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

[Donnie27]

Ok.. was running stock @ 1.14 volts... and then i overclocked to running 25x160 at only 1.20v Cpu and 1.25v Vtt , VDIMM 1.62 on UD3R and Cpu was fine..
Moved it to UD7 and i cant load windows no more... BSOD saying Unrecoverable Hardware Error. Then Tried it on a RIIE as well.. Same BSOD. This thing just died !!
Moved back to my 920's and both systems function perfectly so i know its not any busted hardware on either system.
Batch 3005F584.. Now im sad
Never tried disabling any cores or anything. The highest this chip has seen is 1.27v Vcore and 1.25v VTT

Hell, maybe I spoke too soon

[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!

[BenchZowner]

Donnie man, lay back a bit and leave the door open for a different opinion from another person, a person who's into extreme overclocking for example.

The 980X's are dying at an alarming rate without trying to kill them in any way ( excessive voltage, cores/hyperthreading disabling, etc ).
Especially the F batches ( FPO: xxxxFxxx chips ).

[cowie]

to make my long story short,these 980x chips are just weak in the knees.

[chispy]

Donnie man, lay back a bit and leave the door open for a different opinion from another person, a person who's into extreme overclocking for example.

The 980X's are dying at an alarming rate without trying to kill them in any way ( excessive voltage, cores/hyperthreading disabling, etc ).
Especially the F batches ( FPO: xxxxFxxx chips ).

+1 right on spot Billy ,thank you

[skankinred]

While you might want to not believe people saying their 980x is dying because of disabling HT/cores and think they're just jumping on the bandwagon so they can get a better OCing CPU, it's enough to prevent me from wanting to ever test this. Quite a few very reliable people have posted in here with their results already.

[Donnie27]

Donnie man, lay back a bit and leave the door open for a different opinion from another person, a person who's into extreme overclocking for example.

The 980X's are dying at an alarming rate without trying to kill them in any way ( excessive voltage, cores/hyperthreading disabling, etc ).
Especially the F batches ( FPO: xxxxFxxx chips ).

Prove it?

I didn't try to close any door except for borderline fraud LOL! In fact, I tried to Open at least two. This reminds me of the whole Creative vs VIA bug debate. The folks on VIA's side had to eat their words.

If they are dying without folks trying to kill them, then they should be RMA-ed and Intel needs investigate the problem/s. Where's the disconnect?

[BenchZowner]

Prove it?

No need, there are several examples on XS.org already.
Lots of Q3QP's dying at 1.35V & 1.4V on water.
3005F chips dying on air/water at low voltages or degrading heavily, same batch chips dying in less than 3 hours of extreme overclocking without pushing the voltages at all.
My chip dying after 3 hours of soft LN2 overclocking, tsan's 3013A lasting 50+ hours at 1.93V+ on LN2 while others die within minutes or 1-3 hours at 1.8V.

My other 980X which seems to have degraded just by disabling HyperThreading to try 6 cores/6 threads ( lost 600+ MHz in 1 minute! ).

Whether you like it or not, the 980X's are fragile, some very fragile some generally fragile and some seem indestructible ( keyword = seem ).
We've been pushing chips to the limits & over the limits in the recent and not so recent past, but I can't recall another retail Intel chip ( Core 2 Duo ? Core 2 Quad ? Core 2 Extreme ? Pontium 4 ? ) dying so easily and in big quantities like the 980X's.

If you stop looking for bad people who kill their CPUs on purpose via excessive voltages ( 5V+ ), you'll see that there are plenty of people with dead CPUs who didn't want to kill them in any way, but they did die.

You think I wanted to kill my 6500MHz 6c12t AquaMark 3 980X ? Hipro5's 5.9GHz Vantage chips ( 2 of them died ) ? HiCookie's 6.9GHz monster ?

[Donnie27]

No need, there are several examples on XS.org already.
Lots of Q3QP's dying at 1.35V & 1.4V on water.
3005F chips dying on air/water at low voltages or degrading heavily, same batch chips dying in less than 3 hours of extreme overclocking without pushing the voltages at all.
My chip dying after 3 hours of soft LN2 overclocking, tsan's 3013A lasting 50+ hours at 1.93V+ on LN2 while others die within minutes or 1-3 hours at 1.8V.

