Nah, they'd only need to do it to retail boards, not boards sold as part of a PC through Dell. Those sales are a fraction of their total revenue (not that many system builders compared to the units Dell moves).
Nah, they'd only need to do it to retail boards, not boards sold as part of a PC through Dell. Those sales are a fraction of their total revenue (not that many system builders compared to the units Dell moves).
Ricleo this is a valid question, you are not naive or a dinosaur.
I overclock and I simply except the risks, is it ethical to return equipment damaged by overclocking? Obviously the answer is no, but people do it because there is little no chance that they will ever be held accountable. I personally haven't done this nor do I plan to but I understand it. I recently used a mountaineering ice-axe to escape from a sandstone keeper, had the axe broken I wouldn't have returned it as it obviously wasn't designed for such use.
Be aware that when you question whether or not people are acting ethically you will get flamed because no-one wants to be told they did something wrong.
I overclock and I simply except the risks, is it ethical to return equipment damaged by overclocking? Obviously the answer is no, but people do it because there is little no chance that they will ever be held accountable. I personally haven't done this nor do I plan to but I understand it. I recently used a mountaineering ice-axe to escape from a sandstone keeper, had the axe broken I wouldn't have returned it as it obviously wasn't designed for such use.
Be aware that when you question whether or not people are acting ethically you will get flamed because no-one wants to be told they did something wrong.
Wow I thought this was a one page thread after my first reply, then I went back to look for replies to my post and noticed the 5 other pages and read through them. Interesting how this sparked a serious debate and it gives me faith in mankind to see most people supporting ethical behavior. No society is able to function without trust.
Things always end up going downhill when you sacrifice the security of the future for the pleasure of the moment.
Things always end up going downhill when you sacrifice the security of the future for the pleasure of the moment.
I wasn't really questioning his ethics. I already thought he was unethical. I am trying to understand why he is that way. I don't see a lot of young people regularly, but when I do it disheartens me to see how they act. Illegal downloading or an RMA that should not happen. They seem to do it without a second thought. Incredibly self centered to where they don?t see the big picture, mainly high costs or no ingenuity for the people that do follow the rules. Not to mention this sense of entitlement that just drives me crazy. I am looking for some hope.
I know exactly what you mean, it's impossible for america to stay competitive when everyone feels it's there right to live high without working hard.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Agree 100%
The sense of entitlement is getting out of hand. People are developing the mindset that as long as I don't get caught it is okay to do it. No morals whatsoever.
the general line nowadays on OCing is that "it's a great way of increasing performance with minimal risk of damage to hardware if done intelligently and responsibly"
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 16,763
- 2,108
- 126
Wow! I come back to this thread after a few days, and I see the Ayatollah flaming the Chinese for beating up demonstrators! Geez! Talk about moral hair-splitting! This has been better than the Comedy-Channel!
Seriously. Everything in our economy, including the Constitution, is -- or should be -- based on contracts -- contracts between people. If the manufacturer offers a warranty with RMA service, then the onus should be on the manufacturer to determine whether the product has been abused, and whether the warranty has been violated.
Then, the testing of returned products and the limitations on the testing of returned products would figure into the anticipated -- expected and statistical-proababilistic costs of a warranty/RMA program.
The manufacturer attempts to hold onto its customer-base by offering support -- and support-under-warranty. The manufacturer itself is attempting to make a profit. And the manufacturer sets the warranty-period and terms to minimize its cost and maximize customer loyalty. This -- in a market with a few "sellers" (manufacturers) and many buyers -- departing from the Adam Smith ideal.
The customer attempts to minimize his loss, no matter what he "did" for it to occur. If you broke it, you can still attempt to RMA it. Over-clocking -- by itself -- is not morally wrong, even though by so doing, you don't even know yourself whether the product was defective or impetuous over-clocking damaged it.
The onus is on the manufacturer to prove the "abuse." Everyone is attempting to minimize cost within the "contract," and a customer should not feel compelled to police himself according to the contract-terms. Quoting Denzel Washington in "Training Day" (perhaps an inappropriate character to use in an issue about morals, but reasonable nevertheless): "It isn't what you know; it's what you can prove." Or -- what the manufacturer can prove.
If the manufacturer defined the contract, then the manufacturer should police adherence to the terms of the contract. If you broke something and were dead-sure that your abuse killed it, you can "try" to RMA, or save yourself the time and trouble for just being stupid.
But please: don't tell me that a person acting in this "gray-area" in context of a warranty-contract is either passing on costs to other consumers, or belongs in the same league with Madoff, Abramoff, Lay, Fastow, Kozlowski or Randy Cunningham.
