# My 4770k delid video (IHS removal)



## boulard83 (Jun 30, 2013)

Video @ http://infodupat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=488

@ 4.4ghz 1.3vcore
Load temp with Small FFT was 85+°c
Now i get ~75°c ( with NH1 paste )

** Waiting som liquid pro and ultra TIM for better results  **

There is the base line for my futur TIM testing and a possible lapping if the IHS is not 100% flat.


----------



## Conti027 (Jun 30, 2013)

I thought these were soldered...
and yours just had TIM


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 30, 2013)

intel is too cheap to spend money on good TIM or Soldering it seems. or they are doing it on purpose so that people void their warranty and intel doesnt have to offer replacements, for CPUs for which they are sure wont last 3years ??


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 30, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> intel is too cheap to spend money on good TIM or Soldering it seems. or they are doing it on purpose so that people void their warranty and intel doesnt have to offer replacements, for CPUs for which they are sure wont last 3years ??



Intel's mainstream platform was likely too good for most people compared to LGA 2011 back in the 2xxx days, so they nerfed it. Ivy Bridge HEDT will be soldered, so there isn't any reason why they couldn't do so with the mainstream 3xxx/4xxx socket 115x chips. Temps aren't bad at 4.2GHz but once you have to add lots of voltage, it's game over.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

Its a dirty rotten trick being used by more and more manufacturers, it is entirely possible to "design" something to fail after a certain time period. The practice is absolutely outrageous and something needs to be done to stop it.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> Its a dirty rotten trick being used by more and more manufacturers, it is entirely possible to "design" something to fail after a certain time period. The practice is absolutely outrageous and something needs to be done to stop it.



^ THIS!
they know their CPUs are gonna fail in 5years, so they dont risk it failing in 3 years and use TIM so that people delidd and void their warranties.
intel is all about making money now.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> Its a dirty rotten trick being used by more and more manufacturers, it is entirely possible to "design" something to fail after a certain time period. The practice is absolutely outrageous and something needs to be done to stop it.



I'm not as convinced about that as you are.  For many items I would rather them be less expensive even if it causes them to fail sooner.  The pace of technology in increasing, so you no longer need to design items to last a long time because the product will be obsolete long before its failure.  In these cases the extra materials spent to enhance the product's durability were wasted.



de.das.dude said:


> ^ THIS!
> they know their CPUs are gonna fail in 5years, so they dont risk it failing in 3 years and use TIM so that people delidd and void their warranties.
> intel is all about making money now.



Do you seriously think that the hundreds of people who might delid their processors would affect a warranty program covering millions of products?  The more reasonable explanation is that TIM is cheaper than solder and for the vast majority of consumers TIM vs solder makes no difference at all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> ^ THIS!
> they know their CPUs are gonna fail in 5years, so they dont risk it failing in 3 years and use TIM so that people delidd and void their warranties.
> intel is all about making money now.



For 99% of the users the difference will not kill the processor any faster, that is why they went with the cheaper TIM method instead of solder.  The decision has nothing to do with shortening the products life.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> For 99% of the users the difference will not kill the processor any faster, that is why they went with the cheaper TIM method instead of solder.  The decision has nothing to do with shortening the products life.



BS. The "K" series of CPUs was introduced by intel *FOR enthusiasts*, meaning the use of TIM instead of solder is inexcusable. Joe average isn't going to buy a i5 or i7 K series CPU, hes happy with whatever i3 came in his pre-built £400 or less PC / laptop.



The Von Matrices said:


> I'm not as convinced about that as you are.  For many items I would rather them be less expensive even if it causes them to fail sooner.  The pace of technology in increasing, so you no longer need to design items to last a long time because the product will be obsolete long before its failure.  In these cases the extra materials spent to enhance the product's durability were wasted.



Completely nonsensical response for a multitude of reasons. 

1. The difference between using TIM and solder is pennies, as *enthusiasts* we are happy to pay a few extra pence and not need to worry about delidding in order to get the very best temps.

2. Shoddy manufacturing means components in addition to generating more heat will end up using more engergy - thus costing you _more_ money.

3. Regardless of how fast technology moves its no excuse for releasing a poorly designed product, you wouldn't buy a sandwich with no filling would you and just chalk it up to "oh well I'm going to be eating another sandwich tomorrow". Everybody likes (and should expect) anything they buy to be functioning at its optimal level.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> BS. The "K" series of CPUs was introduced by intel *FOR enthusiasts*, meaning the use of TIM instead of solder is inexcusable. Joe average isn't going to buy a i5 or i7 K series CPU, hes happy with whatever i3 came in his pre-built £400 or less PC / laptop.



