MSI's CPU Guard 1151 will protect your CPU from bending

WYP

News Guru
MSI has designed their CPU Guard 1151 to protect your Intel Skylake CPU from bending and to make using Delided CPUs much easier.

04063725905l.jpg


Read more on MSI's CPU Die Guard.
 
lmao I've seen people picking peanuts out of poo to try and save money but that comparison shot is just wrong.

Why would you make a PCB so damn thin?
 
As far as I have seen Scythe coolers seem to be the only ones affected by this as they have some coolers with mounting pressure that is too high. Intel did release recommended cooler specs and that included mounting pressure. I believe that most new coolers are following these guidelines.
 
In all honesty this is a solution to a newb problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, if your over tightening the cooler then the problem lies with you it's not Intel's fault (IBKAC) and tbf you'd notice the backplate bend or worse case the motherboard
 
I remember putting a thermalright XP-120 (that used hooks) on an old socket 478 board. Now that was fun...
 
In all honesty this is a solution to a newb problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, if your over tightening the cooler then the problem lies with you it's not Intel's fault (IBKAC) and tbf you'd notice the backplate bend or worse case the motherboard

On my Noctua NH12-CP the manual tells you this.



Note, tighten the screws until they stop. At which point you are balancing an absolutely enormous slab of aluminium and whatever else on a tiny little CPU. However, it was obviously designed this way to exert the exact amount of pressure to not only hold it in place but to keep everything from wobbling or moving.

If Intel all of a sudden change the rules on how thick their CPUs are you can't possibly blame the user nor call them a 'noob' (god I effing hate that word..) for doing what the manufacturer tells them to do?

This is Intel's fault. For years and years their CPUs were a certain thickness and now they decide to cheap out and make the product differently and no doubt cheaper.

Why is it that no matter how many mistakes Intel make (Hasfail, pretty much everything since Sandy being a flop and hardly any better than before) every one seems to stick behind them? It's almost sickening.
 
Why is it that no matter how many mistakes Intel make (Hasfail, pretty much everything since Sandy being a flop and hardly any better than before) every one seems to stick behind them? It's almost sickening.

Because lets face it Sandy was good enough for everyone, so by extension so are the new generations, they always get a controlled amount better in performance terms. They have created an excellent cycle of motherboard releases (necessary or not) people are far more likely to buy new things and their is a huge range of chips and boards to suit everyone. It's easy to see why people stick buy them, AMD cannot offer an alternative in terms of a complete package.

Bringing Noctua into the argument is ridiculous, they said their coolers were skylake compatible and even sent out mounting hardware for their earlier coolers. I'm sure they have tested it extensively before making that statement, if you can't believe Noctua then don't believe anything else in writing in the history of the world. If you look at the difference in thickness it's absolutely minuscule. Plus if it's thinner the springs will be applying less pressure to the socket once the screws are bottomed out. :eek:

JR
 
Because lets face it Sandy was good enough for everyone, so by extension so are the new generations, they always get a controlled amount better in performance terms. They have created an excellent cycle of motherboard releases (necessary or not) people are far more likely to buy new things and their is a huge range of chips and boards to suit everyone. It's easy to see why people stick buy them, AMD cannot offer an alternative in terms of a complete package.

Or you could look at it logically and realistically. Intel have now released four generations of CPU since Sandybridge. Ivybridge, Haswell, Devil's Canyon and Skylake. Each one apart from Haswell-DC and Sandy-Ivy meant that you needed a new motherboard for 5% performance increases. So now we have Skylake, which requires not only a new board but new ram too.

If you skip all of the things in the middle then it's almost worth upgrading to Skylake from Sandy, but certainly not in any games because the Sandy still performs perfectly well.

Don't blame it on AMD. If Intel want to compete with themselves then that's not AMD's fault.

Skylake CPUs are notably thinner than Haswell and DC. Why? has Intel done that for any other reason than to save money? There are now issues with certain coolers that were designed to be sat on a thicker CPU and thus the instructions may actually just push people into destroying their CPUs. Tell me, who changed the rules? Intel, or the people designing the coolers?

