[dtrunk]

i would argue that just because some1 (in their basement) de-lid a IB i7 and then re-lid it with a different TIM is NO WHERE as efficient/effective at this process as INTEL is... this needs to be done, FROM INTEL and BY INTEL, from the factory for us to truly compare the TIM issue.

[EarthDog]

That plus what hokie said inside the thread in the first place make his testing pointless.

[Frakk]

Originally Posted by dtrunk

i would argue that just because some1 (in their basement) de-lid a IB i7 and then re-lid it with a different TIM is NO WHERE as efficient/effective at this process as INTEL is... this needs to be done, FROM INTEL and BY INTEL, from the factory for us to truly compare the TIM issue.

Its worth a try, i know AS5 is far better than the crap you get pre applied on heat sinks, you can bring your GPU temps down 2 - 3c just by replacing the factory thermal compound with something decent.

[trekky]

thx for the review!
hmm the heat thing is bad for intel but whats bad for intel is great for AMD
maybe this is what amd needs to show Piledriver out and maybe it will overclock alot better then ivy because the way it stands it looks like Ivy will have a very hard time getting over 4.5ghz if they are alreading reaching 80c-90c!

only time will tell

oh and secret sauce!
what are they a Hot sauce company now?
Franks Red hot better becareful!!!!!!! (for those who dont know Franks Red hot is a hot sauce maker and its pretty good)

[dtrunk]

2-3c is not worth razorblade/torch action and the possibilities of my st0n3r ar$ messing it up... what do i have, a few milliseconds of too much torching and my "new" $320 processor is junk? scary!

[Aynjell]

I don't know that I can buy this chip now. I was really hoping to get a 3770k to go with my 680. I am having trouble with streaming and could use the extra horsepower... but if they're gimping the chip with hot temps I can't buy one. :\

[hokiealumnus]

They might NOT be. There may be many reasons for the change, but we can't know them until Intel tells us what they are. Maybe the new transistor can't tolerate the solder. The only people that know are at Intel.

[Frakk]

Originally Posted by dtrunk

2-3c is not worth razorblade/torch action and the possibilities of my st0n3r ar$ messing it up... what do i have, a few milliseconds of too much torching and my "new" $320 processor is junk? scary!

meh... go Sandy then. or Wait to see Piledriver, thats what i'm doing.
If Trinity is anything to go by it should be pretty good, certainly a whole lot better than Bulldozer.

[Aynjell]

Originally Posted by hokiealumnus

They might NOT be. There may be many reasons for the change, but we can't know them until Intel tells us what they are. Maybe the new transistor can't tolerate the solder. The only people that know are at Intel.

That may be, but intel is shooting themselves in the foot here. The 3770k is not an upgrade over the 2500k or 2600k if you aren't running extreme water, and even then... 90C is like WTFHOT.

if the release chips aren't switched to solder I can't afford to use one, and will have to buy a used 2600k or something so I can get HT.

[dejo]

the nice thing is there is some debate going on, and hopefully that will prompt Intel to come forth with more information.

[hokiealumnus]

What I said in response to the thread linked above:

Unless he changed the mounting of that water block, that exercise was futile. The XT is designed to put a pre-set amount of pressure on a CPU with an IHS. Removing that changed the potential pressure to be applied. The CPU wouldn't make proper contact because the pressure applied by the XT on the CPU isn't even strong enough to hold it in.

Regardless, no one is saying that de-lidding the CPU will drastically decrease temperatures. The whole point is that Intel went with TIM and not solder, the latter of which would result in better temperatures because of the much higher thermal conductivity of solder between the die and IHS.

Merging this with the existing discussion. Please try to keep it all in one place folks.

[bmwbaxter]

Originally Posted by trekky

oh and secret sauce!
what are they a Hot sauce company now?
Franks Red hot better becareful!!!!!!! (for those who dont know Franks Red hot is a hot sauce maker and its pretty good)

Guess someone at Intel puts that sh*t on everything.

[hokiealumnus]

I'm going to post this here too. Some people at OCN have taken this piece and run like hell with it.