Doesn't matter, the K series is manufactured on the same assembly line as the non-k series and the K series only sells to ~1% of the market, so it makes no sense for them to re-tool for 1% of their customers.



Ketxxx said:


> Completely nonsensical response for a multitude of reasons.
> 
> 1. The difference between using TIM and solder is pennies, as *enthusiasts* we are happy to pay a few extra pence and not need to worry about delidding in order to get the very best temps.
> 
> ...



1. It is pennies per processor, but when you have to shut down an entire assembly line to re-tool to run 1% of your production the cost becomes astronomical.

2. The component doesn't generation any more heat, just because it gets hotter doesn't mean it is generating more heat.  The processor consumes the same amount of power and generates the same amount of heat at 70°C as it does at 80°C.  This concept has been discussed over and over again here, just go find one of the threads where someone thinks switching to water cooling will make their room cooler.  Furthermore, enthusiasts don't care about power consumption.

3. The processors will run for decades with TIM.  Even if you overclock the living shit out of them to the point that they are overheating, the safeguards will kick in and make sure the processors will never actually get to the point of premature death or likely even real damage.  When the processors used solder, people used to de-lid the things by heating them up way beyond 100°C with blowtorches, or running them without any heatsinks, and those processor are still running today.  Don't try to push this bullshit that the TIM is shortening the lifespan of the processor, because it just isn't true, at least not shortening to the point that the processor won't be obsolete long before it dies.


----------



## Nordic (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> BS. The "K" series of CPUs was introduced by intel *FOR enthusiasts*, meaning the use of TIM instead of solder is inexcusable. Joe average isn't going to buy a i5 or i7 K series CPU, hes happy with whatever i3 came in his pre-built £400 or less PC / laptop.



I thought k was for mainstream hobbyist overclocking while lga2011, like lga1366, was for the real enthusiasts.


----------



## radrok (Jun 30, 2013)

james888 said:


> I thought k was for mainstream hobbyist overclocking while lga2011, like lga1366, was for the real enthusiasts.



While I do agree there is an inherent problem with LGA2011.

It's bloody outdated compared to Haswell 

If they really want to push their X line they should just ditch IVY-E and release Haswell-E already.

That's not going to happen cause the so called E platform is just bits and pieces scattered from what remains of their Xeons after production.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Doesn't matter, the K series is manufactured on the same assembly line as the non-k series and the K series only sells to ~1% of the market, so it makes no sense for them to re-tool for 1% of their customers.



Yes it does matter. As a enthusiast you pay a premium price (which the K series is) in order to get the best. If intel doesn't want to re-tool for the K series they shouldn't charge a premium for it. To illustrate that premium, a K series 3570 CPU is £214, a regular 3570 CPU is £170, for *£44* difference for essentially the same CPU just without the multiplier lock the enthusiast expects more for that premium as the K series can actually be rolled out faster and technically cheaper as it skips a step in the manufacturing process.

Its astonishing that anybody, nevermind somebody like yourself who is supposed to be knowledgeable, would fail to see the points I'm raising. Perhaps you simply just don't care you pay more and get less (technically) with the K series I don't know, but either way intentionally giving something poor thermal characteristics is criminal. In a time when components are getting smaller, running on less voltage and supposed to run cooler as a result yet you aren't seeing component temperatures go down its time to start questioning.


----------



## radrok (Jun 30, 2013)

I'm pretty sure they use what's good enough for allowing the CPU to work into reasonable conditions.

I've also read somewhere that the application of solder/tim to the IHS is directly dependant to the TDP of the chip.

Like the 2600K was 95W and it was soldered.

3770K is 77W and 4770K is 84W and they both get crappy paste.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Doesn't matter, the K series is manufactured on the same assembly line as the non-k series and the K series only sells to ~1% of the market, so it makes no sense for them to re-tool for 1% of their customers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of this is answered in my other post really but;

1. As I said, if intel is going to charge a £44 premium for a K CPU they better damn well give you something for it (a CPU that simply skips the laser cutting step far and away doesn't equate to a £44 premium).

2. If a component gets hotter, it ends up generating more heat. You saying it doesn't generate more heat is like me saying when VRMs come under load they aren't going to heat up and cause ambient temps to rise, which in turn will cause the VRMs to get hotter - it just isn't true. 

