TIM is Behind Ivy Bridge Temperatures After All

[badtaylorx]

physics....thats funny.

thats not what the physics say at all!!!

here...this is from XtreemSystems......there are some seriously smart mf'rs on this site....
Some people will read get 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS, then do so, and get disappointed when they see 15+C higher temps and realize they ruined their cpu.

Nobody gets 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS on a modern high power density 100W+ cpu, though a few claimed it without proof. I have removed the IHS on a few and my temps were worse as has another person that posted pics in previous thread with before/after temps. Old 40w cpus that just used paste, yes, those you could remove the ihs and get better temps, since replacing paste with paste and removing a layer.

2/3 or more of the gradient in modern cpus is from hot spot through the die substrate, that is via stanford article linked and pics in post here, also from drilling holes through ihs with calibrated thermocouples on ihs and in die. The copper laden die has thermal conductance of ~125W/MK, solder attach 80 w/mK but is only 20 microns thick, and copper is 400 w/mk, hence one would expect most of gradient is through the die. Also you can load 2 cores with coredamage/prime (set affinity in task bar to load just 2 cores of 4) and you will see 20C gradient from loaded core to idle core, which demonstrates high gradient through die substrate, like pic below in slide from ESL.


You could get ~10C better temps (assuming 150W tdp and 30C gradient from core to IHS temps) by removing IHS, If you then solder on a waterblock with 80w/mk solder assuming you could avoid voids like intel, and assuming the same bondline thickness of ~20 microns). Then the waterblock is the heatspreader + eliminate user tim. The IHS isnt just protection, but for spreading heat to a much larger area at 80W/mk through only 20 microns thickness then at 400w/mk via copper, ie relatively rapidly to a relatively large surface area....before the end user puts on relative crappy 3-4W/mk tim paste at thickness higher than 20 microns, then tries to cool it with water 0.6w/mk or air, even worse.

But removing 80w/mk solder and replacing with 3-4 w/mK paste at a stage when heat is still confined to relatively small surface area, is a disaster that will result in 10-15C+ higher temps at stock alone.


These results DO NOT point at - IHS=lower temps

they point out a bad decision coupled by poor implementation on Intel's part

 

[eidairaman1]

i know the SB-E has fluxless solder under its hat and not TIM, but i don't think that's what you're asking.
would you mind elaborating a little on what it is you're asking? i'm sure between cadaveca, Aquinus, and me we'll be able to answer.

What I meant is Skt 2011 have IVB aswell correct?

physics....thats funny.

thats not what the physics say at all!!!

here...this is from XtreemSystems......there are some seriously smart mf'rs on this site....
Some people will read get 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS, then do so, and get disappointed when they see 15+C higher temps and realize they ruined their cpu.

Nobody gets 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS on a modern high power density 100W+ cpu, though a few claimed it without proof. I have removed the IHS on a few and my temps were worse as has another person that posted pics in previous thread with before/after temps. Old 40w cpus that just used paste, yes, those you could remove the ihs and get better temps, since replacing paste with paste and removing a layer.

2/3 or more of the gradient in modern cpus is from hot spot through the die substrate, that is via stanford article linked and pics in post here, also from drilling holes through ihs with calibrated thermocouples on ihs and in die. The copper laden die has thermal conductance of ~125W/MK, solder attach 80 w/mK but is only 20 microns thick, and copper is 400 w/mk, hence one would expect most of gradient is through the die. Also you can load 2 cores with coredamage/prime (set affinity in task bar to load just 2 cores of 4) and you will see 20C gradient from loaded core to idle core, which demonstrates high gradient through die substrate, like pic below in slide from ESL.


You could get ~10C better temps (assuming 150W tdp and 30C gradient from core to IHS temps) by removing IHS, If you then solder on a waterblock with 80w/mk solder assuming you could avoid voids like intel, and assuming the same bondline thickness of ~20 microns). Then the waterblock is the heatspreader + eliminate user tim. The IHS isnt just protection, but for spreading heat to a much larger area at 80W/mk through only 20 microns thickness then at 400w/mk via copper, ie relatively rapidly to a relatively large surface area....before the end user puts on relative crappy 3-4W/mk tim paste at thickness higher than 20 microns, then tries to cool it with water 0.6w/mk or air, even worse.

But removing 80w/mk solder and replacing with 3-4 w/mK paste at a stage when heat is still confined to relatively small surface area, is a disaster that will result in 10-15C+ higher temps at stock alone.


These results DO NOT point at - IHS=lower temps

they point out a bad decision coupled by poor implementation on Intel's part

probably because your HS cant directly touch the CPU itself. there is not enough depth to the screws youre using

 

[largon]

physics....thats funny.

thats not what the physics say at all!!!