When a CPU cooler is designed and tested I have no doubt that the tightness of said cooler would be tested and designed around the CPU it sits on, no?

So now, due to Intel cutting down on costs and making thinner CPUs all of a sudden those coolers could damage the CPU and that's their fault how? How could you possibly even entertain the thought that it would be anyone's fault than Intel?

And no, bringing Noctua into it is not ridiculous. If you were still using a Noctua cooler with instructions that were designed for thicker CPUs and mounted it on Skyake (thus ruining it) it would not be the fault of the user.

Tell me, where in any reviews did any of the reviewers state that you may not be able to use your old cooler? where did Intel point out that they had made Skylake CPUs thinner than anything before and thus you may need a new cooler?

I'll tell you - they didn't. They waited until some one bent their CPU and then all of a sudden this information comes out. The only excuse Intel would even possibly have is that they did not know these CPUs were thinner. But of course they did, they made them.

And BTW I wasn't saying for sure that the Noctua NH12-CP could damage Skylake. All I was doing was demonstrating that older coolers with older documentation that were designed to be X tight on older CPUs could well damage Skylake if you read the older instructions and mounted it.

Also, notable of mention. When I saw people asking if their old coolers would fit Skylake they were all told yes, they will. It wasn't until people actually tried it that they found out the CPU was thinner and certain coolers would damage it.

And that again is down to Intel. Then again, how many of these manufacturers would bring back all of their sold stock, replace the manual and then repackage and resell them?

It's Intel's job to make sure that their CPUs meet the spec of their previous CPUs IMO.
 
Don't blame it on AMD. If Intel want to compete with themselves then that's not AMD's fault.

So you don't want me to blame AMD for having practically no ITX or mATX motherboards, or recent ATX boards for that matter. But you'd like to blame Intel for making their new CPU's with a slightly thinner substrate, something that will make no difference when installed correctly with a properly constructed cooler mounting. However it's slightly more susceptible to damage when tightened excessively. I've installed a few already and they are fine.

Motherboard PCB's can vary in thickness, i'm sure the socket can too and any decent cooler will be designed in such a way that it can overcome slight tolerance issues.

And no, bringing Noctua into it is not ridiculous. If you were still using a Noctua cooler with instructions that were designed for thicker CPUs and mounted it on Skyake (thus ruining it) it would not be the fault of the user.

I've not seen any CPU installation guide that says relentlessly tighten this screw until something bends or snaps. The Noctua system makes it impossible to overtighten (whether it be a few fractions of a mm thinner or not) and if you follow the instructions and tighten it down until the screw stops, impossible to under-tighten.

This really is a tiny non-issue which as always review/news sites jumped all over to get some nice click-bait esque views and MSI jumped on to bag a few sales. None of them incidentally reported any issues with their review samples at all, neither has anyone on the forums.

JR
 
Sigh.

Sorry dude, no matter how hard you try you're not going to stop me seeing it for how it is. Just because you have an affiliation with "The industry" and thus would defend it until the last beat of your heart there are plenty of people who do not have to watch what they say in fear of reprisal.

Intel absolutely and utterly suck for doing this, that's how I see it. Take a CPU design, work out a way to make it cheaper to make (yet uber expensive to buy) and then go ahead and do it without any concern for the user.
 
Okay, this is way worse then nvidia's 970 4gb issue and yet hardly anyone is screaming as loud as they where back then, i find that kind of weird to be honest.

Here we have cpu that can break because of cooler mounting pressure, im sorry but intel what the hell have you been drinking to allow this to go on the market in the first place? did you not test various coolers to check if a thinner cpu would have any effect regarding cooler mounting pressure or did you just go, meh it'll be fine?

This is just absurd, cpu's can break now whilst carrying your rig to a lan, moving house, you name it and it is unacceptable.
 
TBH no one is forcing anyone to upgrade in the first place..

Also your PC could always break from moving it, especially with that larger and heavier coolers.

We don't know the actual reason as to why Intel decided to alter them in the first place. So its a tad early to sharpen the pitch forks. Though I know where my bets are.
 
Back
Top