didn't feel they had to do this to be competitive. Do you think Intel will like it when these processors die prematurely and people get angry at Intel for it? You think they'll overclock Conroes when they come out?
If Intel felt these processors were capable of running reliably, over time, at speeds so high, they would have released them at that speed bin. They are pretty close to the max speeds enthusiast sites can reach with these processors, which means they are very close to the edge. One reason processor makers do not sell processors right at their highest speed is they will not last long. There are two reasons, they decay faster from the greater temperature variations, and also they have much less slack on the line to give up. Dell sacrificed reliability because they couldn't match the performance of the Athlon 64 without doing so. That's embarrassing for both Intel and Dell. Overclocking at all is embarrassing for a big company. You've got a small company, hobbyist perspective so clearly this isn't making sense to you, but I'll try something else ...
Has IBM ever done it? Forget your irrelevant speculation about if they did and how you'd feel. Have they? Did Compaq ever do it? Did or does HP? Has even Apple ever done it? Do you understand that big companies have not done this? Forget little companies, I would have no problem with Alienware releasing this. I am talking big corporations that sell to other big corporations, and sell a lot based on reputation. They just don't do this stuff. Except for Dell. They are so desperate they were willing to risk tarnishing their reputation. It's crazy.
Now, there is a possibility that Intel sent them special versions of the chips that they approved at those speeds, and were not available to other companies. I can not say for sure that this is not true. If it is true, than none of what I am saying is pertinent, since Intel approved these processor at these speeds (they may be from the new process and it has not been widely implemented yet, so they have only limited numbers). I doubt this is the case, but it is always possible.
04/26/06 10:49:05 AM]