Arctic's Liquid Freezer III coolers could void your CPU warranty — require a custom contact frame for Intel chips

Arctic Liquid Freezer III
(Image credit: Arctic)

Arctic, which makes some of the Best AIOs, just launched the Liquid Freezer III series sporting an improved cooler design over its highly acclaimed Liquid Freezer II series. Arctic's new AIOs, are the first coolers on the market to ship with a dedicated contact frame for Intel Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, and Raptor Lake Refresh CPUs, that replace the built-in independent loading mechanism (ILM) to improve cold plate contact with the IHS boosting thermal efficiency and performance.

Arctic is also supplying the Liquid Freezer III series with offset brackets specifically for AMD's AM4 and AM5 platforms. The bracket offsets the cold plate towards the CCDs mounted near the bottom of most Ryzen CPUs to improve contact around that area of the chip boosting cooling performance.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • hotaru251
    The biggest problem is in regard to the custom contact frame Arctic is providing for Intel LGA1700 users. Intel itself has already warned users that tampering with its ILM in any way could void the warranty of the CPU.
    ...just don't admit you did. problem solved.
    There is no way for them to tell so long as you'd replace it should you ever need to return it.
    Reply
  • LabRat 891
    hotaru251 said:
    ...just don't admit you did. problem solved.
    There is no way for them to tell so long as you'd replace it should you ever need to return it.

    In the US, we used to have law that prevented a manufacturer from voiding a warranty due to user modifications (if those modifications could not be proven to have caused the failure, within warranty)

    However, the last few years have confirmed to me, Magnusson Moss is de facto gone.

    (IMO) Consequently, the consumer <-> producer relationship has become extremely adversarial...
    Reply
  • Papusan
    hotaru251 said:
    ...just don't admit you did. problem solved.
    There is no way for them to tell so long as you'd replace it should you ever need to return it.
    And what if you didn't put the correct torque (or close to) for the screws when you mount back the ILM? MB partners usually follow Intel's specs and guidelines from a to b. Not sure if this specs is even posted on the internet. Should be easily see if it's tampered with the ILM if they really want screw you.
    Reply
  • peachpuff
    Papusan said:
    And what if you didn't put the correct torque (or close to) for the screws when you mount back the ILM? MB partners usually follow Intel's specs and guidelines from a to b. Not sure if this specs is even posted on the internet. Should be easily see if it's tampered with the ILM if they really want screw you.
    It came like that 🤷🏼‍♂️
    This is intel cpu warranty anyway not mobo warranty.
    Reply
  • LabRat 891
    peachpuff said:
    It came like that 🤷🏼‍♂️
    This is intel cpu warranty anyway not mobo warranty.
    At least up to the LGA 1151 generation, the marring on the IHS from the factory ILM is NOTICEABLE.

    Ironically,
    the easiest way 'tell' if a non-Spec ILM has been used (since day 1) is the LACK of (cosmetic) damage to the IHS.

    I guess... Install your CPU once w/ the stock ILM to get it good and scratched up, THEN install the new ILM. Might even want to mount the stock cooler too, to get that nice BEND in the CPU that Intel clearly specifies :ROFLMAO:
    Reply
  • NinoPino
    LabRat 891 said:
    I guess... Install your CPU once w/ the stock ILM to get it good and scratched up, THEN install the new ILM. Might even want to mount the stock cooler too, to get that nice BEND in the CPU that Intel clearly specifies :ROFLMAO:
    ROFL
    Reply
  • javiindo
    So it's void or it not void your warranty? I expect a little bit more from a tech site.
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    LabRat 891 said:
    In the US, we used to have law that prevented a manufacturer from voiding a warranty due to user modifications (if those modifications could not be proven to have caused the failure, within warranty)

    However, the last few years have confirmed to me, Magnusson Moss is de facto gone.

    (IMO) Consequently, the consumer <-> producer relationship has become extremely adversarial...

    We still do have those laws. companies just broadly violate them, and it's a coinflip if a judge will allow it or not.
    Reply