3. CPUs in times gone by could indeed run for decades on TIM, today however that is not true at all. To date I have had to delid a Phenom 2 CPU after 1 year due to the TIM breaking down and causing the CPU to overheat in about 30 seconds of the system simply being on, I've had a 2500k die due to what I suspect to be a poorly soldered IHS, and more recently I saw a 18c drop in load temps by delidding a 3570k. Such thermal problems don't arise with a soldered IHS, unless of course you get a CPU like my old 2500k in that case it was entirely my fault for not returning it but I just couldn't be bothered.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> Yes it does matter. As a enthusiast you pay a premium price (which the K series is) in order to get the best.



Hardly, if they wanted the best they'd be buying a 2011 system.



Ketxxx said:


> If intel doesn't want to re-tool for the K series they shouldn't charge a premium for it. To illustrate that premium, a K series 3570 CPU is £214, a regular 3570 CPU is £170, for *£44* difference for essentially the same CPU just without the multiplier lock the enthusiast expects more for that premium as the K series can actually be rolled out faster and technically cheaper as it skips a step in the manufacturing process.
> 
> Its astonishing that anybody, nevermind somebody like yourself who is supposed to be knowledgeable, would fail to see the points I'm raising. Perhaps you simply just don't care you pay more and get less (technically) with the K series I don't know, but either way intentionally giving something poor thermal characteristics is criminal. In a time when components are getting smaller, running on less voltage and supposed to run cooler as a result yet you aren't seeing component temperatures go down its time to start questioning.



That premium buys you an unlocked multiplier.  Do you remember how much that used to cost?  It was a hell of a lot more than $45.  Since I am a knowledgeable person, I recognize that.  And _real_ know the price premium and unlocked multiplier used to cost, and they are very happy that it now only costs $45.

What is this step you say they are skipping in the manufacturing process compared to the standard versions?

And And how are you getting less with the K series exactly?


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Hardly, if they wanted the best they'd be buying a 2011 system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. lol? You think skt 2011 is the best? Have you even looked at how old the technology of 2011 is? Aside from extra cores and triple channel memory 2011 does not technologically offer anything superior. Having the latest means having a system that incorporates as many of the latest technologies as possible - thats Z77 and Z87, not skt 2011.

2. £44 is not $45 to start with, you are getting less with a K series CPU as at least the regular CPUs go through that extra step of being laser cut (thats why I say _technically_ you are getting less with a K series) and finally I don't recall any time aside from in more recent years where such a premium for a unlocked CPU has been charged and I'm thinking way back to Athlon XP days, back then the difference between locked and unlocked was only like £20.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> All of this is answered in my other post really but;
> 
> 1. As I said, if intel is going to charge a £44 premium for a K CPU they better damn well give you something for it (a CPU that simply skips the laser cutting step far and away doesn't equate to a £44 premium).
> 
> ...



1. If you were really knowledgeable you'd be damn happy that an unlocked multiplier is only costing you $45.

2. That isn't even close to how things work, temperature does not equate to power usage or heat produced.  When you change out from the stock heatsink to a better aftermarket heatsink does power consumption go down? No.  The same is true with the TIM vs. Solder.  Just because the processor is running cooler doesn't mean it is producing less heat or consuming less power.

3. No, today it is still completely true.  The rare cases where the processor dies early are not any more common with TIM than they are with solder, you're living proof of that.  And the safeguards in place today to prevent damage from overheating are way better than what we had 10 years ago.



Ketxxx said:


> 1. lol? You think skt 2011 is the best? Have you even looked at how old the technology of 2011 is? Aside from extra cores and triple channel memory 2011 does not technologically offer anything superior. Having the latest means having a system that incorporates as many of the latest technologies as possible - thats Z77 and Z87, not skt 2011.
> 
> 2. £44 is not $45 to start with, you are getting less with a K series CPU as at least the regular CPUs go through that extra step of being laser cut (thats why I say _technically_ you are getting less with a K series) and finally I don't recall any time aside from in more recent years where such a premium for a unlocked CPU has been charged and I'm thinking way back to Athlon XP days, back then the difference between locked and unlocked was only like £20.



1. Well it is offiically the enthusiast platform.  Socket 115X is the mainstream platform.  And yes, performance wise 2011 still is the best.