Those costs were already anticipated as the manufacturer drew up the warranty-terms, consulted with engineers about probabilistic expected costs, imperfect enforcement and detection through testing, and myriad other factors -- given the company's resources in "rational calculation." If the manufacturer didn't "plan" the warranty-program adequately, it's their fault.
Seriously. Everything in our economy, including the Constitution, is -- or should be -- based on contracts -- contracts between people. If the manufacturer offers a warranty with RMA service, then the onus should be on the manufacturer to determine whether the product has been abused, and whether the warranty has been violated.
Then, the testing of returned products and the limitations on the testing of returned products would figure into the anticipated -- expected and statistical-proababilistic costs of a warranty/RMA program.
The manufacturer attempts to hold onto its customer-base by offering support -- and support-under-warranty. The manufacturer itself is attempting to make a profit. And the manufacturer sets the warranty-period and terms to minimize its cost and maximize customer loyalty. This -- in a market with a few "sellers" (manufacturers) and many buyers -- departing from the Adam Smith ideal.
The customer attempts to minimize his loss, no matter what he "did" for it to occur. If you broke it, you can still attempt to RMA it. Over-clocking -- by itself -- is not morally wrong, even though by so doing, you don't even know yourself whether the product was defective or impetuous over-clocking damaged it.
The onus is on the manufacturer to prove the "abuse." Everyone is attempting to minimize cost within the "contract," and a customer should not feel compelled to police himself according to the contract-terms. Quoting Denzel Washington in "Training Day" (perhaps an inappropriate character to use in an issue about morals, but reasonable nevertheless): "It isn't what you know; it's what you can prove." Or -- what the manufacturer can prove.
If the manufacturer defined the contract, then the manufacturer should police adherence to the terms of the contract. If you broke something and were dead-sure that your abuse killed it, you can "try" to RMA, or save yourself the time and trouble for just being stupid.
But please: don't tell me that a person acting in this "gray-area" in context of a warranty-contract is either passing on costs to other consumers, or belongs in the same league with Madoff, Abramoff, Lay, Fastow, Kozlowski or Randy Cunningham.
Those costs were already anticipated as the manufacturer drew up the warranty-terms, consulted with engineers about probabilistic expected costs, imperfect enforcement and detection through testing, and myriad other factors -- given the company's resources in "rational calculation." If the manufacturer didn't "plan" the warranty-program adequately, it's their fault.
Let it rest, you pass high voltages to a chip and fry it you broke it, that is an unanticipated cost, end of story:
At this time it is not bannable but rest assured it will be very soon, so unless you want to be racking up "unsupported practice" points with the mods on this board-- the mods we choose are not the type that would engage in this thing nor morally support it so you're already in the red with them with or without any anandtech forum policy.
At this time it is not bannable but rest assured it will be very soon, so unless you want to be racking up "unsupported practice" points with the mods on this board-- the mods we choose are not the type that would engage in this thing nor morally support it so you're already in the red with them with or without any anandtech forum policy.
apoppin
Lifer
what if you overclock it +10MHz, don't alter the voltage - and it fails?
don't be ridiculous .. nor is anyone the ultimate moral authority for this planet; the mods only govern this forum
- there is still some area of "gray" as everything is not black and white
- that is why there are lawyers, courts and *interpretation* of EULAs and contracts
there is also such a thing as *personal conscience*, "common sense" and *discretion*
- you do not automatically give up all warranty "rights" when you overclock
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 16,763
- 2,108
- 126
Originally posted by: apoppin
what if you overclock it +10MHz, don't alter the voltage - and it fails?
don't be ridiculous .. nor is anyone the ultimate moral authority for this planet; the mods only govern this forum
- there is still some area of "gray" as everything is not black and white
- that is why there are lawyers, courts and *interpretation* of EULAs and contracts
there is also such a thing as *personal conscience*, "common sense" and *discretion*
- you do not automatically give up all warranty "rights" when you overclock
You know, and I refer to the post about "RETURNING A CPU WHERE IS IT NOT DEFECTIVE, JUST BECAUSE IT WON'T OVERCLOCK AS WELL AS YOU WANT IS FRAUD" -- people have been doing this sort of thing with regard to consumer-goods as long as I can remember.
And so, you would figure that the manufacturer expects that type of behavior in a well-designed warranty-program. The real question would be: "How frequently -- or how many such people -- go to the trouble to RMA products that are not technically defective?"
