Slashdot Mirror
AMD: No Grease For You!
bahamat writes "In a surprising turn of events, this article over at Xtreme Tek explains that the official stance from AMD is that you will void your warranty if you use any thermal grease or if you're not using the heatsink provided with your CPU. Sucks to be you if you buy a defective AMD CPU and put a Zalman on it for the first boot." AMD, the article says, doesn't want you to use anything "other than Shin Estu G 749."
So what does that say? Either too many people are either applying the grease too thickly, or people are using heatsinks and OCin' their processors too much.
Basicly what it sounds like is, people are cooking their CPU's from either/or...and AMD is tired of floating the loss because of idiots.
Om, nomnomnom...
Actually, they could very easily know. All they have to do is put some kind of alcohol-soluble, UV ink mark on the chip. It doesn't even have to be visible in UV... that's just if they want to be sneaky about it.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
uh, because with their thermal crap and the defauult fan, my proc ran over 130F. With artic silver and an aeroflow fan from vantec, my proc runs at 105F (115F under heavy load). Seems to me they are just trying to save a few bucks, afterall, the german economy has taken a hit lately. That is the problem here
YOU SUCK BALLS!
I don't see a problem with this. AMD will only guarantee its equipment with parts they provide. Use your own parts, and you're responsible for damage. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
I've installed my last three heatsinks, including my current Zalman CNPS6000AlCu, with pink TIM wax pads. TIM pads are cheap, neat, and don't require you to get crap all over your hands during application. I'll never go back to the goop game.
Since it doesn't make a difference what the hell you use to stick your heatsink onto your CPU--hell, toothpaste works just as well as AS-3--I'll stick with the easy stuff.
I have two AMD Athlon MP 2000+'s in on a Tyan Tiger MPX motherboard, and a gig of ram, in a full-tower case with four intake fans -- one on the bottom front, one on the side middle over the cards, and two in the middle back under the power supply. The exhaust fan is the PS, of course.
When running Windows 2000 on this machine, the operating temp as reported by the BIOS runs between 50c and 60c.
When I run Gentoo Linux, set up from a stage1 install and compiled specifically for the Athlon MP, the machine crashes as the temperature rises to 75c.
I'm using the retail processors that came with the fan. It's plain that they're installed correctly, but the thermal pad on the bottom (even with the adhesive backing removed properly) isn't capable of dissapating the heat.
Does this mean I'm prohibited by warranty terms from running optimized code? AMD really needs to answer this question. If they want to they could easily come up with a recommended list of approved grease, or contract with someone to sell "official grease" for situations like mine.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
1) using grease means you are DIY with 3rd party stuff, which means it's easier for you (or the 3rd party suff you have) to screw up and
2) using grease *improves* thermal contact, making it easier to overclock, which of course voids your warranty anyway.
Now compare the XP's "no grease" tag like to this from the AMD Athlon(TM) 64 Processor Thermal Design Guide (from page 22, secion 2.6.6):
For those that don't know, the gum-paste stuff that comes on all XP heatsinks is "phase-change material." Seems the 64 is the *exact* opposite of the XP.
Do they support Palladum and other restrict-what-I-can-do-to-my-PC technologies?
Zodiac Survey
This is a very inexpensive, easy to implement overclocking deterrent.
/., I can understand why they'd do this. There's no way for them to tell if you weren't using a HSF on their approved list.
Think about it. If it's a poor heat sink and fan that AMD requires you to use, then overclocking is out of the question because there's no way the HSF could regulate the temperature.
See, overclocking voids the warantee, but there's no way for AMD to tell if you were overclocking. This way they do know (or it's easier for them to tell) - assuming you used a different HSF while overclocking. I wonder what they'll do when hot cpus start failing in poorly ventilated cases, or in hot climates.
Personally I don't like it, because a crappy HSF... just sucks. I don't overclock, but I still want a half decent HSF. You could probably get away with using a different fan though. Watch, soon you'll see "heat sink extensions" that you lock on to AMD's required sink, and it extends the surface area of that heatsink.
Though given some of the crazy cooling solutions that have been posted on
-kidlinux.
Why exactly would I be voiding my warrenty by switching to something better?
" Actually, they could very easily know. All they have to do is put some kind of alcohol-soluble, UV ink mark on the chip. It doesn't even have to be visible in UV... that's just if they want to be sneaky about it."
And when they say you cleaned off your artic silver you tell them you used the alcohol to clean of the approved grease so the chip was nice and clean for them.
What you want to do is go to a law library and look up Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. 61 Cal.2d 256 (1963).
Vandermark bought a new Ford in Los Angeles. Six weeks later, with 1500 miles on the odometer, the brakes failed, causing the car to wreck, seriously injuring the driver and passenger.
The Ford Dealership acknowledged that the crash was caused by defective brakes, but pointed to the warranty that read, "Dealer's obligation under this warranty is limited to replacement ... of such parts ... acknowledged by Dealer to be defective." In other words, neither the dealer nor Ford would assume responsibility for the damage to the car or the injuries to its occupants caused by the defective brakes.
One could argue that if Vandermark wanted a car with a warranty that would cover defective manufacture more comprehensibvely, he should have bought a car from a dealer that offered a better warranty, but no dealers offered warranties with significantly greater coverage. In 1964, the court ruled that the Ford dealership was strictly liable for product defects irrespective of what the warranty might say because
. This followed the train of thought set in motion by Benjamin Cardozo, who wrote in 1916 in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 138 NYS 224 (1912):You may argue that it is a long way from automobiles whose manufacturing defects put consumers and bystanders in danger of life and limb to a defective cooling fan on a CPU, and you would be right. But if you complain in general that the state has no business interfering with product warranties, a century of case law disagrees with you.
In closing, I will point to one of the most egregious cases in this regard. In 1937, the Massengill Company put on the market an antibiotic elixer for children composed of the drug sulfanilamide dissolved in diethylene glycol and flavoured with raspberry extract. Massengill never tested the product for safety. Diethylene glycol being a very nasty poison, 107, mostly children, died shortly thereafter from liver failure caused by this medicine. Massengill could not be sued under the laws at the time because, as the President of the company said,
The nation's response to this was to pass the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which established the FDA and granted it sweeping powers to regulate the market to ensure that all food, drugs, and cosmetics were safe. Many conservative jurists, such as Richard Posner (one of Ronald Reagan's first appointments to the federal bench) promoted this expansion of tort law, noting that there is an imperfect market for information and that when information asymmetries are present, a free market does not optimally allocate resources (this observation won a Nobel prize in economics for Ackerlof, Stiglitz, and Spence). The thinking of the economics-and-law crowd was that expansion of strict liability would produce a corrective force for disclosure of information that would enhance the efficiency of markets.If the ACME supercharger at a minimum meets the same engineering specs as the TRD approved unit. Then Toyota may very well be legally obliged to honour their warranty regardless of their written warranty limitation.
Consumer protection laws allow the stipulation of specifications, not brands, models or arbitary approval processes.
As always it depends on your local laws. The manufacturer must put up, or leave.