# Ivy Bridge Temperatures Could Be Linked To TIM Inside Integrated Heatspreader: Report



## btarunr (Apr 25, 2012)

PC enthusiasts with Ivy Bridge engineering samples, and reviewers at large have come to the consensus that Ivy Bridge is a slightly warmer chip than it should be. An investigation by Overclockers.com revealed a possible contributing factor to that. Upon carefully removing the integrated heatspreader (IHS) of an Ivy Bridge Core processor (that nickel-plated copper plate on top of the processor which makes contact with the cooler), the investigator found common thermal paste between the CPU die and the IHS, and along the sides of the die. 

In comparison, Intel used flux-less solder to bind the IHS to the die on previous-generation Sandy Bridge Core processors in the LGA1155 package. Attempting to remove IHS off a chip with flux-less solder won't end well, as it could rip the die off the package. On the other hand, the idea behind use of flux-less solder in CPU packages is to improve heat transfer between the die and the IHS. Using thermal paste to do the job results in slightly inferior heat transfer, but removing IHS is safer. One can be sure that making it safe for IHS removal couldn't have been the issue behind switching back to conventional thermal paste, as everything under the IHS isn't user-serviceable anyway, and off limits for them. Perhaps Intel kept extreme overclockers in mind.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Fourstaff (Apr 25, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Perhaps Intel kept extreme overclockers in mind.



And shafted everyone else? Not a good trade I say :/

Someone change the TIM into a solder and give it a shot?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 25, 2012)

is this a joke? if not wow



Fourstaff said:


> Someone change the TIM into a solder and give it a shot?



forget that what will it do direct cooled


----------



## NC37 (Apr 25, 2012)

I wonder who at Intel thought this was a great idea. I would guess it would cut the costs of production. But by how much? The heat issues have made me reconsider a SB build when I would have been willing to pay more for IB.


----------



## v12dock (Apr 25, 2012)

I am sure Intel engineers tested with and without the TIM


----------



## sneekypeet (Apr 25, 2012)

Awesome so we are back to de-lidding procs. to get the most out of them again. Been a while since this could be done reliably. Wonder what they do like this on extreme cooling.


----------



## erocker (Apr 25, 2012)

I wonder how it performs without the heatspreader on it.


----------



## boogerlad (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm not even mad. This is great Intel! I love delidding my cpus. Now I don't need a torch to do so.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 25, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Perhaps Intel kept extreme overclockers in mind.



As if. 

They did it so cooler manufacturers, their partners, can sell new coolers, designed to deal with this new "heat problem".





You'll see these new coolers in the coming months and at Computex. 

I hope a few notice the die orientation in reference to the PCB, and note how the CPU sits in the socket, and that they align heat-pipe-based coolers in the right direction. 





Pretty sure the extreme guys already know this anyway. Power consumed + CPU temps + pot temps = problems with IHS contact. Why do you think it was tried in the first place?

IF anything, Intel made sure to have a socket clamp design that is easily removed so that extreme guys don't have clearance issues with de-lidded CPUs and the retention mechanism.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 25, 2012)

perhaps intel couldnt apply the initial heat to fit normal Ihs without damageing their new tri gates or the chip on mass, it is a different process.


----------



## douglatins (Apr 25, 2012)

Now i wait for a revision Lol 

"The first answer is correct, but wrong at the same time – power density is greater, but it isn’t what is causing temperatures to be as much as 20 °C higher on Ivy Bridge compared to Sandy Bridge when overclocked."

OMFG WUT????


----------



## qubit (Apr 25, 2012)

This smacks to me of Intel not designing IB with enthusiasts in mind. AnandTech's IB review includes a good explanation of Intel's shift away from targeting big, power-hungry PCs, to small portable computers. With this in mind, it makes sense, most likely because some piece of shit TIM is cheaper to make and less likely to damage the core during manufacture, resulting in trashed product.

Note that the Overclockers article explains that the difference in thermal conductivity between solder and TIM is absolutely huge:

Solder: 80 W/mK
POS TIM: 5 W/mK

Along with the marginal instructions per clock improvement (and almost zero gaming benefit) and now this, I'm glad that I bought my 2700K last November and have no desire to replace it anytime soon. If I were buying a laptop though, getting IB would be a no-brainer.


----------



## _Zod_ (Apr 26, 2012)

These are engineering samples, of course they are using tim. The production runs will be soldered. You have to take reviews of engineering samples with a grain of salt, wait for tests of production models.


----------



## douglatins (Apr 26, 2012)

qubit said:


> This smacks to me of Intel not designing IB with enthusiasts in mind. AnandTech's IB review includes a good explanation of Intel's shift away from targeting big, power-hungry PCs, to small portable computers. With this in mind, it makes sense, most likely because some piece of shit TIM is cheaper to make and less likely to damage the core during manufacture, resulting in trashed product.
> 
> Note that the Overclockers article explains that the difference in thermal conductivity between solder and TIM is absolutely huge:
> 
> ...



Yeah that change is HUGE and really unacceptable. It completely ruins overclocking.

At least maybe the 2700k could be cheaper now.

Annnd i don't think its because they are ES, i could get behind that if there were previous accounts of ES having TIM


----------



## qwerty_lesh (Apr 26, 2012)

_Zod_ said:


> These are engineering samples, of course they are using tim. The production runs will be soldered. You have to take reviews of engineering samples with a grain of salt, wait for tests of production models.



well if what you say is true we'll soon find out when people assuming TIM is used wreck their IVB cpus delidding them. its only a matter of time until we know if the retail ones are tim or solder.

my money is on them all being TIM though.


----------



## qubit (Apr 26, 2012)

douglatins said:


> Yeah that change is HUGE and really unacceptable. *It completely ruins overclocking.*
> 
> At least maybe the 2700k could be cheaper now.
> 
> Annnd i don't think its because they are ES, i could get behind that if there were previous accounts of ES having TIM



Yeah, don't it just? 

Unfortunately, this issue means that the 2700K will stay UP in price, not come down, since savvy enthusiasts will prefer this to IB. I now really don't want to overdrive mine too hard, to ensure that it has a long service life.


----------



## OneCool (Apr 26, 2012)

btarunr said:


> (that steel plate on top of the processor which makes contact with the cooler)



No.Its copper with some kind of powder coat or anodised coating.


