It's impossible to take you seriously as a tech journalist if you can't comprehend the utility of overclocking.

Not OC'ing in general. Heat management is a big problem for laptops at high speed. So is, by the by power management and battery life. And considering that most laptops have pretty low quality graphics boards it's debatable what actual benefit you would derive from gaming a laptop in the first place.

Or am I going too fast for you?

(Is everyone on this board 16 years old?)

I have no idea why you'd want to overclock your laptop; battery life on them is short enough as it is. The only benefit I can think of is that you could turn it up a multiplier or two and have a nice portable cooking surface. But anyone who pays for top-end stuff to overclock is a moron anyway. That's what cheap and midrange chips are for.

I surely know lots of people that have only one computer, a notebook, and use it for work and leisure. Having a specially designed one for playing doesn't cancel that you can work well with it, but a notebook you can work well won't be a good one for playing games, most of the time...

I live in a tiny apartment in Japan. I don't happen to own a proper table or desk, thus making it a bit of a challenge to find space for a proper desktop.

Nonetheless, I'm a bit of a gaming nut. I use a rather impressive (at least when I bought it) Gateway notebook.

I've never been an overclocker, and I doubt I'd buy one of these new "Extreme" chips. Honestly, I sort of wince when anything is called "Extreme," as all I can think or are Mountain Dew commercials. But nonetheless, there are other situations in which a gaming laptop can be useful.

It seems the author could barely contain his contempt for those miserable mortals who would dare to pay $300 more for their computer, particularly for the purpose of playing video games. However, most games today rely far more heavily on the GPU than the CPU, which defeats the purpose of sinking money into an overclockable laptop CPU. If playing games on-the-go is indeed the targeted scapegoat, one would be better served attacking on Apple for their use of mobile G80 GPU's in their high-end laptops, and the larger price tags those entail. Of course there is a market for people who want to play games on the move. Why should they be restricted to clunky desktops at home? Is this an implication that all game-playing nerds should remain forever confined to their parents' basement?

Moreover, there are many legitimate reasons for purchasing an overclockable "extreme" edition, though it certainly isn't the most cost-efficient solution. If you benchmark applications regularly on a laptop and want to show off the highest possible performance, one cannot (currently) buy a dual or quad CPU notebook the way one can a desktop. The only solution is higher clock speed. Engineers in the high-performance computing and scientific visualization communities, in academic and research disciplines, travel regularly and need both the best CPU's and GPU's for their work. This offering from Intel may not be ground-breaking, but it is certainly not worthy of such disdain.