Intel Offers Protection Plan For Overclockers

MojoKid writes "Intel today unveiled a pilot program that provides warranty protection to overclockers in the event they get a little bit overzealous with pushing the pedal to the metal. For a fee, Intel will provide a one-time replacement of certain processors that are damaged by overclocking and/or over-volting. It's completely optional and in addition to the original three-year standard warranty that already applies to Intel's retail boxed processors. Intel isn't yet ready to flat-out endorse overclocking but the Santa Clara chip maker is perfectly content to provide a 'limited remedy if issues arise as a result of an enthusiast's decision to enable overclocking,' for a modest fee, of course. The deal applies only to certain Extreme Edition and K-series (unlocked) processors currently, in Intel's Core i7 and Core i5 families."

Does this even happen much?

[ZorinLynx]

How often do CPUs can fried by overclocking these days?

Modern CPUs have complicated temperature monitoring onboard that will throttle down the chip if it starts to overheat. Shouldn't this protect against 99% of possible damage scenarios?

Re:Why not for all CPUs?

[EnempE]

Not all CPUs are suitable for overclocking. If they tested a chip at the factory and know that it won't survive if run at a higher voltage or clock speed than it is required too it would be bad practice for them to encourage you to operate the chip in a manner that will make it unstable, which could at best cost a bit of time and money when the chip fails, or worse cost you a massive amount of time when the chip operates poorly and causes intermittent failures or incorrect calculations.

Re:Does this even happen much?

[broken_chaos]

Overvolting, last I checked, was the only actual thing Intel won't warranty replace for. If you don't overvolt (outside specs, not outside 'standard' voltage -- on my i7 standard is ~1.20v and overvolting is >1.35v) and the processor dies, it'll be replaced whether it was overclocked or not. And you can get a huge bump on clock frequency on most processors without a single bit of extra voltage (in my case, >700MHz without touching voltages at all).

Re:Sounds to me they are relying on fuses

[germansausage]

Not one word of your post is true...Sorry.

Re:Sounds to me they are relying on fuses

[Khyber]

"Simply tear down the package and replace the micro fuses and install in a new package."

Would you like to know how I know you don't have experience in this field?

Chip lithography is very much a one-time thing. Once it's made, you aren't adding on anything else. Spare silicon is gone. If it breaks, you're screwed, get a new one or nothing at all, those are your only answers.

The only recycling likely to happen will be melting the package down to get the metals out, and Intel would leave that to a reclamation company. There would NEVER be a refurbishing plant made, I can almost guarantee you this, as it's cheaper and easier (plus more logistically sound) to make a new one.

Re:Why Overclock?

[bemymonkey]

"your energy efficiency goes straight to hell, and your cooling solution gets more complex, expensive, and (usually) louder. Then factor in the extra electricity bills to feed the computer, and the AC bills in the summer."

So faster versions of the same chip don't use more power when they're sold as the faster version? Even though they're both rated at the same TDP, the 3.4GHz version of the chip might (and probably will) use [(3.4/3.2)-1]% more power than the 3.2GHz chip of the same type at full load.

Modern example: Will a Core i7 2700k use less power than a 2600k with its multiplier bumped up to the 2700k's stock multiplier? I HIGHLY doubt it.

Also: It's long become possible to overclock without losing any power-saving functions - things like Speedstep still work, so the only time you're using more power is when the machine is at full load - and at full load, the overclocked machine will be done faster, offsetting the jump in your power bill. IIRC power usage actually scales linearly with clock speed (provided all other factors are the same, and forgetting efficiency issues), so 30% more clock speed => 30% more power usage for the processor, but the required time drops to ~77% for CPU-limited applications... which exactly balances out that 30% bump in power consumption.

And when you consider that the CPU only makes up, say, half or 3/4 of the PC's full-load power consumption, that figure gets better - say the other components make up half of the full load power consumption, so that 30% overclock only results in a 15% net power increase - with a 30% speed boost. Even if the CPU uses 75% of the machine's power, you're still only looking at a 22.5% power usage increase.

I know this is all a very amateurish calculation, but I very much doubt that overclocking (within certain logical limits, like no adding voltage) a CPU will increase your power bill if done with efficiency in mind.

As for "complex cooling solutions": Intel chips from the last few years hardly need 'em unless you're going for a very high overclock (with overvolting and so on) or are bothered by the sound of rushing air. 45nm Core 2 Duo gen 45nm chips will often happily run at 50C full load with a 30% overclock on stock cooling... without any noticable increase in fan noise. I've been told it's similar with current Sandy Bridge chips...