If they removed the IHS and assumed this was the reason behind the higher temps why didnt they just put it back in and confirm it?

Anyway i guess it could be because these are ES.


----------



## function69 (Apr 26, 2012)

"Using thermal paste to do the job results in slightly inferior heat transfer" - well that's an understatement!

Also, everybody is talking about waiting for another stepping, but I'm not sure much can be done here, considering the 22nm tri-gate process itself is an inherent obstacle.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2012)

simple fix for users who want to keep the cap on. metal thermal compound or TIMs


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 26, 2012)

this is so easy to fix... pop the lid, and then OC the crap out of it.


----------



## qubit (Apr 26, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> this is so easy to fix... pop the lid, and then OC the crap out of it.



Yes, if you can manage to not physically wreck it one way or another, I'll bet you can. There are reports of these things hitting 6.5-7GHz just as they are, with extreme cooling. These don't have the cold bug, so can you imagine what a naked IB on LN2 could do?! I can't wait to see it and you can bet that famous Chinese overclocker (forget his name) will try this.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 26, 2012)

qubit said:


> Yes, if you can manage to not physically wreck it one way or another, I'll bet you can. There are reports of these things hitting 6.5-7GHz just as they are, with extreme cooling. These don't have the cold bug, so can you imagine what a naked IB on LN2 could do?! I can't wait to see it and you can bet that famous Chinese overclocker (forget his name) will try this.



you cant really wreck it - there are no cache chips or transistors on the top... all you need is a razor to cut away rubber and gently pull off the IHS - i did this on my old e4300.

Didn't help with the OC, but that thing ran like that for 2 years.


----------



## qubit (Apr 26, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> you cant really wreck it - there are no cache chips or transistors on the top... all you need is a razor to cut away rubber and gently pull off the IHS - i did this on my old e4300.
> 
> Didn't help with the OC, but that thing ran like that for 2 years.



But how much cooler did run?


----------



## MeanBruce (Apr 26, 2012)

_Zod_ said:


> These are engineering samples, of course they are using tim. The production runs will be soldered. You have to take reviews of engineering samples with a grain of salt, wait for tests of production models.



Will we see these tests next week as retail samples hit the street? Why do they even review ES samples to publish, fuckin stupid pissing me off.


----------



## douglatins (Apr 26, 2012)

qubit said:


> Yeah, don't it just?
> 
> Unfortunately, this issue means that the 2700K will stay UP in price, not come down, since savvy enthusiasts will prefer this to IB. I now really don't want to overdrive mine too hard, to ensure that it has a long service life.



I don't think we are in such numbers to do that. Most maisntream High end PC owners just buy them prebuilt or don't oc that much


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2012)

douglatins said:


> I don't think we are in such numbers to do that. Most maisntream High end PC owners just buy them prebuilt or don't oc that much



most of them dont even know what overclocking is


----------



## qubit (Apr 26, 2012)

douglatins said:


> I don't think we are in such numbers to do that. Most maisntream High end PC owners just buy them prebuilt or don't oc that much



I think we are, because the only people that buy a K-series CPU are enthusiasts, since they cost more for the same stock performance. If the heat issue with IB is real on production models from 29th April, then you watch the 2700k sell out in no time flat. I said it here first!


----------



## vega22 (Apr 26, 2012)

am i the only 1 thinking this is so they dont blow sb-e out the water and lets them solder ib-e which is the top tier segment?


----------



## Nordic (Apr 26, 2012)

Anyone who wants more information about IHS removal, benefits, and general information like I did. I found this with google. http://www.overclock.net/t/305443/ihs-removals-how-to-do-it-should-i-do-it-and-the-facts


----------



## Steven B (Apr 26, 2012)

i have been saying this for a while now that the contact and efficiency of thermal contact with these CPUs sucks. You can tell if you do Ln2 the hug deltas.


----------



## NHKS (Apr 26, 2012)

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/3rd-gen-core-lga1155-socket-guide.html - thermal guide for 3rd gen cpus

see topic "2 - *Package Mechanical and Storage Specifications*" and the use of TIM as per the image shown in the page

It says..
"The package components shown in Figure 2-1 include the following:
1. Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS)
2. Thermal Interface Material (TIM)
3. Processor core (die)
4. Package substrate
5. Capacitors"

but whats puzzling is .. the doc for 2nd gen cpus (may 2011) virtually no diff
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/2nd-gen-core-lga1155-socket-guide.html


----------



## SonDa5 (Apr 26, 2012)

NHKS said:


> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/3rd-gen-core-lga1155-socket-guide.html - thermal guide for 3rd gen cpus
> 
> see topic "2 - *Package Mechanical and Storage Specifications*" and the use of TIM as per the image shown in the page
> 
> ...





Could be wrong.


----------



## speedpc (Apr 26, 2012)

I wonder if Intel will add the new processors to there 
Performance Tuning Protection Plan ?

http://click.intel.com/tuningplan/


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Apr 26, 2012)

You could take the tops off before with the solder. You just needed to put the proc on your electric stove and get to the right temp. I haven't done it in a very, very long time but I have performed the operation in my overclocking days.


----------



## SonDa5 (Apr 26, 2012)

HighEndToys said:


> You could take the tops off before with the solder. You just needed to put the proc on your electric stove and get to the right temp. I haven't done it in a very, very long time but I have performed the operation in my overclocking days.





Not worth ruining voiding the warranty or possibly destroying it.


Here is what happens when things don't go right.


----------



## Chris_Ramseyer (Apr 26, 2012)

Ouch. You have to use a very thin razor on the gray glue stuff first, then heat the top. When you do it right you just grab the green PCB while it is still on the stove and it lifts right off without any prying or fuss. Obviously you want to put the heat spreader on the stove and not the PCB.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2012)

speedpc said:


> I wonder if Intel will add the new processors to there
> Performance Tuning Protection Plan ?
> 
> http://click.intel.com/tuningplan/


Of course they will. 



qubit said:


> Unfortunately, this issue means that the 2700K will stay UP in price, not come down, since savvy enthusiasts will prefer this to IB. I now really don't want to overdrive mine too hard, to ensure that it has a long service life.