Hoping for a sensible post...
*reads on*

here...this is from XtreemSystems......there are some seriously smart mf'rs on this site....

Err...
Hello!

Some people will read get 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS, then do so, and get disappointed when they see 15+C higher temps and realize they ruined their cpu.

Nobody gets 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS on a modern high power density 100W+ cpu, though a few claimed it without proof. I have removed the IHS on a few and my temps were worse as has another person that posted pics in previous thread with before/after temps. Old 40w cpus that just used paste, yes, those you could remove the ihs and get better temps, since replacing paste with paste and removing a layer.

2/3 or more of the gradient in modern cpus is from hot spot through the die substrate, that is via stanford article linked and pics in post here, also from drilling holes through ihs with calibrated thermocouples on ihs and in die. The copper laden die has thermal conductance of ~125W/MK, solder attach 80 w/mK but is only 20 microns thick, and copper is 400 w/mk, hence one would expect most of gradient is through the die. Also you can load 2 cores with coredamage/prime (set affinity in task bar to load just 2 cores of 4) and you will see 20C gradient from loaded core to idle core, which demonstrates high gradient through die substrate, like pic below in slide from ESL.


You could get ~10C better temps (assuming 150W tdp and 30C gradient from core to IHS temps) by removing IHS, If you then solder on a waterblock with 80w/mk solder assuming you could avoid voids like intel, and assuming the same bondline thickness of ~20 microns). Then the waterblock is the heatspreader + eliminate user tim. The IHS isnt just protection, but for spreading heat to a much larger area at 80W/mk through only 20 microns thickness then at 400w/mk via copper, ie relatively rapidly to a relatively large surface area....before the end user puts on relative crappy 3-4W/mk tim paste at thickness higher than 20 microns, then tries to cool it with water 0.6w/mk or air, even worse.

But removing 80w/mk solder and replacing with 3-4 w/mK paste at a stage when heat is still confined to relatively small surface area, is a disaster that will result in 10-15C+ higher temps at stock alone.


These results DO NOT point at - IHS=lower temps

they point out a bad decision coupled by poor implementation on Intel's part

But I get a wall o' quoted text.


If someone uses a "relatively crappy 3-4W/mk tim paste" after removing the IHS and sees temps soar it only proves that certain someone is plain stupid. Sensible person would obviously use a proper TIM such as Coollaboratory Liquid Pro (82W/(m·K)). Add to that, average IHS is slightly convex (bulging out in the middle) or even worse, concave (depression in the middle). Average heatsink/waterblock base is way more flat. Silicon chip is quuuuuite flat.

Seriously, did I really have to post this? Or are you just trolling?

 

[badtaylorx]

as part of xtreme im surprised which way you're leaning here


the only part i was after was the " soldered on ihs > no ihs....

there are many more threads that have gotten ppl all exited about ihs removal only to end in disappointment.

i was going to post a thread about all of the 1366&sandybridge ihs removal success stories but.....lol

 

[largon]

the only part i was after was the " soldered on ihs > no ihs....

And some notable conditioning.
I admit removing a soldered IHS makes no sense in every case, but given the cooling system is capable of handling a bare die (like most modern waterblocks) it should be clear without-IHS > with-IHS. Air cooling of course makes little sense without-IHS as modern HSFs' extensive use of heatpipes ie. sinks' bases have pipes side by side.

 

[Wile E]

My temps are always better lidless with a water block. Never went lidless on air with a modern cpu.

 

[Mussels]

These results DO NOT point at - IHS=lower temps

they point out a bad decision coupled by poor implementation on Intel's part

results? all you've done is speculate.

 

[Binge]

results? all you've done is speculate.

Just surfed XS a bit and here's a thread with proof and success stories about TIM reapplication and one with IHS removal entirely.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...IHS-Removals-CPU-temp-dropped-from-79C-to-71C

...so I'm with you. What is this guy talking about IHS removal is bad?

 

[largon]

This latest (off topic) debate is about whether a soldered IHS is better than no IHS at all.
That thread is about Ivy Bridge, whose IHS is not soldered.

 

[badtaylorx]

Just surfed XS a bit and here's a thread with proof and success stories about TIM reapplication and one with IHS removal entirely.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...IHS-Removals-CPU-temp-dropped-from-79C-to-71C

...so I'm with you. What is this guy talking about IHS removal is bad?

there was no direct die ap there???

all ive been going on about is USING the ihs with new paste...which is getting great results...if you spent that much time looking around xs than you've seen first hand what im talking about

 

[erocker]

Anyone else notice a lack of 3770K's available for purchase? Anyone know why? Just wondering if Intel is changing anything with the chip (possibly going from TIM to solder?)