2. Of course £44 isn't $45 but it is close enough, its 4AM here and I'm too lazy to do the conversion or type the alt code.  And technically, the laser cutting would remove part of the silicon, so technically what I'm actually receiving in terms of physical product would be less with a non-K product...if you really want to be technical.  However, the process of locking/unlocking the processor that Intel does isn't simply laser locking.  After the CPU is binned, the information detailing clock speed, locked or unlocked status, cache availability, HT function, and model number are all laser hardcoded into the CPU.  All the processors go through this step, it isn't skipped on unlocked processor because at the very least their clock speeds and model information still need to be set.  And going way back to the Athlon XP days, Intel's unlocked processors were all extreme edition processors, and the price premium was usually $700-800 because they usually cost $1000 or more.  And there were no official unlocked Athlon XPs, to get an Athlon XP with an unlocked multiplier you had to do a physical mod to the processor.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 30, 2013)

I don't think the price matters, most enthusiasts don't keep the processor for more than 2 years probs anyway.


----------



## radrok (Jun 30, 2013)

^^^ 

Agreed.

Also the so called "enthusiasts" were and supposedly still are those that didn't care about delidding soldered CPUs and probably wouldn't want to be spoon-fed by Intel.

Delidding is a challenge and if you complain about it you are just an average overclocker, not an enthusiast, atleast in my book.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 30, 2013)

Your using liquid pro between the core and IHS, right? That stuff turns solid and can possibly damage the die is you ever try to remove it.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> ^ THIS!
> they know their CPUs are gonna fail in 5years, so they dont risk it failing in 3 years and use TIM so that people delidd and void their warranties.



Love this Anti-Intel bullsh!t. Just remember where the x86 architecture came from in the beginning, and who was cloning chips for the first 16 years...



de.das.dude said:


> intel is all about making money now.



Isn't that the basis of all enterprise?


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> 1. If you were really knowledgeable you'd be damn happy that an unlocked multiplier is only costing you $45.
> 
> 2. That isn't even close to how things work, temperature does not equate to power usage or heat produced.  When you change out from the stock heatsink to a better aftermarket heatsink does power consumption go down? No.  The same is true with the TIM vs. Solder.  Just because the processor is running cooler doesn't mean it is producing less heat or consuming less power.
> 
> 3. No, today it is still completely true.  The rare cases where the processor dies early are not any more common with TIM than they are with solder, you're living proof of that.  And the safeguards in place today to prevent damage from overheating are way better than what we had 10 years ago.



1. See my other post, I say right there even way back in the Athlon XP days the difference between unlocked and locked was only about £20.

2. I'm not talking about power consumption directly (though if I recall due to the flow of electrons a small but noticeable increase in power can be measured between a component that runs cooler then that same component under the same conditions running hotter. As can power consumption vary depending on leakage of a component.) What I am directly talking about is how for very little extra current modern components with nothing more than a properly designed cooling solution can run much cooler which is just good all round. For example; On my 7950 I dropped VRM temps from a horrific 95c+ (stock) under full load down to a max of 78c (with OC) by doing nothing more than designing and fitting a proper VRM heatsink instead of just a small slab of metal across the VRMs.

3. To date I've had 3 CPUs with TIM under the IHS cause me problems (twice that amount if I count friends CPUs I've had to delid due to TIM breaking down and causing problems), and 1 CPU thats had a soldered IHS cause me issue, so yes, your quite right I'm living proof - of the fact that CPUs with TIM under their IHS are quite a bit more likely to cause problems.



tigger said:


> I don't think the price matters, most enthusiasts don't keep the processor for more than 2 years probs anyway.



I had my 2500k for 3 years  Probably would still use it now if it wasn't half dead theres not exactly much performance difference between a SB, IB, or Haswell chip.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> 1. As I said, if intel is going to charge a £44 premium for a K CPU they better damn well give you something for it (a CPU that simply skips the laser cutting step far and away doesn't equate to a £44 premium).



I honestly suggest that you stop buying K series processors then.  Apparently you thought the additional cost was warranted since you have testified to owning at least two of them.  If you don't like the price or features then the best way to protest is to simply not buy the product.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> 3. To date I've had 3 CPUs with TIM under the IHS cause me problems (twice that amount if I count friends CPUs I've had to delid due to TIM breaking down and causing problems), and 1 CPU thats had a soldered IHS cause me issue, so yes, your quite right I'm living proof - of the fact that CPUs with TIM under their IHS are quite a bit more likely to cause problems.



You seem to have a relatively high failure rate of CPUs; what the hell are you doing with them?  I haven't had a CPU die since my old Cyrix, and I have overclocked pretty much all my processors.