Aside from the fact that overclockers make up hardly ANY percentage of PC users, that would mean the 2700k and the 3770K would be priced the same. That makes no sense from a business/marketing perspective to me.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 26, 2012)

Fourstaff said:


> And shafted everyone else? Not a good trade I say



They didn't really shaft everyone else, the things still overclock pretty damn good, just not as good as expected.

And they pretty much shafted everyone else when they locked overclocking on every processor but the top two.  Defeats the original purpose of overclocking.  What is the point of taking a processor that is already super fast, way faster than anyone needs it to be, and making it faster?  The idea of overclocking was to take a weaker processor and make it fast.


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> *And they pretty much shafted everyone else when they locked overclocking on every processor but the top two.  Defeats the original purpose of overclocking.  What is the point of taking a processor that is already super fast, way faster than anyone needs it to be, and making it faster?  The idea of overclocking was to take a weaker processor and make it fast.*



While I agree that the holy grail of mainstream overclocking is to make the cheap CPU perform like the top one to save some pennies, I disagree that Intel's strategy _totally_ defeats the purpose of overclocking.

One can still take one of those K CPUs and make it work significantly faster. For example, my 2700K has a stock speed of 3.5GHz, but I have overclocked it easily to 5GHz, with no effort at all, just set the multiplier to 50 and reboot. Obviously, to a hardcore overclocker that's really interested in seeing what it can do, would probably get it to 5.5GHz or more at a guess (at the expense, of heat, power and fan noise, obviously). That's a massive step up from the stock speed, so yes it's still worth it.

In my particular case, I'm a very "casual" overclocker, so I backed it off a bit and run it at 4.8GHz, since the Asus mobo monitoring tool warned that the voltage was a bit on the high side.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

qubit said:


> While I agree that the holy grail of mainstream overclocking is to make the cheap CPU perform like the top one to save some pennies, I disagree that Intel's strategy _totally_ defeats the purpose of overclocking.
> 
> One can still take one of those K CPUs and make it work significantly faster. For example, my 2700K has a stock speed of 3.5GHz, but I have overclocked it easily to 5GHz, with no effort at all, just set the multiplier to 50 and reboot. Obviously, to a hardcore overclocker that's really interested in seeing what it can do, would probably get it to 5.5GHz or more at a guess (at the expense, of heat, power and fan noise, obviously). That's a massive step up from the stock speed, so yes it's still worth it.
> 
> In my particular case, I'm a very "casual" overclocker, so I backed it off a bit and run it at 4.8GHz, since the Asus mobo monitoring tool warned that the voltage was a bit on the high side.



Yes, but it defeats the purpose of overclocking because no one really needs anything beyond a 2700K.  A 2700K at 3.5GHz is a beast of a CPU, it will handle everything without a problem.  And the gains of overclocking it to 5.0GHz in real world use are very marginal.  However, you will see far better gains from taking an i3 or Pentium from 3GHz to 5GHz.  And that is what overclocking as for, to get performance gains in real world use, but now on the Intel side it has just turned into a dick wagging competition with people overclocking their processor simply to say that they have done it.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> but now on the Intel side it has just turned into a dick wagging competition with people overclocking their processor simply to say that they have done it.



I agree very much. But...


non-K chips get +4 multi bins, so a little is offered. And yes, Intel "K"illed OC'ing, but that happened nearly 18 months ago. 

So why complain now? It's not gonna change again...this is what we get!



Also, I remember some 10 years ago, when OC was far less popular than it is today, it was explained that OC was a way to get "tomorrow's performance today"(which still applies), not OC the snot outta a poor performer to make it a good performer...that's the cry of a broke man trying to get top-lev el performance for pennies, and that just doesn't fly with businesses that make multiples of millions of dollars.

I mean, really, for most, a PC is still a luxury, nevermind that machines that many of us have. There's literally no need for OC in the market right now. NONE. There's a little left over for the die-hards, but let me tell you...my personal rigs, more often than not, don't get no OC at all...there's just no point.

Reality Check! PC enthusiasts and OC'ers make for less than 10% of the market! Do more than 10% of chips OC? 



Yep, they sure do!


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but it defeats the purpose of overclocking because no one really needs anything beyond a 2700K.  A 2700K at 3.5GHz is a beast of a CPU, it will handle everything without a problem.  And the gains of overclocking it to 5.0GHz in real world use are very marginal.  However, you will see far better gains from taking an i3 or Pentium from 3GHz to 5GHz.  And that is what overclocking as for, to get performance gains in real world use, but now on the Intel side it has just turned into a dick wagging competition with people overclocking their processor simply to say that they have done it.



It's a matter of horses for courses; this answer seriously isn't black and white or write or wrong. I agree that speeding up a weaker, cheaper processor is better, but you will still find people that gain real-world improvements from overclocking these CPUs and it's not all dick wagging. Folding@Home is just one example of where it will make a real, tangible difference. Of course, gaming is another, where you can't have too much horsepower and want to prevent those frame drops at all costs, especially if you're aiming for 120Hz, like I do - high end graphics card required, of course.  I replaced my old E8500 specifically for this reason.


EDIT: Cad, you don't overclock your rigs? What?!  Look, I'm blinking erratically in distress at this news, lol.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

I complain now just like I complained then.  And I thought only the ones with turbo-boost got the 4 extra bins(beyond the turbo-boost bins), or do they all get 4?

And while I agree somewhat with the getting tomorrows performance today, it was still used to see real world performance gains, even the high end processors saw real world performance gains, because hardware was behind software.  That isn't the case today, hardware(especially Intel's) has far outpaced the software.  Whether it was overclocking a high end processor or a low end, it was for a pretty noticeable performance gain.  I still remember overclocking Ahtlon XP 3200+ chips to shave up to half an hour+ of video rendering, now doing the same to an i7 shaves maybe 30 seconds.

