![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
3960X C2 Stepping?
- Thread starter Synomenon
- Start date
Yes. The only reason your not hearing more about it is tied into its retail cost. 3930K has been pretty much gone for over a month now due to original stock of a limited run being sold out. From what I have heard the 3960X had a similiar original run, but being nearly twice as expensive has limited its market, meaning their has been a decent stock of them out there.
So be careful. For a while those 3960's can be C1 or C2.
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
And I'd just forget the idea of the 3960x and get the 3930k when it comes back in stock because they will all be the C2 stepping.
And the 3960Xs are twice the cost for a bit more cache and a little 100Mhz more clockspeed and overclocks about the same as the 3930k. 3960X is just... a waste of money, twice the price for 3-5% performance increase in synthetic benchmarks is well... just not worth the money.
Dead on right. But some people just want to have the best. To me getting a 3960 is like getting a Yamaha R1 with an aftermarket exhaust installed. And getting a 3930 is like getting a Yamaha R1 with the factory exhaust. You gain like 3 horsepower max. But the aftermarket exhaust doubled the price of the bike.
Anyways I will be warranting my 3930K C1 for a C2 because under the law I was sold a defective product and warranty should be honored as a good business practice.
good luck with that.
I just feel like money would be better spent on another video card or a pci-e ssd or something of that effect that has a bit of an effect on what your computer can do instead of the marginal increase of 100MHz that won't be noticed no matter how hard you try to find out. If you have the fastest processor in the world and only one video card or a 64GB ssd, something went wrong with that build unless its made to be cooled using Phase or LN2 for benches.
I know they have a law in the UK that covers that, but I'm not sure if they have one in the US.
We in fact do have a very powerful law that businesses fear customers knowing about.
I largely know about this law because I like to stay informed...
Before you read the Wiki on it here is a summary line from Wiki and if you read the actual law it is written so that:
"if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair attempts."
Now the fact that once the silicon is etched and fabricated you cannot repair these processors so Intel either must by Law provide a US consumer a replacement or a refund both of which I will be very happy to receive.
So to others telling me good luck with that...I dont need luck when I have rule of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act
And what exactly is the defect? As another poster asked (and you have conveniently ignored), did Intel or the retailer claim VT-d support? I am not talking about initial plans, but at the time of purchase was this an advertised claim about the product? If Intel did not make such claims about their product, then I don't see how you have a case. If the retailer made such claims, you should contact them and ask for a refund - they will likely give you one just to avoid hassle. If you they don't give you a refund, you'll likely spend more money on lawyers fighting them than you would buying a new cpu.
Wait ask me again, did I conveniently ignore what again??????
It was in the Ark but they conveniently changed it to throw lazy people off. And I wouldn't waste my money on lawyers. However Intel did announce that there is a defect that VT-d doesn't work. So just the sheer fact they made an announcement about it being a defect is legally standing. It doesnt matter about Intent or original design. What matters in the law is perception and what is written. If Intel advertised a defect by press release or any other form of public media then it is legally binding that in fact the chips have a defect.
Its all a game. I will not spend money on an attorney to pursue this. It is about principle and about seeing if they are a good business. That is all. Lets please not get into a side track thread derailing off shoot of stuff not related. I am just posting this information for anyone that feels like they have a case for a new chip.
That is all. End of argument.
Edit... Okay I went ahead and did some research to prove in fact Intel would be legally and highly suggested to honor a warranty for it's faithful customers........
On page 13 you will read "BS90 Errata" has been repaired in the C2 and it is clearly listed that the C1 was broken. Hard to argue against this right? This is an official Intel document and since it is an official document it means they offcially designed and released the C1 stepping with a known defect but pushed it out to customers anyways.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/specification-update/core-i7-lga-2011-specification-update.pdf
Screenshots:
Keep in mind your mobo has to support VT-d and I know mine does the Rampage IV as I have installed one of the latest bios which reports fixes to VT-d issues on motherboard level.
More proof:
A source of more proof the defect is by Intel's knowing is this person who actually received an email from Intel stating they will replace the CPU.
Lastly I give credit for this finding to:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1839724
So as to not sidetrack this any further OP, Yes they are releasing a C2 3960x. Hope you are happy with it when you get it.
Moral of the story: A little research goes a long way in knowing just how foolish one can be to think they already know the answer before looking to see if they do.
