Gamers Red Hot with Fury over Intel Core i7-7700 Temperature Spikes

Just a bit more skimming. It could simply be an issue
tyrchlis said:
I knew the delidding part, but isn't there some warranty headroom for mutiplier overclocking on K model processors? I thought there was at least a little forgiveness on that topic with Intel on multi only OC'ing. I guess not that it matters to me, personally, since I'm not OC'ing. But it would be nice to know the limit line on that should I change my mind later.
Click to expand...

No company offers any warranty for running OC over what you are sold. AMD, Nvidia, mobo makers, memory makers, card makers etc. Intel however is the only company I know of that offers a tuning plan to cover it. But legally, no other company, including Intel if the turning plan isn't purchased offers any warranty for overclocking. While some take RMAs etc anyway, they are not legally obligated to.
 
Pusher of Buttons said:
Teething problems of a brand new architecture as opposed to the possible death-rattles of an old one with seemingly no replacement....it's not the worst issue to have I guess
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much this.

Intel is trying to push their architecture to its limit and this is the first real indication that they may be stretching the platform too far. AMD having teething issues with their architecture along with some problematic code that might not be completely ironed out until the next revision of the Ryzen chip, and that's only if the Jim Keller-less AMD engineers are up to the task of improving upon Jim's architecture without disrupting the good stuff he's got in there.

Going to be overly dramatic for a minute here, but I think the answer to that latter question will be looked at as what determines the future for both AMD and Intel.

If AMD can improve on Ryzen in their next revision and show the platform can grow and deliver large gains over their predicessors (much like intel used to back in the day), then Intel may indeed end up for the foreseeable future follow the same fate as AMD did during the bulldozer era. As in, Intel, with no immediate answers to a cheaper competitor, they may push their platform too far, and end up with at best another Core 2 Duo debacle, and at worst, something akin to the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 if they end up really desperate.

People might think Intel is too big to fail, but they've been lacking in real innovation in a while - maybe a reflection of the times, where they are akin to the tech version of Call of Duty - same shit every year with just a handful of new bells and whistles. They may try to litigate their way out again like they did the first time to prevent the original Athlon from taking off, but we live in a different age and time, and I think the backlash would end up being severe.

Really, the only thing intel can hope for in the short term is AMD can't follow up (and Intel has to be smart enough to start trying to innovate again). Intel needs a new platform. And if AMD follows up strong next year, mark my words that this will be marked as the turning point downward for Intel.
 
BlueFireIce said:
No, no they didn't.

They stated running the CPU out of spec and delidding will void the warranty, which is something we all knew already.
Click to expand...
So "don't run the CPU out of spec" is not the same as saying "Don't overclock"?
 
bigdogchris said:
Intel's statement says they don't want you to overclock your CPU that is designed for overclocking. If Intel can provide an explanation of the benefit for having an unlocked multiplier for non-OCing purposes I'd love to hear it. They market it, it must be for a reason.
Click to expand...

Like this?
https://www.amd.com/Documents/AMD_FX_Performance_Tuning_Guide.pdf
https://www.amd.com/system/files/20...AMD-Ryzen-Master-Overclocking-Users-Guide.pdf

The first part tells you warranty and what not goes bust.

Everyone does this.
 
Last edited:
tyrchlis said:
I knew the delidding part, but isn't there some warranty headroom for mutiplier overclocking on K model processors? I thought there was at least a little forgiveness on that topic with Intel on multi only OC'ing. I guess not that it matters to me, personally, since I'm not OC'ing. But it would be nice to know the limit line on that should I change my mind later.
Click to expand...

People are getting this wrong, like this, the SPEC is not the base clock or the VID, just like with the CPUs before, say my 6700k, that has a VID of 1.2v, but speced up to 1.4v.

bigdogchris said:
So "don't run the CPU out of spec" is not the same as saying "Don't overclock"?
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Shintai said:
Just a bit more skimming. It could simply be an issue


No company offers any warranty for running OC over what you are sold. AMD, Nvidia, mobo makers, memory makers, card makers etc. Intel however is the only company I know of that offers a tuning plan to cover it. But legally, no other company, including Intel if the turning plan isn't purchased offers any warranty for overclocking. While some take RMAs etc anyway, they are not legally obligated to.
Click to expand...