Rest assured that ALL modern electronics from these companies would have to pass intensive and extensive QA tests.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> 1. Well it is offiically the enthusiast platform.  Socket 115X is the mainstream platform.  And yes, performance wise 2011 still is the best.
> 
> 2. Of course £44 isn't $45 but it is close enough, its 4AM here and I'm too lazy to do the conversion or type the alt code.  And technically, the laser cutting would remove part of the silicon, so technically what I'm actually receiving in terms of physical product would be less with a non-K product...if you really want to be technical.  However, the process of locking/unlocking the processor that Intel does isn't simply laser locking.  After the CPU is binned, the information detailing clock speed, locked or unlocked status, cache availability, HT function, and model number are all laser hardcoded into the CPU.  All the processors go through this step, it isn't skipped on unlocked processor because at the very least their clock speeds and model information still need to be set.  And going way back to the Athlon XP days, Intel's unlocked processors were all extreme edition processors, and the price premium was usually $700-800 because they usually cost $1000 or more.  And there were no official unlocked Athlon XPs, to get an Athlon XP with an unlocked multiplier you had to do a physical mod to the processor.



1. Just because something carries the word "official" it doesn't make it true. I wasn't (and still aren't) talking about which platform gives you the most performance, I covered that. I am talking about which platforms is the most technologically advanced, again thats Z77 and Z87, not skt 2011.

2. Intel still sell EE CPUs with a massive 600-1000 premium so your point there is moot. The K series just allowed intel to bat the ball closer to what AMD do, but my point here, and always has been (probably my fault for not clarifying better I get wrapped up in details too much for my own good sometimes) that the K series at a £44 premium is still too much when intel don't even offer a enthusiast friendly warranty with the K series CPUs, by which I mean your warranty isn't void if you OC a K series CPU. Last I read even with K CPUs if you OC them intel say your warranty is void.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> 1. See my other post, I say right there even way back in the Athlon XP days the difference between unlocked and locked was only about £20.
> 
> 2. I'm not talking about power consumption directly (though if I recall due to the flow of electrons a small but noticeable increase in power can be measured between a component that runs cooler then that same component under the same conditions running hotter. As can power consumption vary depending on leakage of a component.) What I am directly talking about is how for very little extra current modern components with nothing more than a properly designed cooling solution can run much cooler which is just good all round. For example; On my 7950 I dropped VRM temps from a horrific 95c+ (stock) under full load down to a max of 78c (with OC) by doing nothing more than designing and fitting a proper VRM heatsink instead of just a small slab of metal across the VRMs.
> 
> 3. To date I've had 3 CPUs with TIM under the IHS cause me problems (twice that amount if I count friends CPUs I've had to delid due to TIM breaking down and causing problems), and 1 CPU thats had a soldered IHS cause me issue, so yes, your quite right I'm living proof - of the fact that CPUs with TIM under their IHS are quite a bit more likely to cause problems.



1. See my post, you're wrong.

2. Sure, for a small cost it could run cooler, a small cost across millions of products that adds  up to a huge cost, that has no affect on the life or intended function of the product.

3. And yet I haven't had a single processor with TIM cause me problems, and neither have millions of other people.  Odd...



Ketxxx said:


> 1. Just because something carries the word "official" it doesn't make it true. I wasn't (and still aren't) talking about which platform gives you the most performance, I covered that. I am talking about which platforms is the most technologically advanced, again thats Z77 and Z87, not skt 2011.
> 
> 2. Intel still sell EE CPUs with a massive 600-1000 premium so your point there is moot. The K series just allowed intel to bat the ball closer to what AMD do, but my point here, and always has been (probably my fault for not clarifying better I get wrapped up in details too much for my own good sometimes) that the K series at a £44 premium is still too much when intel don't even offer a enthusiast friendly warranty with the K series CPUs, by which I mean your warranty isn't void if you OC a K series CPU. Last I read even with K CPUs if you OC them intel say your warranty is void.



1. Just because it is more technologically advanced does mean it provides the best performance.  Enthusiasts are after performance, overclockers are after performance, Socket 2011 is for enthusiasts socket 115X is for mainstream users.

2. I don't see how the fact that Intel still selling extreme edition processor make the point that an unlocked multiplier very recently carried a $7-800 price premium moot.  And the warranty doesn't matter, again an real enthusiast knows that.  We didn't have warranties for overclocking back then, even with the $1000 unlocked Extreme processors.  No enthusiast would be bitching about a warranty... "OMG, the warranty should cover overclocking!" - Said no enthusiast ever.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

Naito said:


> You seem to have a relatively high failure rate of CPUs; what the hell are you doing with them?  I haven't had a CPU die since my old Cyrix, and I have overclocked pretty much all my processors.
> 
> 
> Rest assured that ALL modern electronics from these companies would have to pass intensive and extensive QA tests.





newtekie1 said:


> And yet I haven't had a single processor with TIM cause me problems, and neither have millions of other people.  Odd...