Last edited:
None of what you posted particularly answers my questions, and you seem to be misinterpreting my post. I am not denying that Intel intended the cpu to have VT-d, and that the problems with that particular chip's VT-d support are not caused by a 'design flaw' in the overall chip. What I am asking is if Intel advertised this chip as supporting VT-d or not? If they did, then yes you have a point. If they had initially had hoped to include the feature, found out the fucked it up, and then backtracked in their advertising before they released the product, then that is a highly different scenario. This is, in essence, the point I am trying to make and the question asked by Plugwash earlier in the thread.
Intel acknowledging a defect has no legal bearing unless they advertised the feature at the time of purchase. If they did this, I can agree with your point. If they didn't, it is not particularly different than a design change (and is in essence an accidental design change).
So I will ask again - did Intel advertise VT-d as a feature of this cpu at the time of purchase? None of your links answer this question, and it is really the only one that matters in this istance.
Intel acknowledging a defect has no legal bearing unless they advertised the feature at the time of purchase. If they did this, I can agree with your point. If they didn't, it is not particularly different than a design change (and is in essence an accidental design change).
So I will ask again - did Intel advertise VT-d as a feature of this cpu at the time of purchase? None of your links answer this question, and it is really the only one that matters in this istance.
Wait ask me again, did I conveniently ignore what again??????
It was in the Ark but they conveniently changed it to throw lazy people off. And I wouldn't waste my money on lawyers. However Intel did announce that there is a defect that VT-d doesn't work. So just the sheer fact they made an announcement about it being a defect is legally standing. It doesnt matter about Intent or original design. What matters in the law is perception and what is written. If Intel advertised a defect by press release or any other form of public media then it is legally binding that in fact the chips have a defect.
Its all a game. I will not spend money on an attorney to pursue this. It is about principle and about seeing if they are a good business. That is all. Lets please not get into a side track thread derailing off shoot of stuff not related. I am just posting this information for anyone that feels like they have a case for a new chip.
That is all. End of argument.
Edit... Okay I went ahead and did some research to prove in fact Intel would be legally and highly suggested to honor a warranty for it's faithful customers........
On page 13 you will read "BS90 Errata" has been repaired in the C2 and it is clearly listed that the C1 was broken. Hard to argue against this right? This is an official Intel document and since it is an official document it means they offcially designed and released the C1 stepping with a known defect but pushed it out to customers anyways.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/specification-update/core-i7-lga-2011-specification-update.pdf
Screenshots:
Keep in mind your mobo has to support VT-d and I know mine does the Rampage IV as I have installed one of the latest bios which reports fixes to VT-d issues on motherboard level.
More proof:
A source of more proof the defect is by Intel's knowing is this person who actually received an email from Intel stating they will replace the CPU.
Lastly I give credit for this finding to:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1839724
So as to not sidetrack this any further OP, Yes they are releasing a C2 3960x. Hope you are happy with it when you get it.
Moral of the story: A little research goes a long way in knowing just how foolish one can be to think they already know the answer before looking to see if they do.
No it doesn't matter. The law clearly states that a Defect is a Defect.
Dictionary.com -- a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection: a defect in an argument; a defect in a machine.
So whether it was advertised, included, not advertised, not intended, a defect is a defect in the eyes of Law and by definition. Stop beating this up.
Dictionary.com -- a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection: a defect in an argument; a defect in a machine.
So whether it was advertised, included, not advertised, not intended, a defect is a defect in the eyes of Law and by definition. Stop beating this up.
Last edited:
You're not right, but we can drop it if you want.
Edit: PS - it matters
I'd like to because this not our thread to hijack. This belongs to the OP whom asked if they were gonna release a C2 3960x. Yes they are OP.
I'd of hoped to, by now at least, posted enough information that will enable others whom are concerned whether or not the chips were listed as defective and according to the documentation I provided on this forum for others it would appear so.
Secondly unless one of you can prove you are an Attorney/Lawyer with a BAR certified license to practice in the United States then your points are all moot. Just as I am not an attorney and my points are moot.
We will simply see wont we when people start requesting warranties on these chips. So until then there is no further need to continue this "digital know it all because I am on the Internet arguement between all parties inc. my-self" /fin
Yes, Intel did advertise these processors as having fully functional VT-d, if i wanted to i could wade through the 39page forum post on overclock.net but I don't want to. The 3930K pdf file for the features of the 3930k say that it has VT-d and the website also used to say that it had VT-d before they changed it to avoid false advertising, but it was up there on Intel's website. As for good business practices and garnering good will from customers... they might change them out.
