Funny. I don't know how you read all of that from what I said.You have to be kidding. Have you compared the margins Intel and AMD report in their financial reports? You legitimately believe AMD is pulling in higher profit margins than Intel, who wishes they could be like AMD and sell expensive CPU's? The enterprise market is where the money is for CPU's. Intel is losing ground to AMD here, but still are completely dominating the market with an over 90% x86 server cpu market share. Intel is outselling AMD more than 9 to 1, yet you think Intel is trying to figure out how to be good at making money like AMD? The delusions of grandeur on the AMD side know no bounds. Intel is producing low end CPU's because they can. They're still crushing AMD in the enterprise and mobile markets where the money is and still have leftover capacity to produce cheaper desktop CPU's. Even at bulk discounted prices, Intel is making higher margins on their lowend CPU's than AMD is on their millions of console APU's. So maybe AMD should be copying Intel and ditch the razer thin margins of the console market and produce a wider range of desktop CPU's that will make them more money.
I never spoke of volume or profit margins. AMD is just making money with everything it produces now, which are their most profitable markets. That's why they're not putting cheap CPUs on the market. Or at least, it's the most plausible explanation. Not more, not less.
As for the "locked" CPUs explanation. It doesn't make sense what you said. To be fair though, I don't know what is more costly: making a locked CPU or an unlocked CPU. If making locked CPUs is cheaper, then at least it would make sense from an economical standpoint. Whether you can OC the CPU inside an office PC is irrelevant, since the motherboard will ultimately control that.