Wednesday, April 25th 2012
Ivy Bridge Temperatures Could Be Linked To TIM Inside Integrated Heatspreader: Report
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.
Source:
Overclockers.com
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.
97 Comments on Ivy Bridge Temperatures Could Be Linked To TIM Inside Integrated Heatspreader: Report
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
www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/2nd-gen-core-lga1155-socket-guide.html
Performance Tuning Protection Plan ?
click.intel.com/tuningplan/
Here is what happens when things don't go right.
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.
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.
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. :p
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!
EDIT: Cad, you don't overclock your rigs? What?! :eek: Look, I'm blinking erratically in distress at this news, lol.
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.
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..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? :wtf: 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?
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!!!.
I'm sorry that Eyefinity is giving you headaches and I hope AMD pull there fingers out and fix it.
also, upto 4.6GHz lower vcore is needed to reach the same freq with IB..
however perf @ same freq seems better with IB
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?