They have no clue what speed you ran your cpu at, what they can tell is voltage and if you exceed that then yes they will not cover it under warranty. What none will guarantee is that you can make the cpu run faster then what its rated for. But to be honest most will never even be tested other then to see if it works or not unless you have a history of sending parts back for warranty.
 
Shintai said:
Just a bit more skimming. It could simply be an issue


No company offers any warranty for running OC over what you are sold. AMD, Nvidia, mobo makers, memory makers, card makers etc. Intel however is the only company I know of that offers a tuning plan to cover it. But legally, no other company, including Intel if the turning plan isn't purchased offers any warranty for overclocking. While some take RMAs etc anyway, they are not legally obligated to.
Click to expand...

They honor RMA's despite claiming OCing voids the warranty, because honestly, their little carve outs probably don't hold any legal water in most states. You can't say "no warranty for overclocking, by the way, here's how you do it" in official company documents and marketing material. It's a conflict. The latter almost explicitly states overclocking is a normal part of using the product.

You can say, as was pointed out above "we don't guarantee your CPU can overclock, or perform in any way beyond published specs". Also, if your area has crap consumer protection laws, Intel and the like are probably on firmer ground. However, it is *not* worth the cost of litigating any of this, or even the hassle of a BBB complaint. So they slap this stuff on the boilerplate to discourage RMAs or overclocking in general, while still accepting the returns anyway.

I doubt they even tear down most of the returned chips anyway. They probably toss them on a tester, watch it pass at stock settings, and label it defective or not. If it fails, most probably get junked without further investigation. Those that pass go into the "refurb" pile after they repackage it, likely to serve as an RMA replacement.
 
Last edited:
Meh, will just avoid the issue all together then. I'm not feeling strained for CPU speed at all at the moment :p

Thanks for the clarification, guys!
 
STR said:
They honor RMA's despite claiming OCing voids the warranty, because honestly, their little carve outs probably don't hold any legal water in most states. You can't say "no warranty for overclocking, by the way, here's how you do it" in official company documents and marketing material. It's a conflict. The latter almost explicitly states overclocking is a normal part of using the product.

You can say, as was pointed out above "we don't guarantee your CPU can overclock, or perform in any way beyond published specs". Also, if your area has crap consumer protection laws, Intel and the like are probably on firmer ground. However, it is *not* worth the cost of litigating any of this, or even the hassle of a BBB complaint. So they slap this stuff on the boilerplate to discourage RMAs or overclocking in general, while still accepting the returns anyway.

I doubt they even tear down most of the returned chips anyway. They probably toss them on a tester, watch it pass at stock settings, and label it defective or not. If it fails, most probably get junked without further investigation. Those that pass go into the "refurb" pile after they repackage it, likely to serve as an RMA replacement.
Click to expand...

So by consumer protection laws it seems you mean business abuse laws. By knowingly doing what you know should not be done, was told and stated not to do and returning it anyway and then talking about legal action when they don't because their explicit statement that it voids the warranty is not explicit enough for you....Got it.
 
STR said:
They honor RMA's despite claiming OCing voids the warranty, because honestly, their little carve outs probably don't hold any legal water in most states. You can't say "no warranty for overclocking, by the way, here's how you do it" in official company documents and marketing material. It's a conflict. The latter almost explicitly states overclocking is a normal part of using the product.

You can say, as was pointed out above "we don't guarantee your CPU can overclock, or perform in any way beyond published specs". Also, if your area has crap consumer protection laws, Intel and the like are probably on firmer ground. However, it is *not* worth the cost of litigating any of this, or even the hassle of a BBB complaint. So they slap this stuff on the boilerplate to discourage RMAs or overclocking in general, while still accepting the returns anyway.

I doubt they even tear down most of the returned chips anyway. They probably toss them on a tester, watch it pass at stock settings, and label it defective or not. If it fails, most probably get junked without further investigation. Those that pass go into the "refurb" pile after they repackage it, likely to serve as an RMA replacement.
Click to expand...

