This is not at all meant to be a criticism, but more a question: is taking a 20% performance hit, as the author writes, really worth it for a theoretical improvement in the lifespan of some integrated circuits? Are ICs actually how modern laptops break?

What do you think the odds are in him realising this benefit? Assuming he bins the laptop after, say, 5 years? (he's rich enough to buy a £1.3k minimum laptop, assuming it wasn't second hand)

It relies on several assumptions: 1) His laptop dies before he bins it in 5 years' time 2) It died becuase of an integrated circuit (the reason he cites) - in my experience old computers tend to die of things like exploded motherboard capacitors rather than ICs. Maybe the death of these are accelerated by turbo boost, too? 3) The integrated circuit's death was hastened by a meaningful amount (several months at least; a dodgy thing dying a couple of days/weeks later doesn't save you from buying a new laptop).

Is taking a 20% performance hit on your laptop really worth this? I'm interested. I can't imagine it would be for the vast majority of people.