so return the 960t?

[grandpatzer]

I recently bought several computer parts from a store.

My current 965 be does 3.8ghz@1.45v everything AUTO but increasing just cpu volt and multipel.

The 960t that I got I tried 20x200@1.45v and it crashes, so I think I'll return it back to store.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Yeah sure, go back and say that you tried getting it to 4.0GHz and couldn't and want to return it.

Have you tried unlocking the other two cores yet?

 

[Smoblikat]

I recently bought several computer parts from a store.

My current 965 be does 3.8ghz@1.45v everything AUTO but increasing just cpu volt and multipel.

The 960t that I got I tried 20x200@1.45v and it crashes, so I think I'll return it back to store.

I might be misunderstanding you, your current chip did 3.8ghz @ 1.45v, so why are you expecting this one to do 4.0 @ 1.45v?

 

[SpeedTester]

I would lol at you if you came into my store and wanted a return because your overclock didn't go well.

 

[KingFatty]

The 960t that I got I tried 20x200@1.45v and it crashes, so I think I'll return it back to store.

What was the best you could get out of it? I see you get a crash at the above speed and voltage, maybe it needs more volts to succeed? How fast could it go when you kept the volts at 1.45v, how close were you to 4 GHZ?

 

[Doougin]

what cooler are you using. my 955 BE i can oc to 4ghz and still be relatively stable. it only crashes on me when i oc to 4.2ghz.

 

[ElFenix]

pretty despicable behavior if you do return it just because it doesn't overclock as much as you wanted.

 

[Vesku]

I can get 3.8GHz out of my 1090T on a Hyper 212+ Push/Pull, that's at 1.44ish volts. I think I'd need more volts for 4GHz but I have too many video cards adding heat to get there on the 212+.

I don't think I deserve a RMA just because I didn't get a cherry chip.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wouldn't return a chip because it didn't give me enough free performance over my other chip's free performance.

Also, I wouldn't have spent any money for another 200MHz, I doubt you'd notice it anywhere. You may or may not get lucky with an overclock, you may or may not get lucky with core unlocking.

 

[LoneNinja]

My 1090T can't hit 4.0Ghz, most people do 4.0-4.2 on Thuban, should I return mine? My 965 only does 4.0Ghz and not 4.2Ghz like many Deneb chips now do, should I return that?

Morally I'm against returning it.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Most stores are not going to take back a CPU. Exchange only.

I recently bought a 1090t. Tried it out and didn't get the results I had hoped for. Sold it on ebay as USED. Maybe you can try that? I've been watching the 960t prices too and you should do O.K. Hit me up in a PM if you are looking for a quick sale.

 

[Rvenger]

Even if it didn't overclock 1mhz above stock I wouldn't return it.

 

[nyker96]

first, the only reason people like 960t is the possibility to unlock the other 2 cores. If you can unlock them then I'd say keep it. But otherwise a plain x4BE is preferable.

also for the price, I'd just get a 1035T off ebay for about the same. A guaranteed 6 core.

As for returning, most places charges some type of restocking fee, so if you willing to put up a restocking fee, that would be your choice to make.

 

[Vesku]

Returning to a retailer is different than a RMA, just going to point that out.

Edit: Am I spacing out or were there some posts about how someone was stressing chips and then returning/RMAing them. Spacing out or were they deleted?

 

[monkeydelmagico]

first, the only reason people like 960t is the possibility to unlock the other 2 cores. If you can unlock them then I'd say keep it. But otherwise a plain x4BE is preferable.

Disagree. Amazon was just running a sale on 960t for around $100.-. That's a better price than most of the remaining phenom x4 chips. Second point is, from what I've read, Zosma tends to OC to roughly similar 4Ghz while using less voltage and throwing less heat. Even without possible extra cores 960t is, in my book, preferable.

 

[nenforcer]

Another reason people prefer the 960T Zosma is because its a Thuban and has a slightly better IPC and optimized design when compared to the similarly clocked 3.0GHz Phenom ][ X4 945.

 

[RavenSEAL]

The store isn't gonna take it back, overclocking instantly voids the warranty.

 

[KayVeeEmm]

The store isn't gonna take it back, overclocking instantly voids the warranty.

Ahh, but how would they know you did?

The returns rep wouldn't be all "hmm... you overclocked this, didn't you?" by looking at the pins, or even plug it quick and see if it boots to the OS.

