[diaz]

This is very dissapointing. I'm still upgrading to 3000k, but I will hate to see inneficient heat transfer. Here's to hoping that intel used a better process for the launch day retail versions. I am NOT delidding. I shouldn't have to do anything like that after spending $300++ on a CPU.

[diaz]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

Thanks Jonnie. I'm not totally convinced that TIM paste will be a permanent feature really... One might actually suspect that retail units will be soldered, and what we've found and explained in this article is more meaningful for the preliminary results we're seeing in most of the reviews and forums about Ivy getting hot when overclocked.

There are some exceptions, despite most people raising questions about the heat when overclocked, like the computershopper overclocking results:
http://computershopper.com/component.../4#review-body

They didn't perceive the temperature issues reported in most articles with their sample. Their test was rather quick at 10 minutes then a temp reading, but I suppose it could be an indication that not all these chips are hot. Anxious also to see if Intel can add better insight than what we have to work off of currently.

Maybe some lucky chips have a better contact to ISH than others?

EDIT: Maybe it would help wo have a higher pressure mount on the cooler?

[dejo]

it would definitely be a relief if intel did indeed use the solder method for retail release sku's.
one other thing that many didnt pay attention to on x58, was that they had DO steppings at initial release. Even though (to my knowledge) they werent released to public for many months. may be something similar here

[wagex]

and im sticking with my 2500k unless they fix it cuz its more than enough power for me if anything im gonna get a better motherboard that doesnt have coldboot issues, 4 ghz is the highest i can go witout it randomly losing oc settings... with any bios. though i could run 4.9 ghz when i had my custom loop

[TsunamiJuan]

I hope everyone remembers one of the reasons why they started putting heat spreaders on the chips after the great socket 370 Debacle. OEM's and Custom builders where cracking cores left and right during heatsink installation. It didn't help that the pressure of the heatsinks at the time to be within intels spec was something stupid like 10lbs+ of pressure. You literally had to use a tool to help get the stock heatsinks to clip to the socket. This also resulted in alot of cracked sockets over time since the mounting tabs for the heatsinks where part of the socket.

Obviously it was far cheaper to protect the core with a heat spreader than it was to continue to RMA chips that got damage due to a poor method of mounting cooling.

[diaz]

Originally Posted by TsunamiJuan

I hope everyone remembers one of the reasons why they started putting heat spreaders on the chips after the great socket 370 Debacle. OEM's and Custom builders where cracking cores left and right during heatsink installation. It didn't help that the pressure of the heatsinks at the time to be within intels spec was something stupid like 10lbs+ of pressure. You literally had to use a tool to help get the stock heatsinks to clip to the socket. This also resulted in alot of cracked sockets over time since the mounting tabs for the heatsinks where part of the socket.

Obviously it was far cheaper to protect the core with a heat spreader than it was to continue to RMA chips that got damage due to a poor method of mounting cooling.

That's fine, but why was SB just fine and now the new cutting edge product has crappy temps in comparison, knowing that a simple solder would solve it?

[bmwbaxter]

Originally Posted by diaz

That's fine, but why was SB just fine and now the new cutting edge product has crappy temps in comparison, knowing that a simple solder would solve it?

probably to clear out SB stocks, then once they are getting low switch to solder on IB and get a bunch of upgrades without the issue of old CPU's taking up space or time to sell.

[PcChip]

In my opinion the reason most of these overclocked Ivy Bridge chips are running hot is because reviewers and benchmarkers have been using the voltage they used to use on the old 32nm Sandy Bridge chips on these new 22nm Ivy Bridge chips, and it's much too high (or at least a much higher increase over stock). For example, since people were used to setting 1.4v on their 2500k/2600k chips, they're setting it on the 3770k not realizing that it's a much higher percentage increase over stock than it was on the sandy bridge chips - and temperatures skyrocket. Check out the undervolting article on AnandTech to see a graph of temperature versus voltage.

[dejo]

Originally Posted by PcChip

In my opinion the reason most of these overclocked Ivy Bridge chips are running hot is because reviewers and benchmarkers have been using the voltage they used to use on the old 32nm Sandy Bridge chips on these new 22nm Ivy Bridge chips, and it's much too high (or at least a much higher increase over stock). For example, since people were used to setting 1.4v on their 2500k/2600k chips, they're setting it on the 3770k not realizing that it's a much higher percentage increase over stock than it was on the sandy bridge chips - and temperatures skyrocket. Check out the undervolting article on AnandTech to see a graph of temperature versus voltage.

if thats the case, then why did the westmere shrink from nehalem produce cooler temps? westmere for the most part was considerably cooler at similar clocks and voltages to nehalem. I have a gut feeling that the tim rather than solder is the criminal at work here

[I.M.O.G.]

