> I'm not really sure Intel should push ECC if desktops users aren't willing to pay a modest premium for it. $50 more for the motherboard and $100 more for the

> I'm not really sure Intel should push ECC if desktops users aren't willing to pay a modest premium for it. $50 more for the motherboard and $100 more for the RAM is not a "modest premium" for most of the desktop market. But aside from that, the bigger problem is that consumers (and especially gamers) will always prioritize the advantages that are more easily quantified. When forced to choose between ECC support and a few hundred MHz plus the option to overclock further, consumers will pick the faster processor. If Intel offered a part at the high end of the product line that had both ECC and overclocking enabled, it would be guaranteed to sell quite a few units, because a lot of consumers will always want to own the top of the line part. And such a part would be an opportunity for a better experiment to determine how much premium users are willing to pay for ECC, if Intel also kept offering the current -K overclockable parts that don't have ECC.