Most people don't even know what VT-d is and just want a new shiny processor with a new stepping that might overclock better and say in a veiled attempt to get that new processor that they were cheated out of this feature they will never use but "Its principle". In fact the only valid reason in my opinion for wanting a c2 revision is that when it comes to resell it will significantly affect your chances of getting a fair price. Which is legitimate imo. But the whole "I payed money for a processor with all its features etc etc etc" excuse when they won't use that feature is just grasping at straws. Unfortunately for Intel they are required to replace them by law because they advertised them as having the feature and don't.
In the end, Intel knew that people might get mad at not having this small little feature and made a business decision that they would release these processors in November. Instead of throwing away the c1s they sold them to a market that doesn't even use that feature and will replace them with c2s for those customers that do need it.
Actually then Intel would be required to send out new processors to everyone like when q6600 went from B3 stepping to a G0 stepping technically the B3 stepping was defective. The main problem with your reasoning is that when working on something as small as a cpu, you're gonna have defects all over the place and as long as Intel doesn't say they have such a feature in their product they can't be help liable for it as long as the processor does its job. As long as it works as intended as advertised they can cut features and say it doesn't work right etc. The 3930k and 3960x were both advertised as having VT-d in this case, so Intel is required by law to replace them, but if they had said they don't have VT-d, and the chip worked in every other fashion, it wouldn't be defective in the view of the law since the consumer got what they payed for and what was advertised to them.
You can look it up in Product Liability law and in this situation it falls under misrepresentation. But again if Intel hadn't put that the 3930K had that feature on their website they would not be liable to change any processor out.
Last edited:
Archangel7
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 57
The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is not dependant upon, nor has any relation to false advertisement claims. That would be another statutory cause of action altogether. The MMWA, as the title implies, only applies to warranty claims. In layman terms, you return the product because it is defective under terms of warranty, Intel has an opportunity to repair, and if they cannot, then consumer has the option to receive a replacement or full refund. But you have one very serious problem, the warranty has to cover the defect, and Intel's warranty specifically excludes errata defects. Long and short of it my friend, is that you have no cause of action under the MMWA.
Also, MMWA has an attorneys' fee provision, so one can recover any fees paid as part of the damages. Waste money on attorneys, how funny, as consumer litigation attorneys rarely cost their clients money, only charge them initially and then recover fees as part of the judgment, or through settlement.
As to a fraud claim, you probably do not have a leg to stand on there either.
Also, MMWA has an attorneys' fee provision, so one can recover any fees paid as part of the damages. Waste money on attorneys, how funny, as consumer litigation attorneys rarely cost their clients money, only charge them initially and then recover fees as part of the judgment, or through settlement.
As to a fraud claim, you probably do not have a leg to stand on there either.
thanks for the input but ....
Still keeping this argument open eh? I thought I asked that we stop and return this thread to the OP?
Last edited:
AthlonXP
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2001
- Messages
- 20,595
Just got a 3960X in and its a C2 stepping.
AthlonXP
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2001
- Messages
- 20,595
Got it from one of our vendors with our Intel discount but it appears to be the same warehouse provantage uses.
how does it clock?
AthlonXP
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2001
- Messages
- 20,595
You aren't master of the universe, and just because YOU say to stop doesn't mean everyone else has to. It's a rather lame way to always try to have the last word.
So I'm asking that we stop and return this thread to the OP.
Can you verify that it is C2, like a screenshot? How do you know for sure? Just asking, not challenging, I would like to know so we can all know exactly how to verify it on these chips. I am not an Intel genius by any means.
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
You can verify by the Spec Code on the side of the box.
AthlonXP
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2001
- Messages
- 20,595
Yup that's how i can tell.
Provantage doesn't have it listed anymore. WTF PROVANTAGE!?
http://www.provantage.com/intel-bx80619i73960x~7ITEP3K8.htm
burningrave101
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 11,825
711 3960x in stock and not a 3930k in sight lol.
Wow, you have a 3930K and you are struggling to not buy the 3960X? You must have a good job. Unless you do some serious number crunching/rendering on that thing, it is surely not worth $400 (if you sell your 3930K for $600) for 3%-4% more performance.
Nah seems like his signature includes the 3930k he wants (last part of his system) and not that he already has it. So a 3960x in stock C2 might break his will and force him to not wait for 3930k stock.
Oh, heh. Hadn't thought of that scenario. Glad I got my 3930K early before all this out of stock bulls***.