THey're not going to test at all unless you start returning a lot of CPUs that were for personal use. One or two returns? It's not even worth it for them to test them. If you had 5-6 returns in a year though, and you weren't an IT company, they might start asking questions. CPUs just don't fail that often.
 
BlueFireIce said:
So by consumer protection laws it seems you mean business abuse laws. By knowingly doing what you know should not be done, was told and stated not to do and returning it anyway and then talking about legal action when they don't because their explicit statement that it voids the warranty is not explicit enough for you....Got it.
Click to expand...

It's not business abuse (which (LOL) really isn't a thing, but okay, let's use that term) to exercise your rights when your purchase agreement contains illegal (and thus void) clauses within it.

There is also *nothing* wrong with going to court to have a 3rd party rule on dubious, or at least disputed, sections of an agreement.

A lot of contacts remain in a legal gray area simply because neither side is interested in making a case out of it. In my state, many employment contracts were rendered null when the noncompete clauses were found to be unconstitutional in a recent court case. The employer wrote the contract, the employee signed, but it was void because it is illegal to take away the worker's right to his trade. My own contract has a clause on IP which is almost certainly unenforceable...though it's still narrow enough that it's unlikely to ever be an issue.

You can't put anything and everything on a piece of paper as assume it's binding. And a free and open trial is the right of every free citizen. Thankfully, though, I've never had to personally sue anyone or return a CPU.

Bandalo said:
THey're not going to test at all unless you start returning a lot of CPUs that were for personal use. One or two returns? It's not even worth it for them to test them. If you had 5-6 returns in a year though, and you weren't an IT company, they might start asking questions. CPUs just don't fail that often.
Click to expand...

Also true, and kind of what I was hinting at towards the end of my post.
 
Last edited:
STR said:
It's not business abuse (which (LOL) really isn't a thing, but okay, let's use that term) to exercise your rights when your purchase agreement contains illegal (and thus void) clauses within it.
Click to expand...

So in other words, if someone states something about their product you don't like, its illegal? Thats new.
 
BlueFireIce said:
So in other words, if someone states something about their product you don't like, its illegal? Thats new.
Click to expand...

That's your words. Not mine. However, you're either incapable of understanding or simply unwilling to acknowledge the distinction, so I'm going to leave to with a "pfft. Tool."
 
STR said:
That's your words. Not mine. However, you're either incapable of understanding or simply unwilling to acknowledge the distinction, so I'm going to leave to with a "pfft. Tool."
Click to expand...

You have shown nothing illegal in their warranty terms, but you seem fine with spouting it around like it means something, and crying foul when you don't get your way and the company bending over backwards to replace something that can't do what they never promised.
 
BlueFireIce said:
You have shown nothing illegal in their warranty terms, but you seem fine with spouting it around like it means something, and crying foul when you don't get your way and the company bending over backwards to replace something that can't do what they never promised.
Click to expand...

You cannot disclaim a warranty unless you can prove the operation actually damaged it. If I run 2 volts through my CPU and it catches fire, that's on me. Running it at less than 1.25v and it still dies regardless of clockspeed? That's on Intel no matter what the FAQ says. Especially when a lot of MB overvolt and overclock right out the box these days.

With an attitude like yours, God help you if you ever get into a dispute with a home contractor or car dealer. Because that's enough money where you will have to go to court if there's a disagreement.
 
STR said:
You cannot disclaim a warranty unless you can prove the operation actually damaged it. If I run 2 volts through my CPU and it catches fire, that's on me. Running it at less than 1.25v and it still dies regardless of clockspeed? That's on Intel no matter what the FAQ says. Especially when a lot of MB overvolt and overclock right out the box these days.

With an attitude like yours, God help you if you ever get into a dispute with a home contractor or car dealer. Because that's enough money where you will have to go to court if there's a disagreement.
Click to expand...

And the topic, none of them have had a failed chip, their issue is they have a temp they don't like on a CPU that's working just fine, even outside of spec and being delidded, and Intel stated that they can not warranty that.