My other 980X which seems to have degraded just by disabling HyperThreading to try 6 cores/6 threads ( lost 600+ MHz in 1 minute! ).

Whether you like it or not, the 980X's are fragile, some very fragile some generally fragile and some seem indestructible ( keyword = seem ).
We've been pushing chips to the limits & over the limits in the recent and not so recent past, but I can't recall another retail Intel chip ( Core 2 Duo ? Core 2 Quad ? Core 2 Extreme ? Pontium 4 ? ) dying so easily and in big quantities like the 980X's.

If you stop looking for bad people who kill their CPUs on purpose via excessive voltages ( 5V+ ), you'll see that there are plenty of people with dead CPUs who didn't want to kill them in any way, but they did die.

You think I wanted to kill my 6500MHz 6c12t AquaMark 3 980X ? Hipro5's 5.9GHz Vantage chips ( 2 of them died ) ? HiCookie's 6.9GHz monster ?

Quote me saying 980X is strong or not fragile? The only real issue above is simply disabling Hyperthreading. How this processor did overclocking compared to others is MOOT! I didn't post anything about how good or bad of an overclocker it is. I didn't post anything about voltage or anything else but to say it isn't warrantied! Some of these processors will and are expected to die a NORMAL death, killing it and calling it a death isn't the same.

Got nothing to do with if I like it or not, I don't even own one. I said nothing about them being indestructible, what made you think that? I'm not looking for bad people, I'm looking at borderline fraud or irresponsible folks as the title states! It's why I wouldn't worry about buying one except for its price! NOTHING you've said changes that.

Oh wait, I'm not an extreme overclocker and sorry I'll not fix it til its broke then blame a perfectly good piece of hardware. There are more who posted without a problem than those who did. I must have missed the posts where to quote you and the other guy ""The 980X's are dying at an alarming rate without trying to kill them in any way"". Without trying to kill them means not frackin' overclocking LOL! Maybe that's where the disconnect is?

I think this sums what why I Posted!

If 1C/1T benching can kill/degrade the chip, then I'm wondering if applications that use only one Core can have a similar effect even if you are running 6C/12T?

if that would be the case every 980x would be dead or dying

That my friend is for NO REASON. Overclocking as in Over Volting and etc.. isn't "no reason" and isn't warrantied. Call it a weak overclocker, a sissy to tweak and etc.. and I'm not posting here. Hell, I might agree with you. I jumped them for the bad contact pins on Socket 1156, a REAL issue.
Last but not least, I'd love to see some engineer nail down what's causing running 1 core and or disabling HT BUG, if its the Processor, Mobo or BIOS.

[cowie]

I think you not getting bz's point that the 980 is fragle not a good chip to try to run 24/7 and sneak some sub zero results at sane volts.

i may have the same story as a few
my i7 920 d0 was treated well(max 1.50vcore vvt1.30) over the yr or so i had it,100+ hours of dice/ln2 it still runs the same clocks on air/sub zero it did when i first got it
now the 980x i just sent back was treated well in my book(max 1.70vcore vvt1.45)ht run off 99% of the time always 6 real cores.
maybe 40-50 hrs dice/ln2 and was degraded to sht ....weak chip

IMHO never had any intel chip this weak.

[Donnie27]

I think you not getting bz's point that the 980 is fragle not a good chip to try to run 24/7 and sneak some sub zero results at sane volts.

i may have the same story as a few
my i7 920 d0 was treated well(max 1.50vcore vvt1.30) over the yr or so i had it,100+ hours of dice/ln2 it still runs the same clocks on air/sub zero it did when i first got it
now the 980x i just sent back was treated well in my book(max 1.70vcore vvt1.45)ht run off 99% of the time always 6 real cores.
maybe 40-50 hrs dice/ln2 and was degraded to sht ....weak chip

IMHO never had any intel chip this weak.

What do you think my point is if you think I'm not getting his, I'm interested?
I just said;

"Overclocking as in Over Volting and etc.. isn't "no reason" and isn't warrantied. Call it a weak overclocker, a sissy to tweak and etc.. and I'm not posting here. Hell, I might agree with you."