And, yes, I completely agree that most people do not overclock.  But I'm just talking about the people that would care that there is TIM under the heatspreader vs solder.  The idea was said to be to help with extreme overclockers while shafting everyone else, which I assumed to mean everyone else that overclocks, not everyone in the world that will use the processor.  Obviously, as you said, this doesn't affect 90% of the people that will end up using these processor.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I complain now just like I complained then.  And I thought only the ones with turbo-boost got the 4 extra bins(beyond the turbo-boost bins), or do they all get 4?
> 
> And while I agree somewhat with the getting tomorrows performance today, it was still used to see real world performance gains, even the high end processors saw real world performance gains, because hardware was behind software.  That isn't the case today, hardware(especially Intel's) has far outpaced the software.  Whether it was overclocking a high end processor or a low end, it was for a pretty noticeable performance gain.  I still remember overclocking Ahtlon XP 3200+ chips to shave up to half an hour+ of video rendering, now doing the same to an i7 shaves maybe 30 seconds.
> 
> And, yes, I completely agree that most people do not overclock.  But I'm just talking about the people that would care that there is TIM under the heatspreader vs solder.  The idea was said to be to help with extreme overclockers while shafting everyone else, which I assumed to mean everyone else that overclocks, not everyone in the world that will use the processor.  Obviously, as you said, this doesn't affect 90% of the people that will end up using these processor.



crap, you might be right about the turbo thing..that slipped my mind.


ANd yeah, it's a slippery slope, right? Your comment about hardware being behind software is quite accurate, to me, and you are also right, that that situation today has greatly changed.

I see no way that this helps extreme guys. ZERO. Because you have to use the heatspreader so that the CPU actually contacts the pins, many will not due to socket plastic height.

I said it before..this was a move to sell new coolers, and that is all. I haven't seen this actually effect extreme clocking..Those guys are doing just fine with paste under the IHS, and this will give reason for people to buy the new chips that will come out about 6 months from now..



qubit said:


> EDIT: Cad, you don't overclock your rigs? What?!  Look, I'm blinking erratically in distress at this news, lol.



I have a 3960X with 3x 6950's and 32 GB of ram that i use to play BF3 pretty much exclusively. Why would i need to OC?  Got guys playing on FX-8150 and much lesser CPUs just fine...heck, i don't even need the third card. Why would i want to increase my power bill?


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I have a 3960X with 3x 6950's that i use to play BF3 pretty much exclusively. Why would i need to OC? Got guys palying on FX-8150 and much lesser CPUs just fine...heck, i don't even need the third card. Why would i want to increase my power bill?



Sure, I'm just messin' with ya and doing a bit of PC enthusiast nerdraging.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 27, 2012)

qubit said:


> Sure, I'm just doing a bit of PC enthusiast nerdraging and messin' with ya.



WEll, it's like newtekie said...software is BEHIND hardware...very few things actually benefit form OC nowadays. I mean ,sure it's fun to see the benchmark scores go up, but I'm getting 120 + FPS already, and my monitor cannot even display that.

The cost of cooling to OC, jsut doesn't jsutify the gains in performance any more. Like sure, there was a time when that was all I'd do..but I was chasing decent performance on a 2560x1600 monitor...today, I have 3 monitors in Eyefinity...and the hardware bugs prevent me from enjoying that...not a lack of performance. It's my monitors loosing picture when i start apps, or exit them, flicker on the side monitors, apps not supporting the resolution...those are the current issues that affect high-end users, not a lack of performance. It's crappy drivers and poorly-designed hardware that needs to be addressed, not overclocking potential!!!.


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> WEll, it's like newtekie said...software is BEHIND hardware...very few things actually benefit form OC nowadays. I mean ,sure it's fun to see the benchmark scores go up, but I'm getting 120 + FPS already, and my monitor cannot even display that.
> 
> The cost of cooling to OC, jsut doesn't jsutify the gains in performance any more. Like sure, there was a time when that was all I'd do..but I was chasing decent performance on a 2560x1600 monitor...today, I have 3 monitors in Eyefinity...and the hardware bugs prevent me from enjoying that...not a lack of performance. It's my monitors loosing picture when i start apps, or exit them, flicker on the side monitors, apps not supporting the resolution...those are the current issues that affect high-end users, not a lack of performance. It's crappy drivers and poorly-designed hardware that needs to be addressed, not overclocking potential!!!.


Well, my answer in post 42 applies here too. I don't see what else I can say.

I'm sorry that Eyefinity is giving you headaches and I hope AMD pull there fingers out and fix it.


----------



## NHKS (Apr 27, 2012)

found this... not sure of the credibility but definitely implies SB is better for OC with air cooling (in case u do OC ur CPU)
also, upto 4.6GHz lower vcore is needed to reach the same freq with IB..






however perf @ same freq seems better with IB


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 27, 2012)

NHKS said:


> found this... not sure of the credibility but definitely implies SB is better for OC with air cooling (in case u do OC ur CPU)
> also, upto 4.6GHz lower vcore is needed to reach the same freq with IB..
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fjBNIQ00Xjc/T5WCylTgXhI/AAAAAAAACNE/BlvX78jYAp4/s1600/ocing.png
> ...



Meh, not every CPU is like what OBR has, and just a few days ago he was proclaiming that all the heat was due to the 3D transitors drawing more current. WTF do you even pay attention to him and his postings? I could grab two CPUs and show the exact opposite.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Apr 27, 2012)

The number of people who wish to overclock really is moot here.

The point is the, if the use of TIM instead of solder is the cause of the heat problems, why did Intel do this?  What did they possibly gain? A half cent on each chip?

Why not use the same tried and true method they always have?

If they manufacture the same way, then it doesn't matter who overclocks and who doesn't.

This is the real point.  Why would they mess with something they didn't need to mess with?


----------



## qubit (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> The number of people who wish to overclock really is moot here.
> 
> The point is the, if the use of TIM instead of solder is the cause of the heat problems, why did Intel do this?  What did they possibly gain? A half cent on each chip?
> 
> ...



Duh yes, exactly. I just want to see reports from regular users like us of their overclocking experiences with retail models. I'm holding out a tiny sliver of hope that production CPUs will use solder. Holding my breath! (slightly)


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> The number of people who wish to overclock really is moot here.
> 
> The point is the, if the use of TIM instead of solder is the cause of the heat problems, why did Intel do this?  What did they possibly gain? A half cent on each chip?
> 
> ...



At this point, I'd say using paste instead of solder saves a little more than half a cent per chip.  The solder requires special equipment, and and is more expensive than paste.

