Faulty PC but they are asking me to...

krtrent

Hi there,


I brought a PC about 6 months ago. It has never been stable so I finally got in touch with them and now we are currently in the middle of sorting the problems out with me fixing and testing what they can't do remotely.


We have found out that its the Overclock they did to it in the factory that is the problem. I paid for that overclock as it was closer to the spec I wanted.


The next step will be to turn the overclock down so its more stable but that's not what I paid for and it is not the spec I wanted.


To be fair, we haven't done that yet so I can't say for certain what results we will get.


If we can't get close to the spec I chose and paid for, am I within my rights to send it back to them? I'm not necessarily after a refund. What I'd like is for them to replace the appropriate parts.


Thanks
Ben

Spank

The trouble with overclocking is that some chips will go to a higher MHz than others & still be stable.


They should of stress tested the machine for 24 hours before sending it to you, I'd query that.


Did they guarantee the max speed you'd get?

joeyboy

As said above, every chip has a slightly different potential. I'd probably say that if they have to downclock it then maybe try asking for the difference back (cost of the OC).

Hintza

Bought a Ford and now try to tune it to Ferrari performance, would it not have been easier to a buy a Ferrari in the first instance?

cardinalbiggles

Hintza wrote: »

Bought a Ford and now try to tune it to Ferrari performance, would it not have been easier to a buy a Ferrari in the first instance?

That's not how it works. Some of the lower speed chips are actually the fastest ones that are unstable so clocked down. Some of the lower speed chips are easily clocked to much higher speeds without problems.

bod1467

krtrent wrote: »

I brought a PC about 6 months ago.

About less, or about more? (Than 6 months. This may be critical).

WHEN did you first inform them of the issue?

PS - the overclock formed part of the contract therefore if it is not stable with this overclock then they could be in breach of contract. (Unless they had a disclaimer that overclocks are not guaranteed, as that disclaimer would ALSO form part of the contract).

Jakg

krtrent wrote: »

To be fair, we haven't done that yet so I can't say for certain what results we will get.

It's probably best trying this first.

Generally pre-overclocked bundles are very very tame in terms of overclock (i.e. 10% or similar) such that they can guarantee that every chip will do it rather than having to individually overclock & test each chip independently.

Cycrow

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

That's not how it works. Some of the lower speed chips are actually the fastest ones that are unstable so clocked down. Some of the lower speed chips are easily clocked to much higher speeds without problems.

Thats not exactly how it works.
All the CPU's from a specific range are all the same and made the same way.

They are tested for stability then have thier speed set accordingly.

They arn't made with specific speeds in mind

So the fastest ones are the same as the slower ones, but were just more stable.

As the process improves, more and more of them will hit the faster speeds, when this happens, some are downclocked to fill the demand for the lower speed chips

unholyangel

Cycrow wrote: »

Thats not exactly how it works.
All the CPU's from a specific range are all the same and made the same way.

They are tested for stability then have thier speed set accordingly.

They arn't made with specific speeds in mind

So the fastest ones are the same as the slower ones, but were just more stable.

As the process improves, more and more of them will hit the faster speeds, when this happens, some are downclocked to fill the demand for the lower speed chips

I think what cardinal meant (may be wrong) is that in the old days, you used to be able to look at CPU's and know which was best going by speed.

However nowadays, processors with a slower speed can actually "rank" higher than one with a faster speed (although I think from memory, this is usually when a different "chipset" has been used).

So an i7 @ 3.2ghz ranks above an i5 @ 3.5ghz (for example).

If I've used the wrong terminology don't hold it against me, I used to know all this stuff but have ignored it for years.....meaning i had to try and relearn it all when purchasing a new computer last month.

Jakg

Cycrow wrote: »

Thats not exactly how it works.
All the CPU's from a specific range are all the same and made the same way.

They are tested for stability then have thier speed set accordingly.

They arn't made with specific speeds in mind

So the fastest ones are the same as the slower ones, but were just more stable.

As the process improves, more and more of them will hit the faster speeds, when this happens, some are downclocked to fill the demand for the lower speed chips

To expand on this - a bunch of CPU's will all start with the same number of cores, core technology, cache and speed - i.e. the fast ones. These may retail for £600.

In reality, the CPU manufacturer doesn't want thousands of the £600 chips that make up a tiny fraction of their business. They may want 40% to be the lower clocked model with half the cache, 40% to be the upper model with a faster clock and the same cache and then just 20% as the £600 chips.

They'll grade each chip, and the top 20% will be sold as the £600 one (assuming they all pass QA - and that fail get pushed down a level). The next 40% will then be the lower model (again assuming they all pass QA) and then finally whatevers left will have half the cache disabled, QA'd and then sold as the enty level model.

In reality - theres no reason why any of those chips couldn't of been the £600. A few may not of made the grade - but most would. It's only market forces that have made them be tiered into different levels.

Shaolin_Monkey

Out of interest, if it was unstable from day one, why has it taken so long to raise it with them? I'm not doubting anything, just wondering why you would not go back after it became clear there were problems.