KILL your i7 980X AT ONCE (and RMA it)...

[Donnie27]

Doesn't matter if it is software or a bios change that caused it. It is still a defect.

By your logic going into bios to apply proper voltages and other various settings because AUTO incorrectly does so (esspecially for RAM) is warranty voiding.

I am sorry Donnie but you are making yourself look like a fool.

Disabling cores is not taking a processor out of spec. Hyperthreading is a feature known to cause issues in certain situations and can be disabled (some OEM's disable it by default or hard lock it off in their BIOS). Are you going to tell me that if my processor died with HT off that I killed it? Disabling cores is no different. Esspecially when Intel's own features do this as a power save feature.

If I disable unused integrated devices (fireware, LAN, etc) and something goes wrong; I killed it then as well?

I am not here to replace google. Various documentation states this is an option and no where does it state it is warranty voiding nor out of "spec".

Really everyone should be asking you to provide a link to Intel saying that disabling cores is bad and warranty voiding.

Disabling HT alone isn't messing up processors and I never said anything about that anyway. Keep digging a deeper hole? Yea, you're sorry alright. Again, I said if the processor was doing this (shutting down completely the cores and HT) itself or even software, I'd agree! How in the hell did you miss that?

Your example/s makes you look desperate! Here's my saying just what you accused me of not saying!

The only legit question is if Single Threaded apps caused a problem or not. That was the only reason I read the whole thread before I posted. If single threaded apps with features (power states-speed step and etc...) turned on is causing problems then there should be a Fix.

Another post!

Now if this was something the OS or an app was causing, then I'd go along with you guys!

Your reply is about the most ding bat-est thing I've read in about 5 months here. I didn't pick any extreme example or try twist crap like you have.

Here's an easier one, link to someone disabling two cores and killing a Processor as Erklat said? This was right after xpatar posted two examples of his not dieing! He still posted what he did.

There are thousands of possible settings in the BIOS that can kill your system. According to you, those are all defects as well. If you need links to prove that, then you need to stay the hell out of the BIOS!

Curious I know they ran 1 in this test they seemed okay unless they didn't really. Maybe it's certain chips

There are folks in this thread who were both successful and unsuccessful. Some folks here acted like it was Certain death for all 980X, sheesh! I said If I'm a 980X owner, I'm not worried about this at all=P

[Bun-Bun]

Disabling HT alone isn't messing up processors and I never said anything about that anyway. Keep digging a deeper hole? Yea, you're sorry alright. Again, I said if the processor was doing this (shutting down completely the cores and HT) itself or even software, I'd agree! How in the hell did you miss that?

Your example/s makes you look desperate! Here's my saying just what you accused me of not saying!



Your reply is about the most ding bat-est thing I've read in about 5 months here. I didn't pick any extreme example or try twist crap like you have.

Here's an easier one, link to someone disabling two cores and killing a Processor as Erklat said? This was right after xpatar posted two examples of his not dieing! He still posted what he did.

There are thousands of possible settings in the BIOS that can kill your system. According to you, those are all defects as well. If you need links to prove that, then you need to stay the hell out of the BIOS!



There are folks in this thread who were both successful and unsuccessful. Some folks here acted like it was Certain death for all 980X, sheesh! I said If I'm a 980X owner, I'm not worried about this at all=P

If you actually read my post I was comparing disabling HT to disabling cores. Same thing. (same as in they are features that can be turned off in the BIOS) It is an option provided by Intel and is not said anywhere in any of their documentation that disabling cores is a bad thing or that it void's the warranty.

Disabling cores is not taking a processor out of spec. Hyperthreading is a feature known to cause issues in certain situations and can be disabled (some OEM's disable it by default or hard lock it off in their BIOS). Are you going to tell me that if my processor died with HT off that I killed it? Disabling cores is no different. Esspecially when Intel's own features do this as a power save feature.

If your ok with disabling HT but not cores then you need to really step back and think about your logic.

Also I never claimed this was an issue that all chips have. But we have enough evidence in this thread to say there is an obvious issue affecting at least some chips and MB combinations. The very first post debunks most of what you are trying to say.


Yes there are options in the bios that if set incorrectly can kill things. However the spec's are clearly documented about what the proper settings and limits are and if you stay within the specs then there is no issue as far as warranty is concerned. No where in the spec's does it specifiy that Disabling cores or HT is warranty voiding or something that is "bad".

I am useing extreme examples to poke at the obvious holes in your argument that you obviously are the only one failing to see.

EDIT:

I will agree with you on one point. If someone read's this thread and does "tests" it by disabling cores and the chip dies in the process, then yes you could say they killed the chip as they knew before hand that some have before. However I still think they have every right to a RMA as it is obviously a defect in the chips that has gone unoticed to this point.

I wonder if you know what errata is?

[Donnie27]

If you actually read my post I was comparing disabling HT to disabling cores. Same thing. (same as in they are features that can be turned off in the BIOS) It is an option provided by Intel and is not said anywhere in any of their documentation that disabling cores is a bad thing or that it void's the warranty.

If your ok with disabling HT but not cores then you need to really step back and think about your logic.

