Using non stock cooler for i7 920 voids warranty

[PeteRoy]

I just had a phone call with Intel support and I asked if it voids my warranty if I buy an aftermarket cooler like a Zalman or Coolermaster.

And his answer was "in theory it does", which means if I don't use the stock cooler I void my warranty for my i7 920.

That would be fine if the stock cooler was actually cooling the CPU and not only keeping it away from explosion.

 

[n7]

Yes, this is nothing new.

Intel prefers that your CPU runs extremely hot :thumbsup:

Intel's own coolers are horribly ineffective.
This is why i never get worried about temps like some people do.

 

[ChaosDivine]

Originally posted by: n7
Intel's own coolers are horribly ineffective.

Well, the copper-core C2D cooler was pretty good. Still use a couple of them on E4300s @ 3GHz and E6200s @ 3.2GHz.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: n7
Yes, this is nothing new.

Intel prefers that your CPU runs extremely hot :thumbsup:

Intel's own coolers are horribly ineffective.
This is why i never get worried about temps like some people do.

Its not so much that they prefer them to run hot, that's the wrong cause-and-effect assignment.

I forget the source of the Intel link/presentation (a cursory google search did not jog my memory yet) but there was a published case-example of how Intel went about rationalizing the specifications for the HSF solution for either the B3 or G0 stepping kentsfields (can't remember which) in which the purpose of the efforts was to reduce the manufacturer cost by $2 by allowing for higher operating temps and thus a cheaper HSF solution.

They want them to be capable of living with cheaper HSF solutions because that means higher gross margins for the same price, and AMD prices basically set Intel prices in this segment.

It is true that the higher temps with stock HSF results in a requirement of higher Vcc for stable operation under load, and as such your rig will be using more electricity at the same clockspeed (and manually lowered Vcc to point of stability) than it might otherwise require were you to employ a superior 3rd party HSF to enable even lower stable Vcc at the same clockspeed.

 

[nyker96]

I think if you plan to run stock, the included cooler usually is enough, but obviously they don't keep it very cool. nothing like what an aftermarket ones can do. but since they don't know what you might actually use from aftermarket they cannot guarantee effectiveness of your own cooler. that's understandable even know most aftermarket cooler like Xigmatek will run circles around stock coolers.

 

[lopri]

/
Can someone give me a link where I can find the contact information of Intel customer service? Or a phone # through which I can speak to a live person.

/Off-topic

 

[OCGuy]

Stock coolers work perfectly fine for keeping CPUs below Intel's thermal spec. Even the coolers that came with Penryn, which looked more like cheapo Celeron coolers, kept them running well below the 71.6C limit which Intel has determined gives a good enough failure rate within the 3 year warranty period.

Really you should only need an aftermarket cooler if you plan on overclocking, which voids your warranty anyway.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: lopri
/
Can someone give me a link where I can find the contact information of Intel customer service? Or a phone # through which I can speak to a live person.

/Off-topic

http://www.intel.com/support/feedback.htm

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: ChaosDivine

Originally posted by: n7
Intel's own coolers are horribly ineffective.

Well, the copper-core C2D cooler was pretty good. Still use a couple of them on E4300s @ 3GHz and E6200s @ 3.2GHz.

Key word: used to be. That stock cooler was more than sufficient to keep an E2180 at 3.2 ghz for me as well. Still using the stock cooler on my X3210 @ 3ghz, it's working great.

The i7 cooler is not the same beast. Sure, it looks the same. But I had to take some extreme measures (like, enough ventillation to keep my case ambient temperatures below 30C) for it to keep my CPU from hitting thermal limits at stock settings. I'm going out on a limb saying the average Joe Sixpack is going to have in-case ambients closer to 40C, and I've come across several references to stock i7 coolers *not* being able to keep up with load under those conditions.

Count me in the "horribly ineffective" opinion crowd for the current i7 stock cooler. It'll work if you undervolt to 1.1v or so (turning your CPU to a 100 watt part) or turn your case into a wind tunnel suitable for testing supersonic airframes. But just barely.

 

[Elias824]

this is nothing new, the important thing is I dont think they really care if you dont use it as long as your CPU didnt die to some heat related issue.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Stock coolers work perfectly fine for keeping CPUs below Intel's thermal spec. Even the coolers that came with Penryn, which looked more like cheapo Celeron coolers, kept them running well below the 71.6C limit which Intel has determined gives a good enough failure rate within the 3 year warranty period.

Really you should only need an aftermarket cooler if you plan on overclocking, which voids your warranty anyway.

or own it for more than 3 years.

AFAIK intel targets 10% failure after 3 years. better cooler can improve that figure.