@PcChip: I linked that Anand article in this article actually.

I know in our review, Hokie tested for the voltage necessary to run the clocks - I don't think he was overvolting in relation to the frequency he was running.

[TsunamiJuan]

One of the early NDA testers was talking about the fact that they have had to drive new 3d 22nm transistors at a higher voltage so they could get them stable and to market. Which is why there wasn't a really a difference in core voltage, that would normally be associated with a process shrink like this.

btw i went digging for voltage for the new chips. Their is no set listing for the chip models yet that i can find but the data sheet says this.

VID VID Range min0.2500V — max1.5200V Note:1

Note 1 - Each processor is programmed with a maximum valid voltage identification value (VID), which is set at
manufacturing and cannot be altered. Individual maximum VID values are calibrated during manufacturing
such that two processors at the same frequency may have different settings within the VID range. This
differs from the VID employed by the processor during a power management event (Adaptive Thermal
Monitor, Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology, or Low Power States).

thats straight from the Intel Ivy bridge Datasheet volume 1, section 7, table 7.4

[SF101]

i hope they change this back to solder..

its like a step back to my amd days of creditcard spreading.

[diaz]

Originally Posted by PcChip

In my opinion the reason most of these overclocked Ivy Bridge chips are running hot is because reviewers and benchmarkers have been using the voltage they used to use on the old 32nm Sandy Bridge chips on these new 22nm Ivy Bridge chips, and it's much too high (or at least a much higher increase over stock). For example, since people were used to setting 1.4v on their 2500k/2600k chips, they're setting it on the 3770k not realizing that it's a much higher percentage increase over stock than it was on the sandy bridge chips - and temperatures skyrocket. Check out the undervolting article on AnandTech to see a graph of temperature versus voltage.

That's definitely a part of it, but even with a very cautious voltage setting temps are still quite high compared to SB.

[wingman99]

Originally Posted by TsunamiJuan

One of the early NDA testers was talking about the fact that they have had to drive new 3d 22nm transistors at a higher voltage so they could get them stable and to market. Which is why there wasn't a really a difference in core voltage, that would normally be associated with a process shrink like this.

That is what ive been thinking, the TRI-gate has increased inversion layer requiring more drive power when overclocking

Maybe it's combination with TIM and 3d transistors.

When people start delidding and running strait on the core, also comparing the watts overcloking SB vs IB we will see.

[I.M.O.G.]

Originally Posted by TsunamiJuan

btw i went digging for voltage for the new chips. Their is no set listing for the chip models yet that i can find but the data sheet says this.

The VID on our review sample was 1.0-something according to a comment I saw from Hokie, if I'm not mistaken. This is just one example of course, and I don't have any idea how representative it is of Ivy Bridge in general.

[TsunamiJuan]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

The VID on our review sample was 1.0-something according to a comment I saw from Hokie, if I'm not mistaken. This is just one example of course, and I don't have any idea how representative it is of Ivy Bridge in general.

Yeah i think its like 1.2v-1.3v is probably close to what the normal runtime voltages usually get set at out of the factorys. Just kinda depends on the bin level of the chips it seems. Usually anything below 1v is considered either ultra low volt or is a chip running in a altered power state. So while speed step is doing its thing or your gating of other cores due to lack of load.

I would be interested to see more concrete numbers from intel, the ivy bridge section of their site is kinda a mess right now as the only official listed chip for sale is the 3770t(which is a 55w 2.5ghz 3.9ghz boost, chip), with a release date of the 29th which goes for the same for the other chips. However they are still Listed under formerly Ivy bridge and not yet under the heading of core 3rd generation core i7 or likewise.

I might mull through the data sheets more tomorrow and and see how the 2nd and 3rd gen voltages compare. If there are any major differences for the main voltages.

[diaz]

For the 3D transistor conversation, it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the power consumption, which would be exactly where it would hit... it wouldn't simply translate to more heat, it would cause more power consumption which would cause heat. I'm sure its the lid.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...3770k-review/8
Here the review shows:

2500k @ 5Ghz = 311W
3570k @ 5Ghz = 267W

2600k @ 5Ghz = 313W
3770k @ 4.8Ghz= 244W

[hokiealumnus]

Our VID was 1.080V. I ran our overclock at the lowest voltage it would remain stable. It would be pretty silly to just run the same Vcore as the 2600K.

[Scout]

I really wanted to upgrade to Ivy now I am not so sure hopefully a new spin or stepping fixes the kinks of the first run. I think 22nm has alot more potential.

[Eldonko]

Im sticking with the power density theory myself.