I really don't think this is a manufacturing a defect; this seems to be user error.  The chances of having the same person with multiple failures (with proper usage) is extremely slim or otherwise there would be many more posts of this topic.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 30, 2013)

I would never de-lid a cpu I couldn't afford to replace, I guess that is the difference twixt a enthusiast and a user. The enthusiast will do it knowing they will just buy another one if they break it, were as a normal bod wouldn't dream of it.

Believe me If I was loaded I would just buy 2 cpu's and feck about with the first one, knowing full well if I bust it, I can just pop the other one in.

Does anyone know how many cpu's them ln2 nutters break attempting their records?

Lets face it, a cpu used under normal running guidelines/usage will probably last for years, we all have a 5/10yr old cpu lying around that still works fine.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

tigger said:


> Does anyone know how many cpu's them ln2 nutters break attempting their records?



You make a good point.  He didn't ever define his overclocks that killed the CPUs.  Maybe he's running them at >1.5V.  That would definitely cause quick failures.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

The Von Matrices said:


> I really don't think this is a manufacturing a defect; this seems to be user error.  The chances of having the same person with multiple failures (with proper usage) is extremely slim or otherwise there would be many more posts of this topic.



I have run all of my CPUs in a well ventilated NZXT Apollo using either a Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus or a CoolIT ECO unit. Cooling has not been the issue here at all - purely related to the TIM used under the IHS. As for my friends, they don't even OC just buy decent grade gear and I've still had to end up popping the IHS on their CPUs at a period of anywhere between 1 - 3 years. Thats not coincidence.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

The Von Matrices said:


> You make a good point.  He didn't ever define his overclocks that killed the CPUs.  Maybe he's running them at >1.5V.  That would definitely cause quick failures.



If by "he" you mean me, my personal (and only actual death of a CPU) was my 2500k. The voltages run through that were never extreme, about 1.38v for 4.5GHz. Its all good speculating, but you could of just asked


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 30, 2013)

I've run a e6300 at 1.57v on air and it survived to tell the tale.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> I have run all of my CPUs in a well ventilated NZXT Apollo using either a Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus or a CoolIT ECO unit. Cooling has not been the issue here at all - purely related to the TIM used under the IHS. As for my friends, they don't even OC just buy decent grade gear and I've still had to end up popping the IHS on their CPUs at a period of anywhere between 1 - 3 years. Thats not coincidence.



Are you sure that you didn't just need to replace the TIM between the processor and the heatsink?  That would reduce temperatures and cheap thermal paste has been known to dry out.  Thermal paste under the IHS on the other hand... I've never heard of anyone needing to replace it before your posts.  And the Phenom II you delidded - I thought that all Phenom II's were soldered.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

tigger said:


> I've run a e6300 at 1.57v on air and it survived to tell the tale.



That's a 65nm processor though; the 32nm/22nm processors have been known to have durability problems running 24/7 at 1.4V at higher temperatures.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 30, 2013)

The Von Matrices said:


> Are you sure that you didn't just need to replace the TIM between the processor and the heatsink?  That would reduce temperatures and cheap thermal paste has been known to dry out.  Thermal paste under the IHS on the other hand... I've never heard of anyone needing to replace it before your posts.  And the Phenom II you delidded - I thought that all Phenom II's were soldered.



That 2500k had AS Ceramique sitting between it and the cooler, so yes, it was good TIM. I dunno, I pop IHS' for fun, serve as technician and direct line to Asrock if anyone gets issues with their asrock mainboard, make custom VRM heatsinks and a multitude of other things and you thought I wouldn't use / know good TIMs from bad? I'll let you off as I haven't been around here until recently for some years  As for the Phenom, I dunno if they were supposed to be soldered or not but mine wasn't I didn't even bother checking I saw the symptoms and instantly knew it must be TIM between the core and IHS, unsurprisingly it was. Sad truth is intel / AMD don't even use good TIM, if they did temps would be quite a bit better thats why so many people record such huge temp drops when popping IHS'. 10c or more temp drop doesn't happen just because of a 0.006mm gap made by the IHS sealant.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 30, 2013)

Ketxxx said:


> That 2500k had AS Ceramique sitting between it and the cooler, so yes, it was good TIM. I dunno, I pop IHS' for fun, serve as technician and direct line to Asrock if anyone gets issues with their asrock mainboard, make custom VRM heatsinks and a multitude of other things and you thought I wouldn't use / know good TIMs from bad? I'll let you off as I haven't been around here until recently for some years  As for the Phenom, I dunno if they were supposed to be soldered or not but mine wasn't I didn't even bother checking I saw the symptoms and instantly knew it must be TIM between the core and IHS, unsurprisingly it was. Sad truth is intel / AMD don't even use good TIM, if they did temps would be quite a bit better thats why so many people record such huge temp drops when popping IHS'. 10c or more temp drop doesn't happen just because of a 0.006mm gap made by the IHS sealant.