 

[KingFatty]

[Activating devil's advocate mode]

I didn't read the fine print on Newegg or Amazon, but every experience I've had is that a consumer is not required to provide a reason or excuse to "justify" their return. It's entirely up to the consumer. Even insane consumers who believe their CPU is possessed by demons can return the CPU for that subjective reason that has no basis in reality.

Couldn't this guy claim his CPU was possessed by demons that prevent it from overclocking?

Also, maybe this is going too far on devil's advocate mode, but could the whole PC crowd actually benefit from returns on CPUs that don't overclock? Would it send a message to CPU manufacturers that consumers reject chips that poorly overclock? Haven't you ever heard of the "black edition" CPU marketing scheme, surely AMD got the message somehow that consumers like to overclock, so they know there is market incentive to develop chips that overclock.

Without people returning poor overclocking chips, how will AMD or Intel be kept in line to make chips that we can overclock? We'll just get artificially-locked chips that forbid any overclocking... WAIT A MINUTE... that's actually happening where CPUs are sold at one price and you pay to unlock performance... no way we need to send a message to stop that....

[end sarcasm/devil's advocate mode]

 

[Gillbot]

It's pretty unethical if you do return it for being a poor overclocker. Way to increase CPU pricing by fraudulently returning a perfectly satisfactory working item.

 

[MrTeal]

Corporations are always trying to screw over the 99%. I tried to return my car after replacing the ECU and adding a single stage turbo only got me from 227HP to 338HP, instead of the 350+HP that some people got. They wouldn't accept my exchange, if you can believe it.

 

[douglasb]

^ That's turrible, just turrible. I had a similar experience trying to exchange a partially used bottle of "ExtenZe" pills that yielded less-than-optimal results.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

[ We'll just get artificially-locked chips that forbid any overclocking... WAIT A MINUTE... that's actually happening where CPUs are sold at one price and you pay to unlock performance... no way we need to send a message to stop that....

[end sarcasm/devil's advocate mode]

Oh noes please take this idea BACK. I shudder to think of an evil plan in which processor/computer manufacturers clone the wireless industry business model providing us with substandard devices, userous contracts, and confusing data plans. :'(

 

[sequoia464]

Even insane consumers who believe their CPU is possessed by demons can return the CPU for that subjective reason that has no basis in reality.

I have one of those right now - an FX6100 ..

It overclocks pretty well, but I still thing there is something evil going on inside of it - never turn my back on it and I always have a dead chicken hanging around my neck when I use that machine.

 

[MrTeal]

[Activating devil's advocate mode]

I didn't read the fine print on Newegg or Amazon, but every experience I've had is that a consumer is not required to provide a reason or excuse to "justify" their return. It's entirely up to the consumer. Even insane consumers who believe their CPU is possessed by demons can return the CPU for that subjective reason that has no basis in reality.

Couldn't this guy claim his CPU was possessed by demons that prevent it from overclocking?

Also, maybe this is going too far on devil's advocate mode, but could the whole PC crowd actually benefit from returns on CPUs that don't overclock? Would it send a message to CPU manufacturers that consumers reject chips that poorly overclock? Haven't you ever heard of the "black edition" CPU marketing scheme, surely AMD got the message somehow that consumers like to overclock, so they know there is market incentive to develop chips that overclock.

Without people returning poor overclocking chips, how will AMD or Intel be kept in line to make chips that we can overclock? We'll just get artificially-locked chips that forbid any overclocking... WAIT A MINUTE... that's actually happening where CPUs are sold at one price and you pay to unlock performance... no way we need to send a message to stop that....

[end sarcasm/devil's advocate mode]

I would imagine the market of people who return chips because they don't overclock well would be lost in a rounding error somewhere at Intel. Even if every enthusiast returns every chip that doesn't meet some community specified cutoff of how much free performance they're owed, it would still be a drop in the bucket.

If a manufacturer specifies a part at one value but many people can get a higher value, that doesn't mean the manufacturer is obligated to provide that in every product. It's like buying a 6950 with the expectation that you can unlock it and OC to 6970 levels. If you can, great. If you can't, well that's too bad for you. If you want a guaranteed 6970, you have to pay the extra to get a 6970. We have a lot of manufacturing equipment here where I work where the hardware is exactly the same, and the difference between unit A with feature X and unit B with features X and Y is just a firmware update. We could call the distributor at any time and pay however many thousands of dollars it is to enable feature Y. That doesn't mean because we might be able to circumvent that somehow that we should get pissed off if we buy unit A but can't get feature Y.