Well, that's kinda my point.
If you run a 1700+ to 2100+ specs, but you knew that you could expect a decreased longevity from 10 years to *say* 5 years, then it's worth it. but if the longevity is down to *say* 1 year, then maybe it's not so worth it...
With your $ figures, assuming that the user will use his PC for 3 years, and it's overclocked to last 1 year, you'd be better off spending $100, rather than three times $50.
But if the resulting longevity is more than 1.5 years, then it's even: that's the break-even point.
Of course this doesn't take into account the cost of the cooling solution.
What I'm trying to get to here, is to build a business case (cost justification) of OC and watercooling a PC. I think we all know that watercooling is *mostly* not worth the investment (IMHO), but it is a perfectly good hobby! Spending $300 on a kit is *definitely* out there.
Does anyone have any data on the decreased longevity resulting from overvolting/overclocking/temperatures?
(actually, I posted temp effects on longevity recently... now where did I put that up?)