NW 1.60A Buyers BEWARE, Batch# on box and chip do not match!!!

[f13dfx]

I have recently come accross this, and a dealer actually confirmed that he had experienced the same thing.

I recently purchased a NW 1.60A which had an FPO Batch # of Hxxxxxx. Now, normally I do not match this with whatever is on the actual die of the chip. But, low and behold, when I did bring it home, it had a different batch # on the die, it was L146xxxx. I took it back to my dealer and asked him to check. He just happened to have 3 of them kicking around, which were to be put into a corporate pc order. Each one he checked had the exact same sequences as mine! He will be phoning Intel to report this, this should be interesting!

Now, here is where I need some advice. Is this fraud? I would think it is, and how would I ever get any 3-year warranty, not that I would want to.

Have any of you experienced this while FPO Batch # hunting for your specific NW 1.X CPU?

TIA

 

[Aragorn992]

I got the same thing:

Box: L207139W
Chip: L14xxxxxx

Seems a bit strange.

 

[Flatbroke]

Sounds like to me. We should bump this. Change title to include Batch# on box and chip do not match.
Are you saying 3 chips with identical markings or just sequential but different?

 

[Uclagamer_99]

hmm that's interesting...bump for you guys

on a side not i picked up a 1.8A today and it just happened to be from costa rica...i remember someone posting that no one with a 1.8a had a chip marked costa rica...mine is rather new...1/29/02 pack date

 

[f13dfx]

Flatbroke:

3 different chip FPO batches, all different inside!

 

[Flatbroke]

Are these really the 512k L2 cache 1.6A chip inside or 1.6 256K chips put into Northwood boxes? Sounds like a "re-pack" to me.

 

[f13dfx]

Flatbroke:

All 512K Cache bro!

 

[jiffylube1024]

<< Are these really the 512k L2 cache 1.6A chip inside or 1.6 256K chips put into Northwood boxes? Sounds like a "re-pack" to me. >>



It would be downright scandalous (not to mention extremely easy to detect) for Intel to repack 1.6Ghz 256k P4's as 1.6A 512k Northies! This post merely replies to batch#, not an Intel conspiracy to unscrupulously sell old technology!

 

[exp]

Yeah, there is no way these are repackaged 256K versions. So it is definitely weird but I don't see what Intel would have to gain from mixing Northwood batch numbers.

 

[WarCon]

My question is does anyone have one that matches? Maybe one batch code is for packaging and the other one is the core itself. And only Intel would be able to verify that one went with the other.

Just an idea............

BTW mine don't match either.

 

[f13dfx]

The FPO Batch #s match on thhe 2nd NW 1.6A 512K Cache I bought, both on the Box and on the Die of the CPU.

 

[Flatbroke]

It would be downright scandalous (not to mention extremely easy to detect) for Intel to repack 1.6Ghz 256k P4's as 1.6A 512k Northies! This post merely replies to batch#, not an Intel conspiracy to unscrupulously sell old technology!

I am thinking of something downstream from Intel.

 

[Poof]

My question is does anyone have one that matches?

I bought my combo from MWave and after having watched this thread for a bit, I just checked it (haven't put the system together yet). They match. (whew!!)

I wonder if the "non-matches" are coming out of a certain vendor?? I know alot of folks have purchased from Newegg or Googlegear... and not to suggest anything since I just got 2 huge boxes of stuff from Newegg myself, maybe we need to add vendor to the report-outs.

It could be that what you guys have was from a large lot of known "mis-packs" (but still very much functional) and units from the lot were sold to vendors "as is" at a discount that could be passed onto the consumer?

 

[WarCon]

I should email Intel and let them know my situation, but honestly I wouldn't return it now anyway. I have violated their use agreement by overclocking and maybe I am a little goody two shoes about this, but if it was my business I sure would frown on products being RMA'ed to me that I knew the consumer most likely abused. Yeah, I know Intel is big enough that it probably doesn't really hurt them, but its still wrong.

 

[EdipisReks]

how would intel know that you overclocked it, and why would they suspect you for anything? the cpu's don't have magical ink that appears saying "warning, overclocked chip" when they are run over spec.

--jacob

 

[jiffylube1024]

<<

I should email Intel and let them know my situation, but honestly I wouldn't return it now anyway. I have violated their use agreement by overclocking and maybe I am a little goody two shoes about this, but if it was my business I sure would frown on products being RMA'ed to me that I knew the consumer most likely abused. Yeah, I know Intel is big enough that it probably doesn't really hurt them, but its still wrong.
>>



Dude, honestly give me a break! Intel knows full well these chips are good overclockers and makes it so! By making the chips such great overclockers, they are making a powerful move to regain the hardcore/power user market share again, who would not be interested in these chips otherwise (notice the big shift over to AMD the last couple of years). Intel has locked their multipliers for some time now (there needs to be some benefit to buying a more expensive chip, after all), but aside from that some CPU's they release are still great at going above stock speed. This whole mentality that "overclocking is wrong, overclocking is unethical" sickens and confuses me. I mean, why do they think motherboard manufacturers put FSB control in 1 MHz incriments! They know some of the CPU's will be pushed over stock speed, but even a .2 volt increase isn't that bad for the chip (with adequate cooling). I mean, Intel themselves will have to up the voltage on the Northwoods sooner or later (when they are selling 3 GHz northies, 1.55-1.7 Voltage will be a must).

 

[jiffylube1024]

Oh yeah and a chip running like 20% overclocked is not as 'abused' as one running something like SETI@HOME 24/7. That's CPU punnishment (although if you want to do that, go right ahead! It's for a good cause after all!).

 

[WarCon]

Honestly, I don't except to ever need to RMA it. But I still probably wouldn't send it back even if it did. Just my way..........

 

[SFang]

Warning, you better register your CPU with Intel fast, just in case another pal got a CPU with the same BATCH#, and make you lost three-year warranty from Intel.