 

[EarthDog]

i'm sure someone will come up with the idea to mount the HSF directly to the bare chip (without the IHS) and lower the temps even further

Been there, done that, like 8 years ago.

Anyone else notice a lack of 3770K's available for purchase? Anyone know why? Just wondering if Intel is changing anything with the chip (possibly going from TIM to solder?)

This happened with SB as well. 3570K's are available everywhere, and have the same TIM not solder sooooooooooo, doubt its that.

probably because your HS cant directly touch the CPU itself. there is not enough depth to the screws youre using

Yay! Thinking cap enabled!


Anyway, I voted No, they dont need to change anything. I dont give a hoot about the warm temps b/c Im not overclocking the 3770k past 4-4.2Ghz which the H100 and just about any air cooler can handle. Its when you push further than that, usually around 4.5ghz that things start to ramp up. hen I push past 5-6Ghz, I will be on Dry Ice/LN2 anyway so I do give a hoot.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Nobody gets 10-25C better temps by removing the IHS on a modern high power density 100W cpu, though a few claimed it without proof. I have removed the IHS on a few and my temps were worse as has another person that posted pics in previous thread with before/after temps. Old 40w cpus that just used paste, yes, those you could remove the ihs and get better temps, since replacing paste with paste and removing a layer.

Afaik all IHS's are a bit shit, every single processor ive had in the last 6 years has been lapped after a period of ocing(to set precedents) and every single time i reduced the idle temp by 6-10 degrees and the load temp by 3-8 degrees, and thats just with a bit of fine sandpaper , and you were saying IHS's are great because??

ive not delidded a cpu ever(not poss on the cpu's ive had) but you clearly are doing something wrong if it ends up hotter, as that makes no sense at all , if you have a waterblock direct on a chip it will convect just as efficiently as the IHS but there will be less thermal insulation between the heat source and the cooling surface/water ,so it will in effect cool quicker/ better stronger longer.

 

[badtaylorx]

Afaik all IHS's are a bit shit, every single processor ive had in the last 6 years has been lapped after a period of ocing(to set precedents) and every single time i reduced the idle temp by 6-10 degrees and the load temp by 3-8 degrees, and thats just with a bit of fine sandpaper , and you were saying IHS's are great because??

ive not delidded a cpu ever(not poss on the cpu's ive had) but you clearly are doing something wrong if it ends up hotter, as that makes no sense at all , if you have a waterblock direct on a chip it will convect just as efficiently as the IHS but there will be less thermal insulation between the heat source and the cooling surface/water ,so it will in effect cool quicker/ better stronger longer.

one would think that'd be true but---

sorry...thats just not how it works. one of the most important thing with thermodynamics is surface area....

and what i posted was not something i did,,, as i said in said post it was a copy/paste from xtremesystems....

but yes....lapping does help emensly....rare are flat ihs's....i take mine all the way down to 2000wg on a flatbench.....ive wanted to have one decked slightly but i dont trust my machine shop that much

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

but yes....lapping does help emensly

not just because you flatten the IHS, also because(in a very small way) you also remove one other slight thermal barrier i forgot and thats the plateing on the IHS

sorry...thats just not how it works. one of the most important thing with thermodynamics is surface area....

is it , is it now , molecular density would probably credit that statement to me but as you wish

your still wrong , AN IHS has very very marginaly (just the edges around) more contact, then a waterblock direct fitted but without the IHS you have two less thermal barriers that insulate the processor to some degree (IHS and chip>IHS tim) , the laws of thermodynamics are on my side here mate, and said waterblock removes heat from the copper block faster leaving the block and chip at a lower temp or a higher OC, unless that is, YOU fitted it

how on gods green planet are you finding enough additional surface area that this magic IHS of yours is in contact with, if i were to fit a block to a chips core direct, id use the best non conductive gel strip cut around the chip(correct depth obv) onto the interface pcb(which would do very little but you gota try, then a skim of the best(not blob) tim i could find /buy so yes the chips very tiny edge wall would not be in contact but , why the, im out your clearly jus trollin

 

[badtaylorx]

your playing the "in the land of make believe id do this" card

and in the end the best you can do is to call troll....nice

so if ihs is soooo egregious tell me prey-tell why intel and amd spend extra manufacturing dollars on them in the first place???

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

so if ihs is soooo egregious tell me prey-tell why intel and amd spend extra manufacturing dollars on them in the first place???

to save on warranty claims due to chipped and broken chips(many other chips on a board often dont have them as you dont typically touch them NB GPU etc) and it serves as an emergency cooling medium in the event of a user fitting error such as you might have done this saves many a chip and yes even the odd one of mine as instead of just popping, the chip gets to temp and shuts down

essentially they became neccessary when we all started building and messing with our pc's and what chip do people mess with most .

oh and im not arguin that anyone should do this just that your wrong

 

[eidairaman1]

I voted no because there really isnt any reason to change it because Intel had their reason to do it.