[Donnie27]

Example!

While you might want to not believe people saying their 980x is dying because of disabling HT/cores and think they're just jumping on the bandwagon so they can get a better OCing CPU, it's enough to prevent me from wanting to ever test this. Quite a few very reliable people have posted in here with their results already.

I never said I didn't believe these folks. I said I wasn't sure what was causing these processors to die. Not that they weren't dying or that simply disabling HT wouldn't kill them. On that same note, anyone thinking they are guarantied overclocking (anything) is a fool!

[Bun-Bun]

Your missing the point Donnie. They are not saying they are weak overclockers. They are saying these chips degrade fast without going to extreme voltages.

This combined with disabling core issue, there seems to be an apparent problem or weakness to these chips.

The comments in this thread are coming from people with years of OC'ing experience. If they are seeing a trend (or lapse in trend) then I am inclined to believe them that these are weak chips. This is not just from an OC'ing sense. If a chip degrades that fast from mild voltages being applied then that chip is going to die faster regardless in comparison to other chips from Intel.

And given the price tag along with this particular chip... that is unacceptable.

Capable OC is one thing. Chip degradation is another.

[Donnie27]

Your missing the point Donnie. They are not saying they are weak overclockers. They are saying these chips degrade fast without going to extreme voltages.

This combined with disabling core issue, there seems to be an apparent problem or weakness to these chips.

The comments in this thread are coming from people with years of OC'ing experience. If they are seeing a trend (or lapse in trend) then I am inclined to believe them that these are weak chips. This is not just from an OC'ing sense. If a chip degrades that fast from mild voltages being applied then that chip is going to die faster regardless in comparison to other chips from Intel.

And given the price tag along with this particular chip... that is unacceptable.

Capable OC is one thing. Chip degradation is another.

Before I just throw my hands up in the air in frustration, I've been overclocking since 1993 so please don't try to preach to me, OK? Just because I'm NOT overclocking now doesn't mean I haven't

Bold first. Chips dying when tweaked and stock settings is another as well. If I'm paying that much money, I'm not buying one to monkey with=P If these are simply dying without provocation, then I'm worried if I bought one.

None of the links for proof you posted were to stock settings, 1.4v for the core is not safe, 1.8v on the DRR3 is as well. Link me to, "man, I did nothing to my, INTEL< AMD<nVidia, ATI or etc.. item and it died" complaints.? Please?

The only issue I'd be worried about is simply disabling Hyperthreading while running stock settings.

Why Intel? ""anyone thinking they are guarantied overclocking (anything) is a fool!"" Not limited to Intel or even to processors as I meant Video cards as well.

[Bun-Bun]

First I haven't linked anything so not sure how your refuting my supposed links...

Secondly not only are you failing to see the point of others in this thread you are failing to see the purpose of extreme edition processors. They are meant to be tweaked and OC'ed. Why would you spent that amount of money and then not push it? A complete and utter waste of money. And regardless of whether you have OC'ed before or not you are still failing to see these points.

Finally, a chip that degrades that fast when pushed compared to other models will degrade faster then normal at stock settings as well. I haven't seen anyone specifically complaining about not reaching certain OC's but rather seeing that their chip is degrading so fast. Personally I would want to push my chip to see if it was one that was degrading fast as there is no way I would want to keep such a weak chip after having paid that much for it.

And the posters in this thread are talking about degradation that can been seen immediately, not over time. This IS a problem.

[Donnie27]

First I haven't linked anything so not sure how your refuting my supposed links...

Secondly not only are you failing to see the point of others in this thread you are failing to see the purpose of extreme edition processors. They are meant to be tweaked and OC'ed. Why would you spent that amount of money and then not push it? A complete and utter waste of money. And regardless of whether you have OC'ed before or not you are still failing to see these points.

Finally, a chip that degrades that fast when pushed compared to other models will degrade faster then normal at stock settings as well. I haven't seen anyone specifically complaining about not reaching certain OC's but rather seeing that their chip is degrading so fast. Personally I would want to push my chip to see if it was one that was degrading fast as there is no way I would want to keep such a weak chip after having paid that much for it.