Even if we say the savings is only say 1 cent per processor, Intel has shipped 75 Million+ Sandybridge processors, and likely will ship close to that number if not more Ivy Bridge processors.  So that is a huge savings.  One cent on 75 Million processors is $750,000.  That is a nice chunk off the bottom line for a change that won't affect but maybe 10% of users.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> At this point, I'd say using paste instead of solder saves a little more than half a cent per chip.  The solder requires special equipment, and and is more expensive than paste.
> 
> Even if we say the savings is only say 1 cent per processor, Intel has shipped 75 Million+ Sandybridge processors, and likely will ship close to that number if not more Ivy Bridge processors.  So that is a huge savings.  One cent on 75 Million processors is $750,000.  That is a nice chunk off the bottom line for a change that won't affect but maybe 10% of users.



Uh, 750G is a drop in the bucket to Intel.  If they are causing this much heat to save that amount, then they are just greedy beyond all understanding.

But that is the way of the world today.  Money, money, money.  

Common sense be damned.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Uh, 750G is a drop in the bucket to Intel.  If they are causing this much heat to save that amount, then they are just greedy beyond all understanding.
> 
> But that is the way of the world today.  Money, money, money.
> 
> Common sense be damned.



This much heat?  It is a few degrees C, maybe 10 at most at stock speeds, where most of these will be run.  And the temps aren't anywhere near worrysome.  As the reviewers put it it is "_slightly_ warmer than it should be".  And not all of that comes down to the TIM, the higher thermal density plays a large role as well.


----------



## CaptainFailcon (Apr 27, 2012)

you can always remove the IHS you're self and run it naked  just don't crush the die .....


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Common sense be damned.



I think perhaps the fact that the solder uses relatively rare minerals might play a role in them making this decision, which actually holds a lot more common sense than first meets the eye.


----------



## CaptainFailcon (Apr 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I think perhaps the fact that the solder uses relatively rare minerals might play a role in them making this decision, which actually holds a lot more common sense than first meets the eye.



with all the flooding in east Asia you bet you're biscuits the price of neodymium is still though the roof


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 27, 2012)

CaptainFailcon said:


> you can always remove the IHS you're self and run it naked  just don't crush the die .....



the socket retention mechanism relies on the IHS as a shim to have adequate pressure applied to the chip so that the pins touch properly. Running without the IHS isn't as easy as it sounds.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> This much heat?  It is a few degrees C, maybe 10 at most at stock speeds, where most of these will be run.  And the temps aren't anywhere near worrysome.  As the reviewers put it it is "_slightly_ warmer than it should be".  And not all of that comes down to the TIM, the higher thermal density plays a large role as well.



If "everyone" is saying it is "slightly" warmer, why are we talking about it?

I know what I've read.  We're not talking about stock speeds.


----------



## NHKS (Apr 27, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I think perhaps the fact that the solder uses relatively rare minerals might play a role in them making this decision, which actually holds a lot more common sense than first meets the eye.



probably _indium_ based.. which, as u said is rare

Wiki: "Indium is used as a thermal interface material in the form of pre-shaped foil sheets fitted between the heat-transfer surface of a microprocessor and its heat sink. The application of heat partially melts the foil and allows the indium metal to fill in any microscopic gaps and pits between the two surfaces, removing any insulating air pockets that would otherwise compromise heat transfer efficiency."

Intel Patent(2010)-Methods of fabricating robust integrated heat spreader designs


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> If "everyone" is saying it is "slightly" warmer, why are we talking about it?
> 
> I know what I've read.  We're not talking about stock speeds.



When Intel is making the decision, you better believe it is based on stock speed, regardless of what you are talking about.  Their decisions have to be based on what the large majority of customers will experience, and since 90% of customers will run stock speeds, decisions have to be made based on stock speeds.  What doesn't make sense is throwing away $750,000 just to cater to 10% of your market, and even then of that 10% of the market, maybe 10% will really care enough that the processor runs warmer that they won't buy it.  How many people have you seen say "OMG, they run so much hotter, I'm not buying one!"?


----------



## PopcornMachine (Apr 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> When Intel is making the decision, you better believe it is based on stock speed, regardless of what you are talking about.  Their decisions have to be based on what the large majority of customers will experience, and since 90% of customers will run stock speeds, decisions have to be made based on stock speeds.  What doesn't make sense is throwing away $750,000 just to cater to 10% of your market, and even then of that 10% of the market, maybe 10% will really care enough that the processor runs warmer that they won't buy it.  How many people have you seen say "OMG, they run so much hotter, I'm not buying one!"?



Why do you continue talking about it?  There's no problem.  It's only a few degrees. No one cares about overclockers.

Personally, I am very happy to have my 2500K with proper thermal material in it.  Even if it doesn't matter.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Why do you continue talking about it?  There's no problem.  It's only a few degrees. No one cares about overclockers.
> 
> Personally, I am very happy to have my 2500K with proper thermal material in it.  Even if it doesn't matter.



Because you keep talking about it like it matters, I'm saying it doesn't.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Apr 27, 2012)

I will just have to agree to disagree then.

It does in fact matter.  Don't think people would have started this thread, or written articles about it if it didn't matter to at least a few people.

If it doesn't matter to you, I can live with that.  But I'm not going to agree with you.

For the cost of the salary of a few overpaid executives, they cause what should be an easily overclockable chip to become a very hot chip.

So I don't agree that it makes sense for them to do this.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> For the cost of the salary of a few overpaid executives, they cause what should be an easily overclockable chip to become a very hot chip.
> 
> So I don't agree that it makes sense for them to do this.



And it is still easily overclockable, reaching the same speeds as SandyBridge with significantly less voltage no less.  Yes, it runs hotter, but it also has a higher thermal limit.  And again, this isn't all due to the TIM, the higher thermal density plays a huge part.

So, yes, if it saves them money and it doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of users, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Apr 27, 2012)

Like I said, I can live with you being wrong.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 27, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Like I said, I can live with you being wrong.



Except I'm not.  And to answer your question about why someone made this thread if it doesn't matter, people bitch about stuff that doesn't matter all the time.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 29, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I complain now just like I complained then.  And I thought only the ones with turbo-boost got the 4 extra bins(beyond the turbo-boost bins), or do they all get 4?
> 
> And while I agree somewhat with the getting tomorrows performance today, it was still used to see real world performance gains, even the high end processors saw real world performance gains, because hardware was behind software.  That isn't the case today, hardware(especially Intel's) has far outpaced the software.  Whether it was overclocking a high end processor or a low end, it was for a pretty noticeable performance gain.  I still remember overclocking Ahtlon XP 3200+ chips to shave up to half an hour+ of video rendering, now doing the same to an i7 shaves maybe 30 seconds.
> 
> And, yes, I completely agree that most people do not overclock.  But I'm just talking about the people that would care that there is TIM under the heatspreader vs solder.  The idea was said to be to help with extreme overclockers while shafting everyone else, which I assumed to mean everyone else that overclocks, not everyone in the world that will use the processor.  Obviously, as you said, this doesn't affect 90% of the people that will end up using these processor.