Also I never claimed this was an issue that all chips have. But we have enough evidence in this thread to say there is an obvious issue affecting at least some chips and MB combinations. The very first post debunks most of what you are trying to say.

Yes there are options in the bios that if set incorrectly can kill things. However the spec's are clearly documented about what the proper settings and limits are and if you stay within the specs then there is no issue as far as warranty is concerned. No where in the spec's does it specifiy that Disabling cores or HT is warranty voiding or something that is "bad".

I am useing extreme examples to poke at the obvious holes in your argument that you obviously are the only one failing to see.

EDIT:

I will agree with you on one point. If someone read's this thread and does "tests" it by disabling cores and the chip dies in the process, then yes you could say they killed the chip as they knew before hand that some have before. However I still think they have every right to a RMA as it is obviously a defect in the chips that has gone unoticed to this point.

I wonder if you know what errata is?

First, your last line is silly, immature and I ain't going there anymore.

This is something that needs to be looked at by Intel, BIOS and Board Makers. That seems to be the biggest disagreement and the point missed here. Intel didn't manufacture the BIOS and Board as well. The Problem is too random and you nor I know where the hell the errata or glitch originates that might be causing this. Now want to continue talk or hurl barbs?

I'm NOT saying there is nothing wrong! If you have enough expertise to prove this is solely an "Hey, Intel better fix this" issue or errata, please explain?

I already wrote that maybe Intel and etc.. should be warning folks to NOT perform this test.

1. Again I'm not sure of what combination KILLED the processor.

2. OTOH, maybe Intel should warn folks not to do this"* so I'm NOT totally opposed to what you're saying. **This = disable all but one core.

There is no certain or known point of malfunction. Now that's the point you and the other guy aren't getting. You're so busy trying to make your point that you missing that.

All I meant was that this was too easy to avoid, not that it wasn't an issue. To end this, should every Processor, not just 980X, be able to run One Core with HT enabled or disabled and not die, emphatically YES! Is that clear enough?

[Bun-Bun]

How is it immature? It was a legitimate question because until your most recent post you were not making any sense at all.

After your most recent post I don't see any disagreement between us at all. Before it sounded like you were saying this was not a problem and Intel should not be responsible for replacing chips that the end user fried. Which is completely not the case. A user has no reason to believe disabling cores is going to fry their chip unless they read this thread. And honestly knowing this I would be wary of having spent that kind of cash and have something so simple fry it. What else could go wrong?

And I don't think anyone has been saying that this is solely Intel's responsibility. Many suggestions and hypotheses have been directed at different boards and board manufacturers.

However it is Intel's responsibility to work with the board manufacturers in solving this problem as it is their design.

[Donnie27]

How is it immature? It was a legitimate question because until your most recent post you were not making any sense at all.

After your most recent post I don't see any disagreement between us at all. Before it sounded like you were saying this was not a problem and Intel should not be responsible for replacing chips that the end user fried. #1 Which is completely not the case. A user has no reason to believe disabling cores is going to fry their chip unless they read this thread. #2 And honestly knowing this I would be wary of having spent that kind of cash and have something so simple fry it. What else could go wrong?

#3 And I don't think anyone has been saying that this is solely Intel's responsibility. Many suggestions and hypotheses have been directed at different boards and board manufacturers.

#4 However it is Intel's responsibility to work with the board manufacturers in solving this problem as it is their design.

First, number 4 is what I've said all alone so I agree.

#1

An EASY way to KILL your i7 980X cpu is VERY SIMPLE... and
IF your cpu sucks under LN2 or so, an EASY way to kill it is the following:

See anything wrong with that?

#3

Good Finding Hipro and thnks for the heads up , sh*t this new cpus are dying an at alarming rate :/ , ouch. They last only a couple of sessions or just looking at them wrong lol and they die , $1099US Dollars a pop its no fun .

There are no 980X dying at an alarming rate

This 1C/1T issue may have something to do with Intel's brand new Turbo Boost on the Core i7-980X?. On single-threaded applications, one Core get 2 speed bins (266MHz) while on multi-threaded applications, it will just be a slight 133MHz increase at stock....

i would not be bothering my self with 45nm cpu. but the rest of 32nm cpu range, are needed to be checked.

Ok that's not good...
Considering the R3E natively supports that processor...
So there is a proven hardware flaw in these processors, then...

There are least 10 others saying nothing about BIOS or Motherboards even as others pointed out that either could be or might be causing the problem as well.

Now see Post number #72? Other posters insinuated, some just flat laid the blame squarely on the Processor. No one has figured out the exact cause. But the first post was saying, "Hey, if you don't have a good overclocker, try this to get an RMA? That's why I said what I said about NO RMA. It wasn't limited to just running one core.

I said I hoped some one at Intel and some VAR/s were watching folks doing this to get better overclocking processors. This kind stuff makes it harder for folks with legit failures. Then drives up costs.

#2, I'd have ZERO problems buying a 980X when it comes to worrying about this Issue=P I'd realistically not buy one simply because of its high price LOL!

#3 See above?

I'm sure we can discuss the problem without barbs!

Edit to make bold 1 important point!