Please do not read my posts as if I am insulting you.  I am solely curious as to why you are having bad experiences with multiple processors while there are no other cases on these forums attributing processor failure to the presence of paste versus solder between the CPU and IHS.

From a scientific point of view I would like to know your failure rate - how many processors do you test that versus the number of failures.  Also, I am curious about other confounding variables.  For example, if you maintained at least one other common component in the system (presumably the power supply) then that could be causing all the failures.  Or maybe the failures even can come down to static electricity if you live in an especially dry place.

I'm also there are no comparison of the same die soldered versus using TIM paste having different failure rates.  Maybe this failure rate is due to the design of the core rather than the TIM.  I don't doubt that solder is better for reliability than TIM paste, but I do doubt that the difference is statistically significant.

Also, the reduction in TIM thickness by removing the sealant during delidding is much greater than the 0.006mm you stated.  It's more like 0.09mm, which is significant.  See http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34053183&postcount=570.

Edit: Also see http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34059601&postcount=579 showing that the IHS itself doesn't provide a large thermal barrier; the thickness of the TIM is the largest variable in processor temperature.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2013)

tigger said:


> Lets face it, a cpu used under normal running guidelines/usage will probably last for years, we all have a 5/10yr old cpu lying around that still works fine.



Try older  I booted up my 1988 Amstrad PC1640 HD 20, yesterday. Still works fine!  Ah! Seeing that GEM GUI brought back memories. My very first PC.


----------



## boulard83 (Jun 30, 2013)

Well my thread have gone to another place ! I like it  

I also think that K series proc should be soldered ... They are sold as "overclocking" porcessor after all !


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2013)

boulard83 said:


> Well my thread have gone to another place ! I like it
> 
> I also think that K series proc should be soldered ... They are sold as "overclocking" porcessor after all !



And they overclock just fine, not great, but good enough.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jun 30, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> ^ THIS!
> they know their CPUs are gonna fail in 5years, so they dont risk it failing in 3 years and use TIM so that people delidd and void their warranties.
> intel is all about making money now.



Isn't this a little extreme? I still have an original Pentium 166MHz OC'd to 200MHz that's running in my father's office, that little fella has been running for a little over 15 years without a hitch.

In all my years building PCs I've never seen a single CPU fail (and I began over 20 years ago), and I started OCing my procs since that Pentium I referred to above.

Now, I'm not arguing that Intel is being cheap here by using bad TIM for their latest procs, cause any enthusiast can see that, however, saying that they purposely design their procs to fail in an X amount of time, forcing ppl to break their warranties by de-liding their processors is bordering on paranoia.

Just think about that statement for a moment, out of millions and millions of processors Intel sells a year, how many do you think will get to be OC'd to over 5GHz? 10%? 1%? I bet you it's not even close to 0.0001%

Now you're saying that all those millions of processors are going to fail in 5 years, give or take?  If that were the case, Intel would be facing a lawsuit of biblical proportions down the road, on a global scale, mind you.

Do you honestly think Intel caters to us enthusiasts? Think again, that is obviously not the case. Are they being greedy by saving a few cents in TIM? You bet they are, but they are not stupid either... unfortunately that's how capitalism works, and all corporations are out  to make a profit, and if Intel can save $0.03 on every chip sold, and alienate a few enthusiasts by doing so, of course the choice is obvious.

Truth is enthusiasts, in Intel's eyes are a dying breed, and Broadwell may not even be sold as a stand alone processor anymore, and unless AMD don't step up to the plate, our days are counted indeed


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 30, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> intel is too cheap to spend money on good TIM or Soldering it seems. or they are doing it on purpose so that people void their warranty and intel doesnt have to offer replacements, for CPUs for which they are sure wont last 3years ??





Jstn7477 said:


> Intel's mainstream platform was likely too good for most people compared to LGA 2011 back in the 2xxx days, so they nerfed it. Ivy Bridge HEDT will be soldered, so there isn't any reason why they couldn't do so with the mainstream 3xxx/4xxx socket 115x chips. Temps aren't bad at 4.2GHz but once you have to add lots of voltage, it's game over.