It goes without saying -- on the motherboard angle -- that if the board is spec'd to run at FSB speeds exceeding the FSB spec of the chosen processor, you shouldn't lose sleep over an RMA for the motherboard. You can go to all the trouble you want looking for the "golden CPU" and returning to the reseller one after another. Figure the reseller is going to react in some way within their OWN terms, once you've attracted their attention.
For that, I'll buy the entire bill-of-goods that apoppin is proferring here, and at least agree: You've got to be an idiot to RMA a Yorkfield you volted at 1.5 or 1.6V. The moderators and these forums and the membership may agree that they don't support your RMA. I DON'T support your RMA, but it's not for me to prove whether you are acting responsibly (a) as an over-clocking enthusiast, or (b) as a party to a warranty contract.
People are gonna do . . . . what people are gonna do. A warranty contract should be enforceable by the party that defined it. Ideally, no governmental body or legislature would pass a law (a form of contract) that isn't enforceable, and we see all the time cases where such laws -- and the inability to enforce them -- lead to more problems. It's the manufacturer that will sink or swim according to its customer-support policies. It's called "the market" -- and "surviveability within the market."
It may be unethical to abuse a product and then expect replacement under warranty, but there will always be people willing to sue McDonald's because they spilled hot coffee in their lap while driving. That's called "human nature" -- which, by the way, is not to be confused with "virtue." We've seen (at least!) eight years of such confusion already.
Not talking about overclocking on stock volts or even +10%, I'm talking about when people fry their motherboard because they gave the northbridge 1.4v and it cooks. Default is 1.1v, that's overvolting by more than 30%.
This is akin to RMA'ing your Phenom 2 chip that you overvolted to, and subsequently fried at, 1.8v. IE, you have to be stupid to go out of spec that far.
This is akin to RMA'ing your Phenom 2 chip that you overvolted to, and subsequently fried at, 1.8v. IE, you have to be stupid to go out of spec that far.
apoppin
Lifer
well then we are talking about "reasonable"
- - - and i am all for it
- and against abuse - whether it be perpetrated against a single person or a "faceless" mega corporation
Originally posted by: apoppin
well then we are talking about "reasonable"
- - - and i am all for it
- and against abuse - whether it be perpetrated against a single person or a "faceless" mega corporation
Yep.
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 16,763
- 2,108
- 126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: apoppin
well then we are talking about "reasonable"
- - - and i am all for it
- and against abuse - whether it be perpetrated against a single person or a "faceless" mega corporation
Yep.
I agree, and even about the "faceless megacorporation." I may already have clarified that, but if not, it works out this way. There are some industries and corporations with "dominant" firms, but no apparent "barriers-to-entry" -- as with Microsoft. There are others with "various" barriers-to-entry, and the consumer suffers. If that were not so, there would not be a DOJ/Anti-Trust division; there would be no Sherman Anti-Trust Act; Teddy Roosevelt would not have gone after the Great Northern Trust; there would be no Federal Trade Commission [under whose scrutiny Intel found itself a decade or so earlier].
But the law -- and these institutions -- allow all sorts of "imperfect competition" in the market-place. There is a paradox that some such firms, Microsoft being an example, use their dominant market-position and profitability to provide better customer-support. But it all boils down to this: for many of these products, the buyer chooses to purchase -- nobody is twisting his/her arm -- and there are still limited competitive alternatives -- for example, AMD. The duopolist or dominant-firm may indeed make excess profits, but that's not the issue.
Abuse is abuse. You should take responsibility for your own excesses. But there's nothing to prevent someone from trying to slip under the radar in an RMA request. In some cases, it can be a personal judgment call. So I still say, the onus is on the manufacturer to enforce the warranty contract -- and enforcment requires "detection."
So I can agree that we shouldn't submit an abused product for RMA -- if, as is said, the abuse is apparent. But there is that "gray area" that's been discussed. And there's the simple fact that nobody is going to prevent anyone from RMA'ing the product -- whether or not it was "abused."
F*CK YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR FAGOT BUDDIES AT AnandTech. BANN THAT PRICK!
Well, you know this is vacation time. I don't even have to tell you what you did wrong here.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
You can only change the voltage by a small amount in the BIOS, to the point that it could probably never kill a CPU. Modern CPUs also have so much thermal protection, that they're nearly impossible to destroy.
A volt mod could do it, but if you were to do that, the manufacturer would be able to tell (plus they didn't allow you to do that to begin with).
A volt mod could do it, but if you were to do that, the manufacturer would be able to tell (plus they didn't allow you to do that to begin with).
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,225
- 664
- 126
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,321
- 16,151
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter