Intel refuted the claim.
Intel refuted the claim.
Um loja no Brasil rejeitou a devolução por causa do relógio de memória. O vídeo está em português, mas o resumo é: o RMA para o i3 8100 foi negado porque a memória usava 2666 MHz e o RMA só considera os dados da Intel ARK.
Overclocking isn't covered by warranty unless you purchase the performance tuning protection plan. Recently I've been hearing mixed things about this. People should take a moment to understand the details and consider buying the protection plan. Otherwise, overclocking usually cancels any warranty benefits and can complicate the return process.
The request was quickly rejected without sending the product for review. They only asked for a copy of the bill and insisted the invoice had been used. In Brazil, you can only locate machines with 2666MHz RAM, and when purchasing modules separately, you’re limited to that frequency because it’s more affordable than 2400. Even if you try to use the memory without enabling XMP, keeping the CPU and RAM speeds unchanged, Intel still requires the invoice and blocks the RMA due to the clock information on the bill.
You don't have to stress too much about the old 40-inch model. The boards run at 2133mhz. Unless the Jedec profile is set to the lowest, the board won’t exceed 2133. Intel would only need proof of purchase for the CPU. If bought, the tuning protection plan wouldn’t cause any problems with an RMA.
it wasn't emphasized, I mistakenly adjusted the font size, right? this happened. intel's RMA in Brazil asks for the invoice, and it usually mentions the memory purchased. they used that data to block the RMA without checking which memory was installed. In other countries where memory details appear on the invoice, you'll be automatically denied. = D
The invoice in Brazil is managed digitally by the government, making it impossible to alter details without facing issues with tax officials.
I don't remember memory being listed on an invoice, but since I usually purchase components separately, I won't face this problem again.
We understand. Regardless of how often it's shared, it remains irrelevant.