So now that you have nothing to go on, you just start making up scenarios?

As for getting into a dispute, I actually read the terms first unlike some people it seems. Which is why both of my CPUs have the Intel tuning plan on them.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Core 2 was released in 2006. So technically speaking 11 years old. But I grant you their first super scaler OOE dual issue chip (Pentium Pro) was in 96.
Click to expand...

Intergraph needs to get their shit together and come up with a new design so Intel can jack it!
 
BlueFireIce said:
And the topic, none of them have had a failed chip, their issue is they have a temp they don't like on a CPU that's working just fine, even outside of spec and being delidded, and Intel stated that they can not warranty that.

So now that you have nothing to go on, you just start making up scenarios?

As for getting into a dispute, I actually read the terms first unlike some people it seems. Which is why both of my CPUs have the Intel tuning plan on them.
Click to expand...
You are making a bunch of weird statements. 1st, if you really did your homework, you would know that on the page where Intel has posted the cpu specs, they have links to over locking reviews. Then they make a statement that you should not overclock beyond specs and they specifically mention frequency. Look at the specs and tell me what the frequencies are and then compare to the articles linked. Now take that to court and see who is right.
 
As we reported on yesterday, some users are getting increasingly frustrated with their high temperature spikes on their Intel i7-7700K CPU's, while Intel has just shrugged at the matter stating that it is normal. Well, users are getting increasingly flabbergasted at the details of Intel's response: If you don't like the heat, don't overclock your CPU.

Personally I am torn on this one. On the one had it is clear that something is different with these chips than with other recent Intel chips. Hitting temperature spikes of 90°C at stock clocks and voltages is clearly not normal, and I would clearly be disappointed if I got a chip with this problem, and couldn't overclock it.

On the other hand, overclocking has always been a "your mileage may vary" type effort. CPU manufacturers have only ever guaranteed that they would work at stock clocks. So, while I might be disappointed, I'd probably just call it "losing the silicon lottery" and deal with it. Some are suggesting the fact that Intel sells a K variant means that they should stand behind overclocking, but I'm not quite sure I agree. A K variant means "we won't stop you from trying", not "we guarantee you will succeed".

Thanks to SpeedyVV for the heads up.

We do not recommend running outside the processor specifications, such as by exceeding processor frequency or voltage specifications, or removing of the integrated heat spreader (sometimes called “de-lidding”). These actions will void the processor warranty.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
As we reported on yesterday, some users are getting increasingly frustrated with their high temperature spikes on their Intel i7-7700K CPU's, while Intel has just shrugged at the matter stating that it is normal. Well, users are getting increasingly flabbergasted at the details of Intel's response: If you don't like the heat, don't overclock your CPU.

Personally I am torn on this one. On the one had it is clear that something is different with these chips than with other recent Intel chips. Hitting temperature spikes of 90°C at stock clocks and voltages is clearly not normal, and I would clearly be disappointed if I got a chip with this problem, and couldn't overclock it.

On the other hand, overclocking has always been a "your mileage may vary" type effort. CPU manufacturers have only ever guaranteed that they would work at stock clocks. So, while I might be disappointed, I'd probably just call it "losing the silicon lottery" and deal with it. Some are suggesting the fact that Intel sells a K variant means that they should stand behind overclocking, but I'm not quite sure I agree. A K variant means "we won't stop you from trying", not "we guarantee you will succeed".

Thanks to SpeedyVV for the heads up.

We do not recommend running outside the processor specifications, such as by exceeding processor frequency or voltage specifications, or removing of the integrated heat spreader (sometimes called “de-lidding”). These actions will void the processor warranty.
Click to expand...
The problem is that they charge more for the K cpus. As a matter of law, the buyer pays for something. Since Intel has links on the site to overclocking reviews, there is no question what those customers are buying. For them to somehow state they aren't selling those cpus to guys who will overclock is disingenuous.
 
I wonder if it is a sensor issue?