High-end BD encodes benefit greatly from OCing. 

But to be honest, if I'm not encoding, I just run at stock with the rad fans turned down for silence. I only load up my OC profile for heavy encoding anymore. Even my slower IPC 980x is more than enough for most tasks (including gaming @ 1920x1200) for me not to bother.



cadaveca said:


> the socket retention mechanism relies on the IHS as a shim to have adequate pressure applied to the chip so that the pins touch properly. Running without the IHS isn't as easy as it sounds.



You remove the metal socket retention mechanism and use a bolt through kit when you delid. The die sticks up past the actual socket once the bracket is removed.


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 29, 2012)

Wile E said:


> The die sticks up past the actual socket once the bracket is removed.



I hear ya, but the pros tell me otherwise:



			
				shamino said:
			
		

> *temps are not as good with IHS *without exertion of force by ILM on the core *but with good thermal paste and remounted IHS, temps are better *and may bring the CPU to cold bug



I mean, I never say stuff like this unless it's been confirmed by those that know far more than I do!

http://kingpincooling.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1730


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 1, 2012)

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.coolaler.com/&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

Same temps with or without IHS. Paste isn't the issue.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 1, 2012)

Maybe they just use paste to save a buck as the Sandy Bridge is already over kill for 90% of applications today? Why waste the time/cash with solder on making something "cooler" when its already cool enough AND over powered for everything we pretty much throw at it? Sure I can hear them in board meetings now "Listen guys we have to add MILLIONS to our overhead in solder so less then 1% of our market can get a better score in 3DMark."


----------



## phanbuey (May 1, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.coolaler.com/&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8
> 
> Same temps with or without IHS. Paste isn't the issue.



Nice... i could see it.  Could it also be that the thermal sensors are in a different spot relative to the core? Closer to the GPU? etc...

dunno, I just remember having a 92C E4300 that is still alive today in a friends rig... like 5 years later.


----------



## qubit (May 1, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> Nice... i could see it.  Could it also be that the thermal sensors are in a different spot relative to the core? Closer to the GPU? etc...
> 
> *dunno, I just remember having a 92C E4300 that is still alive today in a friends rig... like 5 years later.*



That's one hard bastard.


----------



## xenocide (May 1, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Personally, I am very happy to have my 2500K with proper thermal material in it.  Even if it doesn't matter.



A 2500K at 4.8GHz is roughly equal to a 4.4GHz 3570K in terms of performance, the only trade off is the 2500K uses noticably more power, requires higher Voltage, and runs maybe 5c colder.  This is really a non-issue...


----------



## Wile E (May 3, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I hear ya, but the pros tell me otherwise:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not seeing where it contradicts my statement. Though I don't know what ILM means. If it's like every other Intel I've seen, the pcb sits pretty flush with the socket itself, and the core sits above that. Hence, once you completely remove the metal retaining bracket and base (leaving only the bare socket), and bolt the cooler down, you get direct core contact.


----------



## larsjrg (May 4, 2012)

Warmer? My new i5-3550 runs same temperatures with the intel stock cooler at the 2500K do, about ~62-63C on load at stock clock speeds. I'm a happy buyer with a Ivy Bridge CPU using less power than my previous Athlon II x4, which was about ~48C on load with AMD stock cooler...

So what is all the fuss I read about increased temperatures? I certainly do not see the proof when it comes to my Ivy Bridge compared vs. old reviews on Sandy Bridge. (Different intel stock coolers might contribute a few degrees differences)


----------



## qubit (May 4, 2012)

larsjrg said:


> Warmer? My new i5-3550 runs same temperatures with the intel stock cooler at the 2500K do, about ~62-63C on load at stock clock speeds. I'm a happy buyer with a Ivy Bridge CPU using less power than my previous Athlon II x4, which was about ~48C on load with AMD stock cooler...
> 
> So what is all the fuss I read about increased temperatures? I certainly do not see the proof when it comes to my Ivy Bridge compared vs. old reviews on Sandy Bridge. (Different intel stock coolers might contribute a few degrees differences)



They get hot when overclocked hard - much hotter than Sandy Bridge, that's the problem.

IB seems to be more optimised for power efficiency at stock settings and great IGP performance, rather than being tuned for the enthusiast overclocker. It's not really surprising, when you see that computing is going mobile more and more and us enthusiasts make up a miniscule percentage of Ivy Bridge's buyers. It's a real shame, but that's life.


----------



## larsjrg (May 5, 2012)

qubit said:


> They get hot when overclocked hard - much hotter than Sandy Bridge, that's the problem.
> 
> IB seems to be more optimised for power efficiency at stock settings and great IGP performance, rather than being tuned for the enthusiast overclocker. It's not really surprising, when you see that computing is going mobile more and more and us enthusiasts make up a miniscule percentage of Ivy Bridge's buyers. It's a real shame, but that's life.



Well thanks for that clarification  Even as a non-overclocker, I do read all of these overclocking articles, just to see where the limits are. It is fun but also confusing at times when you just want some details on the stock performance  as nobody seem to care for it really (at least in the reviews).

Anyhow, as you say Ivy Bridge seems to be targeted at a different segment of the market, I'm one of these people. Usually I find them rare in these kind of forums.


----------



## AsRock (May 5, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> At this point, I'd say using paste instead of solder saves a little more than half a cent per chip.  The solder requires special equipment, and and is more expensive than paste.
> 
> Even if we say the savings is only say 1 cent per processor, Intel has shipped 75 Million+ Sandybridge processors, and likely will ship close to that number if not more Ivy Bridge processors.  So that is a huge savings.  One cent on 75 Million processors is $750,000.  That is a nice chunk off the bottom line for a change that won't affect but maybe 10% of users.



Just what i was thinking and even if it was 1/2 cent it's still a load of cash.