And the posters in this thread are talking about degradation that can been seen immediately, not over time. This IS a problem.

Yes, just as you're failing to see mine! You're Failing to get overclocking and tweaking out of you argument and or off your brain. That's where you're screwing up. I really couldn't care less about tweaking something and I'm only concerned with STOCK! I said weak if you overclock how many times now?

Oh excuse me, you didn't link, you **Quoted** and what you *Quoted** isn't matching what you're saying. You **QUOTED** no one running at stock. Folks running at stock speed aren't have their processors die at an alarming rate and that's my point. What you guys are doing wouldn't change my buying decisions at all=P Again the only legit problem I saw was disabling Hyperthreading causing this to happen, TO SOME folks. Other than that, you've shown NOTHING to back your hypothesis other than to guess at best.

You haven't seen anyone complaining about how high (OC), I haven't seen anyone complaining while running at UNTWEAKED stock speed either. I haven't seen anything here to prove this is the Processor, Motherboard's hardware or BIOS or a combination of some or all of them. I'm NOT saying what it is, I don't know! It might just be some of the processors are bad.

[Bun-Bun]

Yes, just as you're failing to see mine! You're Failing to get overclocking and tweaking out of you argument and or off your brain. That's where you're screwing up. I really couldn't care less about tweaking something and I'm only concerned with STOCK! I said weak if you overclock how many times now?

Oh excuse me, you didn't link, you **Quoted** and what you *Quoted** isn't matching what you're saying. You **QUOTED** no one running at stock. Folks running at stock speed aren't have their processors die at an alarming rate and that's my point. What you guys are doing wouldn't change my buying decisions at all=P Again the only legit problem I saw was disabling Hyperthreading causing this to happen, TO SOME folks. Other than that, you've shown NOTHING to back your hypothesis other than to guess at best.

You haven't seen anyone complaining about how high (OC), I haven't seen anyone complaining while running at UNTWEAKED stock speed either. I haven't seen anything here to prove this is the Processor, Motherboard's hardware or BIOS or a combination of some or all of them. I'm NOT saying what it is, I don't know! It might just be some of the processors are bad.

I haven't quoted anyone but you.

If a processor is degrading like these ones are then its weak at stock clocks as well and will have a shortened lifespan. So yes that does affect you. OC'ing is just a way to pick out these weak ones quicker but even at stock they will degrade faster then normal.

Though I still don't know why anyone would waste that much money on a extreme edition to leave it on stock. Beyond me.

I am done. You are too stuborn and don't care to listen at all. Can't even get it past your head that I haven't quoted/linked anything.

[Donnie27]

I haven't quoted anyone but you.

If a processor is degrading like these ones are then its weak at stock clocks as well and will have a shortened lifespan. So yes that does affect you. OC'ing is just a way to pick out these weak ones quicker but even at stock they will degrade faster then normal.

Though I still don't know why anyone would waste that much money on a extreme edition to leave it on stock. Beyond me.

I am done. You are too suborn and don't care to listen at all. Can't even get it past your head that I haven't quoted/linked anything.

Stubborn, who me

Simple answer #1. Many folks aren't you and are beyond you and I. They don't overclock. They bought 980X because it had 6 cores and enough MHz.

Simple answer #2 Overclocking VOIDS the warranty! Please do it AT YOUR OWN risk.

# Root causes isn't established yet. Not enough processors have been tested for a controlled study.

Yes I know tweaking exposes weaknesses, never said it didn't! My only disagreement is no one *Should be* so sure of the root cause.

[Bun-Bun]

Simple answer #2 Overclocking VOIDS the warranty! Please do it AT YOUR OWN risk.

Wrong.

[Panther_Seraphi]

So the whole point of buying an unlocked processor is to have a big e-peen?

Im sorry but these processors are meant to be overclocked otherwise a i7 970 is just as good in this case :S

[BenchZowner]

Simple answer #2 Overclocking VOIDS the warranty! Please do it AT YOUR OWN risk.

AFAIK it doesn't.
Intel is just not guaranteeing stable operation when overclocked, they don't mention anything about invalidating the warranty.