No idea how to prove or dis-prove that however.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
CPU manufacturers have only ever guaranteed that they would work at stock clocks. So, while I might be disappointed, I'd probably just call it "losing the silicon lottery" and deal with it. Some are suggesting the fact that Intel sells a K variant means that they should stand behind overclocking, but I'm not quite sure I agree. A K variant means "we won't stop you from trying", not "we guarantee you will succeed"
Click to expand...

QFT. In the end, this is what it comes down to, the silicon lottery.
 
Intel CPUs are now sold with a stock speed and a "boost" speed so they are meant to be OC no matter what Intel says.
 
no issues here . . does it run warmer yes but last time I checked my skylake was stuck at 4.6 more vcore and and lower MHz memory. 7700k is a balls to the wall chip the skylake should of been. but hey if you want cool conservative skylake is still amazing
 
I consider this a lemon law type of problem. Intel puts the K on these because they are unlocked and can be pushed to the limit under water or air. Now intel is trying to wiggle out of it. I don't think so.
 
STrAYeR said:
I consider this a lemon law type of problem. Intel puts the K on these because they are unlocked and can be pushed to the limit under water or air. Now intel is trying to wiggle out of it. I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Lemon law is for a defective product . . under specifications this chip will run amazing. now when overclocked intel gives you a a point the chip becomes unstable,after that fact ASUS helped out with this and made many informative guides also. Intel doesn't have to wiggle out of anything . . . just if "YOU don't have the know how stay stock . . . .
 
STrAYeR said:
I consider this a lemon law type of problem. Intel puts the K on these because they are unlocked and can be pushed to the limit under water or air. Now intel is trying to wiggle out of it. I don't think so.
Click to expand...
It is not considered under lemon law. They sold you what they promised. Overclocking has never been guarantied k or non k. This is a none issue tbh and people just trying to make something out of it. There have not been massive amount of reports of people having issues. If you actually do have a issue Intel's RMA is pretty damn good and they will take care of your problem.
 
Elf_Boy said:
I wonder if it is a sensor issue?

No idea how to prove or dis-prove that however.
Click to expand...

it most likely is or the sensor refresh rate is slightly off causing the motherboard to miss a reading and increasing the voltage for a short time to stabilize the processor.. that's my theory though based on having a similar issue with my x2 6400+ years ago that did something similar until i finally turned off all the CnQ features on the motherboard which kept the board from spiking the voltage when the cpu would randomly report 1v and 0c to the motherboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Just putting Intel's response on hold and not thinking about it..

One thing that makes the 7700K (and other KL chips) different is Speed Shift 2. In particular, SS2 makes the chip ramp up clock speed very quickly. I believe this is meant to improve response times on machines like the MS Surface and other machines where touch input latency greatly influences the user experience. In any event, that technology by definition has to ramp up clock speed very fast, and I would not be surprised if it was a factor in temperature jumps. After all, those jumps are small and when a vendor knows about them, fan speeds could be customized to not jump as much. For unsuspecting BIOSes and Fan headers, that might be a different story.
 
My suspicion is this statement is coming from a PR guy, and expect a more technical "correction" response within a day or two.

Also, how long has the 7700k been out? Why is this coming out now, AFTER AMD has a competing chip? I find the timing...odd to say the least.
 
90 Celsius is not normal at stock speeds for any chip, let alone one they market to people to overclock. That horrible TIM they use on top of a possible voltage issue is a design flaw and would piss me off if I owned one. The answer from Intel was weak and a massive disservice to people that support them, basically told them to F-off. I hope they get hit with a class action lawsuit, they need their hand slapped and a reminder pissing off customers is a bad thing.
 
Gideon said:
90 Celsius is not normal at stock speeds for any chip, let alone one they market to people to overclock. That horrible TIM they use on top of a possible voltage issue is a design flaw and would piss me off if I owned one. The answer from Intel was weak and a massive disservice to people that support them, basically told them to F-off. I hope they get hit with a class action lawsuit, they need their hand slapped and a reminder pissing off customers is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Class action against what exactly? The chip works as it should, is under spec temperature-wise and the "K", as has been clearly pointed out - simply means 'best of luck'.

I see nothing there to warrant a lawsuit. A boycott by some consumers? Ok. Anger? Sure. But nothing illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top