----------



## qubit (May 5, 2012)

larsjrg said:


> Well thanks for that clarification  Even as a non-overclocker, I do read all of these overclocking articles, just to see where the limits are. It is fun but also confusing at times when you just want some details on the stock performance  as nobody seem to care for it really (at least in the reviews).
> 
> Anyhow, as you say Ivy Bridge seems to be targeted at a different segment of the market, I'm one of these people. Usually I find them rare in these kind of forums.



Yes, overclocking is a bit of an art, to get the most out of a chip, which makes things challenging at times.

Also, as a non-overclocker you potentially have an advantage: you'd think that the K chips are the same as the non-K chips appart from the locked multiplier, wouldn't you. Incredibly, they're not: Intel actually disable the odd feature here and there in the K chips. For SB, their virtualization technology was more limited. I have no idea why they'd do this, because you need _more_ processing power for a virtual environment, which would justify overclocking.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can explain Intel's logic on this one, as it doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## speedpc (May 6, 2012)

I setup a new IB 3770K for a friend and before doing the water cooling i put on the stock heatsink that came with it, i thought to myself nice little copper center it should do OK. NOPE !!!! everything at stock the idle temps looking at the bios were 50C !! well the first thing i did was clean everything off and put on the good MX-4 that only brought it down to 47C. well i booted into windows for a good old fashion test run. the first and only test was 3DMarks and when it hit the cpu test it shot up to 75C !!!!and still climbing the alarm was going of in the case so i had to shut it down and this was at STOCK !!! Reminds me of the P4 Prescott days  SERIOULY They definetly need alot better stock heatsink/fan with these. IMO. 
Well now He's on water and for a week or so he will run it at:
Intel Core i7-3770K, 4433 MHz (43 x 103) < Using Gigabyte Easy Tune
Field	Value
Sensor Properties	
Sensor Type	ITE IT8728F  (ISA A30h)
GPU Sensor Type	Diode, CHiL CHL8266  (NV-Diode, 46h)
Chassis Intrusion Detected	No

Temperatures  (MUCH BETTER)	
Motherboard	 40 °C (104 °F)
CPU	               9 °C (48 °F)
CPU Package	 29 °C (84 °F)
CPU IA Cores	 29 °C (84 °F)
CPU GT Cores	 25 °C (77 °F)
CPU #1 / Core #1   20 °C (68 °F)
CPU #1 / Core #2   29 °C (84 °F)
CPU #1 / Core #3   22 °C (72 °F)
CPU #1 / Core #4   24 °C (75 °F)
Aux	             40 °C (104°F)
I mentioned this in my thread that i have noticed my friends GPU runs hotter on this gigabyte motherboard and not sure why maybe its just the sensor.
So if you buy a Ivy Bridge PLEASE spend a little extra and get a good heatsink and fan IMO


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2012)

speedpc said:


> I setup a new IB 3770K for a friend and before doing the water cooling i put on the stock heatsink that came with it, i thought to myself nice little copper center it should do OK. NOPE !!!! everything at stock the idle temps looking at the bios were 50C !! well the first thing i did was clean everything off and put on the good MX-4 that only brought it down to 47C. well i booted into windows for a good old fashion test run. the first and only test was 3DMarks and when it hit the cpu test it shot up to 75C !!!!and still climbing the alarm was going of in the case so i had to shut it down and this was at STOCK !!! Reminds me of the P4 Prescott days  SERIOULY They definetly need alot better stock heatsink/fan with these. IMO.



That's just scary. Doesn't sound like IB is all that if it runs so hot at stock with the stock cooler, does it? Perhaps Intel should put a CPU health warning with that stock cooler?


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 6, 2012)

speedpc said:


> I setup a new IB 3770K for a friend and before doing the water cooling i put on the stock heatsink that came with it, i thought to myself nice little copper center it should do OK. NOPE !!!! everything at stock the idle temps looking at the bios were 50C !! well the first thing i did was clean everything off and put on the good MX-4 that only brought it down to 47C. well i booted into windows for a good old fashion test run. the first and only test was 3DMarks and when it hit the cpu test it shot up to 75C !!!!and still climbing the alarm was going of in the case so i had to shut it down and this was at STOCK



I call bs... no reason any "alarms" should be going off at 75C when the TJ Max is 30 degrees beyond that


----------



## speedpc (May 6, 2012)

It's a great cpu if it has the right cooling, and in this case i think Intel KNEW they ran HOT and should have shipped a proper heatsink/fan. I am going to call Intel on monday and see if these temps are normal (even if i had to put the stock heatsink/fan back on and make a video for them lol) I personally think it's way to fn hot with everything at stock. trust me i tried alot of different things to try to cool it down at stock but it stayed hot and under load forget it they shot way up.
I think the fan was at 1750RPM and when i disabled the fan control in the bios i think it only went up to 2170RPM not nuch help


----------



## speedpc (May 6, 2012)

No BS If the CPU Warning Temp is set in the bios at 70C then it will go off. I had it set to 
60C first but even the slight load set that off. need more proof I'll be glad to make a video 




ShiBDiB said:


> I call bs... no reason any "alarms" should be going off at 75C when the TJ Max is 30 degrees beyond that


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 6, 2012)

speedpc said:


> No BS If the CPU Warning Temp is set in the bios at 70C then it will go off. I had it set to
> 60C first but even the slight load set that off. need more proof I'll be glad to make a video



Then that's ur own fault. Theirs nothing unsafe about that temp


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2012)

ShiBDiB said:


> Then that's ur own fault. Theirs nothing unsafe about that temp



You're very negative, aren't you? Sheesh.

It's not "his fault".  Ivy Bridge has been engineered to use significantly less power than Sandy Bridge: it fits into a 77W power envelope instead of 95W. Therefore, it should run cooler at stock not hotter, simple as that.

Having the CPU idle at 50C and then hit 75C+ on running a standard 3D Mark benchmark points to a fault somewhere. Perhaps the mobo is feeding it too much voltage? Could be a lot of things, but the fact remains that the CPU is running too hot and he's correct to flag it.