Ya know there is really no point to arguing about this anymore, this is just like beating a dead horse. Intel had their reasons to do it. If you really want anything to change, stop the damn bitching here and write a Letter to Intel R&D, Engineering, Marketing, CEO.

And FYI the IHS was purely only designed so dumb people dont crush the cores of CPUs.


-End Rant Unsubscribed!-

 

[Wile E]

one would think that'd be true but---

sorry...thats just not how it works. one of the most important thing with thermodynamics is surface area....

and what i posted was not something i did,,, as i said in said post it was a copy/paste from xtremesystems....

but yes....lapping does help emensly....rare are flat ihs's....i take mine all the way down to 2000wg on a flatbench.....ive wanted to have one decked slightly but i dont trust my machine shop that much

Surface area of an IHS doesn't help. The surface area of the cooler is what is important in dissipating heat. An IHS acts as a thermal barrier vs direct die contact.

You need to do more research pal. The only people that see higher temps with a removed IHS are those that installed their block or cooler improperly or suffer from poor cooler to die contact (which can be due to incompatible heatsink/block design, or user error).

Every single chip I ever delidded saw better temps without the IHS. I even lost 5C under load on a 6400+ with a measly Freezer 64 Pro, which had a soldered IHS.

 

[Mussels]

one would think that'd be true but---

sorry...thats just not how it works. one of the most important thing with thermodynamics is surface area....

theory vs reality. thats certainly not the whole story, and wildly incorrect with what you're saying regarding the IHS.


the IHS is purely there to prevent damage to the CPU, its not there to help temps.

 

[Kantastic]

theory vs reality. thats certainly not the whole story, and wildly incorrect with what you're saying regarding the IHS.


the IHS is purely there to prevent damage to the CPU, its not there to help temps.

Plus, the heat-producing die is only so big and the IHS doesn't touch the entire processor. What's the difference between having an IHS and not having an IHS? With the former, you have a layer of metal in between the die and the surface of the heatsink inhibiting heat conduction. It's not so much theory vs. reality, but more common sense.

Most (if not all) laptop processors don't have IHSs to yield more effective cooling with limited amounts of space designated for the heatsink. If IHSs helped temperatures, Intel/AMD would include them, especially when thermal efficiency is an imperative part of laptops.

 

[Widjaja]

Anyone else notice a lack of 3770K's available for purchase? Anyone know why? Just wondering if Intel is changing anything with the chip (possibly going from TIM to solder?)

Hm.....

Maybe there have been complaints.

If there is a revision on the IHS to make the K series soldered at least I am sure my Brother will be selling his 3770K....

None the less he is getting 20+degC idle temps using an H60.
hasn't mentioned anything about the max temp but then again he feels he doesn't need to check until he starts to OC.

 

[Octopuss]

one would think that'd be true but---

sorry...thats just not how it works. one of the most important thing with thermodynamics is surface area....

and what i posted was not something i did,,, as i said in said post it was a copy/paste from xtremesystems....

but yes....lapping does help emensly....rare are flat ihs's....i take mine all the way down to 2000wg on a flatbench.....ive wanted to have one decked slightly but i dont trust my machine shop that much

You know, a sentence starts with capital letter and ends with period.
Your ghetto typing doesn't give your posts much credibility.

 

[badtaylorx]

oh realy....has intel or amd EVER warranted physical damage???

now were up to putting a giant piece of metal on the chip so the unsteady-handed dont break their new toy.... wow....

last one then i'll give up i apologise for not being smart enough convince you guys of the truth.

IF its only there to prevent damage and does NOTHING thermally....why does AMD put a FULL and rather larger IHS on their cpu's. but only uses a shim arround their (cooler) gpu chip???

same with Nvidia???

anyone...

 

[Mussels]

oh realy....has intel or amd EVER warranted physical damage???

now were up to putting a giant piece of metal on the chip so the unsteady-handed dont break their new toy.... wow....

last one then i'll give up i apologise for not being smart enough convince you guys of the truth.

IF its only there to prevent damage and does NOTHING thermally....why does AMD put a FULL and rather larger IHS on their cpu's. but only uses a shim arround their (cooler) gpu chip???

same with Nvidia???

anyone...

because most systems sold use onboard video and not dedicated GPU's.

Also because video cards simply cant spare the cooling capacity - unlike CPU's, they cant afford a 5-10C heat increase.


this forum is not easy to troll. please stop wasting your time.