PopcornMachineThe 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?

newtekie1At 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.

PopcornMachineUh, 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.

PopcornMachineCommon sense be damned.

cadavecaI 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.

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

newtekie1This 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.

cadavecaI 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.

PopcornMachineIf "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.

newtekie1When 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!"?

PopcornMachineWhy 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.

PopcornMachineFor 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.

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

newtekie1I 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.

cadavecathe 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.

Wile EThe die sticks up past the actual socket once the bracket is removed.

shaminotemps 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

LAN_deRf_HAtranslate.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.

phanbueyNice... 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.

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

cadavecaI hear ya, but the pros tell me otherwise:



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

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