----------



## speedpc (May 6, 2012)

Yes i was just stateing my experience with the Ivy Bridge at stock with the stock heatsink/fan. I would be interested to hear if others have noticed the same temps on there 3770K at stock.To me I THINK it's to hot. If anybody has any suggetions on a different heatsink/fan I'll be more than happy to try it  I like taking things apart especially when it's not mine lol  



qubit said:


> You're very negative, aren't you? Sheesh.
> 
> It's not "his fault".  Ivy Bridge has been engineered to use significantly less power than Sandy Bridge: it fits into a 77W power envelope instead of 95W. Therefore, it should run cooler at stock not hotter, simple as that.
> 
> Having the CPU idle at 50C and then hit 75C+ on running a standard 3D Mark benchmark points to a fault somewhere. Perhaps the mobo is feeding it too much voltage? Could be a lot of things, but the fact remains that the CPU is running too hot and he's correct to flag it.


----------



## Wile E (May 6, 2012)

qubit said:


> You're very negative, aren't you? Sheesh.
> 
> It's not "his fault".  Ivy Bridge has been engineered to use significantly less power than Sandy Bridge: it fits into a 77W power envelope instead of 95W. Therefore, it should run cooler at stock not hotter, simple as that.
> 
> Having the CPU idle at 50C and then hit 75C+ on running a standard 3D Mark benchmark points to a fault somewhere. Perhaps the mobo is feeding it too much voltage? Could be a lot of things, but the fact remains that the CPU is running too hot and he's correct to flag it.



It's not too hot until it hits 105C. Under that it's just it being too hot for a user's preference.


----------



## speedpc (May 6, 2012)

I agree with you , I was just stateing that with a stock cooler at stock speed you would think it would run cooler. I've never had a cpu go over 60C under load on air. this Ivy is hitting that almost at idle.



Wile E said:


> It's not too hot until it hits 105C. Under that it's just it being too hot for a user's preference.


----------



## xenocide (May 6, 2012)

qubit said:


> It's not "his fault".  Ivy Bridge has been engineered to use significantly less power than Sandy Bridge: it fits into a 77W power envelope instead of 95W. Therefore, it should run cooler at stock not hotter, simple as that.
> 
> Having the CPU idle at 50C and then hit 75C+ on running a standard 3D Mark benchmark points to a fault somewhere. Perhaps the mobo is feeding it too much voltage? Could be a lot of things, but the fact remains that the CPU is running too hot and he's correct to flag it.



IVB was designed to use less power, but it's also on a smaller node, and as someone around here was pointing out for weeks before *any* IVB CPU's launched, it basically meant it would run hotter with the exact same elements as SB.

I am with Shibdib on this one, I call BS.  There's no way it would have hit 75C+ without either a poor\incorrect configuration and\or an incorrectly configured BIOS.  There's also just the off chance he got a bad CPU, it happens often enough.  I just don't find it very likely a freshly installed CPU--even without aftermarket coolers--would hit almost 80c without some kind of problem on the user end.


----------



## qubit (May 6, 2012)

xenocide said:


> IVB was designed to use less power, but it's also on a smaller node, and as someone around here was pointing out for weeks before *any* IVB CPU's launched, it basically meant it would run hotter with the exact same elements as SB.
> 
> I am with Shibdib on this one, I call BS.  *There's no way it would have hit 75C+ without either a poor\incorrect configuration and\or an incorrectly configured BIOS.*  There's also just the off chance he got a bad CPU, it happens often enough.  I just don't find it very likely a freshly installed CPU--even without aftermarket coolers--would hit almost 80c without some kind of problem on the user end.



I don't think you quite read my post properly. I also said that there had to be a fault somewhere and that these temperatures weren't normal. ShiBDiB simply said that there's nothing wrong with those temperatures, which is something else entirely.

Here's the pertinent bit of my post:



qubit said:


> Having the CPU idle at 50C and then hit 75C+ on running a standard 3D Mark benchmark points to a fault somewhere. Perhaps the mobo is feeding it too much voltage? Could be a lot of things, but the fact remains that the CPU is running too hot and he's correct to flag it.


----------



## speedpc (May 9, 2012)

I received a new (different style to) Intel heatsink/fan today and the temps at idle went way down and under load the highest i've seen is 50C. Must have been the fan all along


----------



## EarthDog (May 9, 2012)

qubit said:


> I don't think you quite read my post properly. I also said that there had to be a fault somewhere and that these temperatures weren't normal. ShiBDiB simply said that there's nothing wrong with those temperatures, which is something else entirely.
> 
> Here's the pertinent bit of my post:


Chances are something is wrong............

1. ...with the mount of his cooler.
2. ... its a VERY leaky chip which would make me want it. 



> Therefore, it should run cooler at stock not hotter, simple as that.


Actually... its not. You may not have thought of..........

1. The die is smaller than SB and doesnt have the same amount of space to dissapate the heat.
2. Have you seen die pics as in the guts/litho? Regardless, the iGPU is much larger on IB than SB so smaller die and smaller area to pack the cpu cores in compounds the heat issue.

If you put all that together with basic thermodynamic theory, it should lead you to believe that even though does use ~18W less, its also trying to dissapate heat through a MUCH smaller area therefore making it run hotter.


----------



## cadaveca (May 9, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Have you seen die pics as in the guts/litho? Regardless, the iGPU is much larger on IB than SB so smaller die and smaller area to pack the cpu cores in compounds the heat issue.



Like this? 


IVY:







SB:


----------



## EarthDog (May 9, 2012)

Spot on sir!!! Now slap a 2600k die/litho shot for comparison.

Looks like the iGPU here is 33% of the die, vs the 2600k which looks to be 25% of the die.


----------



## cadaveca (May 9, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Spot on sir!!! Now slap a 2600k die/litho shot for comparison.
> 
> Looks like the iGPU here is 33% of the die, vs the 2600k which looks to be 25% of the die.



Personally, i think the temps sensors are FUBARRED..intentionally. Either way, it's not very important, iMHO, it is what it is, and there's no way to change it without voiding warranty. IF you find it an issue, IMHO, buy the Intel OC warranty for $30, clock the crap out of it, and rest easy.


----------



## EarthDog (May 9, 2012)

I dont have a clue. Speculation everywhere and nothing to prove anything. I dont care either way if my CPU is running at 85C if it can handle it (which both IB and SB of course can) or 65C. its going to crunch the same 5 years from now either way. 

Sad that I have IB and its in my review/benching rig and not using it elsewhere.


----------