Sounds like neither of you guys truly know why they used TIM on Ivy and Haswell.


----------



## radrok (Jun 30, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Sounds like neither of you guys truly know why they used TIM on Ivy and Haswell.



Well its not like there are many reasonable explanations.

Either they use solder or TIM based on the chip's TDP or Ivy and Haswell die is too small to apply a fluxless solder


----------



## boulard83 (Jun 30, 2013)

radrok said:


> Either they use solder or TIM based on the chip's TDP or Ivy and Haswell die is too small to apply a fluxless solder



+1, the Die is so small, ivy/haswell dont have that much space to dissipate heat.


----------



## D007 (Jun 30, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> For 99% of the users the difference will not kill the processor any faster, that is why they went with the cheaper TIM method instead of solder.  The decision has nothing to do with shortening the products life.



Yea, a bit silly to start going all conspiracy theory, about something that makes total sense..
so after u take the lid off, you put new tim on and put the lid back on?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 30, 2013)

D007 said:


> Yea, a bit silly to start going all conspiracy theory, about something that makes total sense..
> so after u take the lid off, you put new tim on and put the lid back on?



you put the chip in the socket with the ihs on top and close the gate, I think some people use some sort of gunk to stick it back on.


----------



## erocker (Jun 30, 2013)

Most of the temperature issues are a result of too much silicon "glue" that keeps the IHS attached to the PCB, not the TIM itself, though higher quality TIM will yield a bit better result.


----------



## boulard83 (Jun 30, 2013)

erocker said:


> Most of the temperature issues are a result of too much silicon "glue" that keeps the IHS attached to the PCB, not the TIM itself, though higher quality TIM will yield a bit better result.



+1

You need to remova ALL the black glue, this is usually the main issue. 

I will do further testing with a variety of paste under the IHS later.


----------



## niko084 (Jul 1, 2013)

boulard83 said:


> ** Waiting som liquid pro and ultra TIM for better results  **



Nice video, we got lazy and didn't go through the whole process to make one.

We used the liquid pro TIM, stuff is kinda cool, little bit of a pain to work with.
I'm still not sure we have a good contact and are still considering lapping the cpu.

Out temp difference full load 1.25v 4.2ghz had a 16c difference.

This is on a 360 rad 30dpi, heatkiller block, d5 pump and a big dual bay res. I'm under the impression there is no heatsoak in this system beyond the pump heating up.


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 1, 2013)

niko084 said:


> Nice video, we got lazy and didn't go through the whole process to make one.
> 
> We used the liquid pro TIM, stuff is kinda cool, little bit of a pain to work with.
> I'm still not sure we have a good contact and are still considering lapping the cpu.
> ...



Thanks for sharing your experience. 

I will also take a look at the IHS and lap it if needed, i have all the sandpaper need at home. I also borowed my GF nail vernish for the CPU


----------



## Protagonist (Jul 1, 2013)

radrok said:


> While I do agree there is an inherent problem with LGA2011.
> 
> It's bloody outdated compared to Haswell
> 
> ...



They should just go back to One socket one chipset for all the X, K and non K like the 775 days


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 1, 2013)

There is the base line for my futur TIM testing and a possible lapping if the IHS is not 100% flat.


----------



## Intel God (Jul 4, 2013)

boulard83 said:


> Video @ http://infodupat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=488
> 
> @ 4.4ghz 1.3vcore
> Load temp with Small FFT was 85+°c
> ...



Could i get a link to those blades that you used?


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 4, 2013)

These are standard blades from this :





It's best to use razor blade, they are much thiner, making delid really EZer.





Just hold the blad with plier.


----------



## Intel God (Jul 4, 2013)

boulard83 said:


> These are standard blades from this :
> http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/exacto-knife-27294614.jpg
> 
> It's best to use razor blade, they are much thiner, making delid really EZer.
> ...



Thank you


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 4, 2013)

Np !


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 8, 2013)

First paste testing. 
Noctua NH-1 versus EVGA Frostbite.






Well, the frostbite suck .... loll !
I had good hope on the frostbite paste since it seems to spread well under pressure but it did not deliver good results.


Edit, i also prepared the CPU for the incoming CLP and CLU "TIM". 

*EDIT 2 :* I just redid the Frostbite application but my first ony appeared to be perfect. I had similar result on second application, quickly peaked over 80°c on AIDA. EVGA Frostbite seems is bad at this job...


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 12, 2013)

Got something in the mail today


----------

