[SOLVED] Does Undervloting My CPU void its warranty?

[sunit swapnasarit]

Hallo!! I am Currently Using a I7 13700K and have a ASUS TUF GAMING Z690 DDR5 MOBO. When Doing rendering during heavy load it gets upto 95C. I have a noctua NHD15 CPU Cooler. I searched around and found out about Undervolting using XTU. But When I tried to do it it game me a warning saying that it will void My warranty If I did it. What should I do?

 

[Phaaze88]

You ignore it and proceed. They can't prove you did that. Overclocking, on the other hand, they may be able to prove.

I'd like to suggest adjusting Processor Base Power and Maximum Turbo Power instead of trying to undervolt.
The downside with UVs is that bios updates can break them. It's also true for OCing.
As time moves on, the board vendor releases updates related to security, system stability, and performance improvements.
Tightened voltage control can be among those updates, and then you'll have to find brand new settings that work.
Adjusting the power limit won't be broken by bios updates.

 

[drea.drechsler]

Hallo!! I am Currently Using a I7 13700K and have a ASUS TUF GAMING Z690 DDR5 MOBO. When Doing rendering during heavy load it gets upto 95C. I have a noctua NHD15 CPU Cooler. I searched around and found out about Undervolting using XTU. But When I tried to do it it game me a warning saying that it will void My warranty If I did it. What should I do?

I always thought "K" series CPUS are sold by Intel with an expectation of overclocking, meaning without loss of warranty. That's what makes it worth the higher price, obviously, but if you do it's the results that aren't guaranteed. If that's not true and it's more like AMD's warranty then technically I suppose it could void warranty but it would be very hard for them to prove it.

In any case the important thing to remember is any warranty is only for operating in manufacturer's stock conditions, or "on spec" so to speak. So all you have to do is return it to full-stock operation and if it works you have no warranty claim anyway.

 

[Karadjgne]

K series cpus used to have a seperate protection, an additional $30 purchase, called the Performance Tuning Protection Plan (PTPP), that covered overclocking, but that was canceled in mid year '21 because processors cost too much to replace and nobody was really opting in for the extra warranty.

Basically Intel gives you the option to OC with a K/Z pair, but you do so at your own risk. But here's the kicker, as far as that reads 'outside of Intel's publically available specifications' it means undervolting Is covered, because Intel can only state a range of applicable voltages, not an exact voltage that a cpu will run on at C0. But it can state a maximum voltage for any cpu as Vendors are also limited by that voltage for stock/default use. Locking cores is also covered because Intel took away public access to specific core turbo conditions, so any individual core can run upto its maximum Intel recommended Turbo.

But I'm no lawyer.

 

[drea.drechsler]

...

But I'm no lawyer.

And to fight Intel's decision on such technicalities would doubtless require one. So you end up paying $300 US an hour for a part costing maybe $400 total. Costs may vary, but you get the point.

And then, in the United States there are potentially several warranties. There is the manufacturers' express warranty, such as that you quoted above. But there is also something called an implied warranty of merchantibility. That warranty is imposed by federal law (expanded upon in several of the states) on anything a merchant offers for sale. It states, basically, that a merchant has to sell a product that is suitable for the purpose for which it's advertised and sold or the purchase price must be refunded.

In Intel's case, they have a segmented product line: un-overclockable, and unlocked/overclockable for which customers pay premium. So they charge extra for something they say is suitable for a purpose and but then appear to void warranty (which also has a value) if the product is used for that purpose. I don't think that would fly in a court. But I'm not a lawyer either and it would take that same $300 / hour attorney to prove the point and recover cost of a $400 part.

When it comes to either AMD or Intel's CPU's I've not heard any horror stories about warranty denial for overclocking specifically (for AMD denial is due to bent/broken pins). Maybe there are some but the ones I am aware of (with AMD) hardly raise to "horror" level because the person indicated in their claim that they'd overclocked making denial pretty easy. I also think it's fair to say these CPU's are robust enough that problems that pop up when OC'd, overvolted or undervolted go away when the processor is operated in full stock "published spec" settings and that takes away any warranty claim in all cases. But of course, degradation is cumulative and eventually that won't be the case, but most likely only once the processor is out of the warranty period even if well before a typical design life of 20-30 years.

But in the end, I am confident AMD and Intel have thought this "unlocked processor" thing through pretty thoroughly in all aspects: marketing, engineering and legal. They neither want a huge warranty liability hanging over them nor loss of good will with their customers, especially so for Intel who charge a premium for the privilege.

 

[Karadjgne]

It states, basically, that a merchant has to sell a product that is suitable for the purpose for which it's advertised and sold or the purchase price must be refunded.

Exactly. Intel says its suitable for overclocking, and they advertise as such.

Just like a sidewalk is suitable for walking on and has laws stating such. But. If you insist on walking around in shoes with the laces untied, and trip, breaking your arm, the city isn't liable. It would be liable if you tripped on a crack and not your laces.

Intel says its viable to OC. But that doesn't cover abuse, as in excessive OC or stupidity like putting the cpu at 2.4v or starting the pc without benefit of a cpu cooler.

For the most part, it's pretty impossible to tell exactly what causes any particular cpu to fail, the investigation of which would cost Intel more than the price of a replacement cpu, so while the warranty can hold up in court if pushed, Intel is more likely to just eat the price of a replacement instead of losing a customer unless the abuse is obvious.