Removing the IHS is NOT meant to be a solution. It is not something we are recommending or even hinting at getting a lot of people to do. It likely won't result in drastically different temperatures. This is simply a possible reason IVB's temperatures are so much higher than SNB. That's it.

I will reiterate, bolded and italicized to hopefully get through to people: Don't go delidding your CPUs unless you really want to play around and enjoy taking a good chance on having a $300+ keychain.

[hokiealumnus]

The Tech Report was able to get a comment from Intel. It's not exactly conclusive, but does shed a little light.

Originally Posted by The Tech Report

Curious, we asked Intel about the interface between the Ivy Bridge die and the heat spreader. Intel has confirmed to TR that Ivy uses a "different package thermal technology" than Sandy Bridge. The firm stopped short of answering our questions about why the change was made and how the thermal transfer properties of the two materials compare. However, Intel claims the combination of the new interface material and Ivy's higher thermal density is responsible for the higher temperatures users are observing with overclocked CPUs.

Intel also points out Ivy Bridge has a higher TjMAX specification, which governs when the CPU starts throttling in order to protect itself from heat damage. The cut-off for the Core i7-3770K is 105°C, while the 2600K starts throttling at 100°C.

[trekky]

Originally Posted by bmwbaxter

Guess someone at Intel puts that sh*t on everything.

im just hoping that he did not put franks in the Tim.... but that would make a tasty Tim......... hmmm franks TIM!



Fast Edit oh and wow we trade 20c at 4.5ghz but intel says OH WAIT guys it can go 5c higher the sandy

[rge]

I posted this over at xtreme as well, but while responding to Beepbeep listing manufacture tim specs (which are often exaggerated like fan specs), I found something interesting, last quote in post...

And to add to what DilTech said, you cant go by manufactures data bulk conductivity for tim, some are as accurate as fan specs. There is bulk thermal conductivity, interface resistance, and most importantly non-standard testing. For example AS5 I think lists their tim as 8 w/mK, yet has been tested on actual cpus to be less than 1 w/mk by both NREL and other reputable testers. Shin itsu and Dow was consistently measured as highest at ~ 4 w/mK on more than one study, and they accurately list their as such. Found NREL, page 9,http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42972.pdf . Any manufacturer that lists TIM paste as performing higher than 6 w/mK, better come with independent proof, not saying its not out there, but certainly havent seen any proof yet. phase change/indigo materials/thermoplastics aside.

I will try to find that power point slide from intel I posted somewhere in this forum couple years ago, but their solder attach was updated in past few years, and melting point was 150C, thermal cond ~80 w/mk.

But as listed above post from Tech report, to me, pretty much sums it up... However, Intel claims the combination of the new interface material and Ivy's higher thermal density is responsible for the higher temperatures users are observing with overclocked CPUs.

And for those that dont think TIM matters with large resistance changes, quote from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...narumanchi.pdf slide 15

At 100 W/cm2 heat dissipation in the die, the maximum junction temperature (TJ,max) decreases by 16°C when TIM resistance decreases from 100 to 8 mm2K/W

[I.M.O.G.]

@rge: What thermal paste tests by community members do you actually put faith in? I have never seen a roundup which I thought was worth much faith. There have been various big roundups (tom's and benchmarkreviews roundups come to mind), each of which I thought had problems in their approach, as well as a lack of transparency. Transparency is critical in these kinds of tests to lend accuracy and verifiability to the testing - it is hard to get independent testing verified critically, and it isn't in the reviewers interest to put in all that time (testing TIM is very time intensive) to then go back at the end and demonstrate why their testing was innaccurate. Skinnee made a nice attempt, perhaps about as good as you can do on an "amateur" setup, however he also didn't escape some of the pitfalls inherent to testing thermal pastes.

I am not saying you are wrong to believe in community tests, but I've always been of the belief that the differences are too small and the variables too great to get any meaningful accuracy. Often times when comparing 2 sets of tests, it is demonstrated that its really hard thing to do well.

I don't mean to nitpick, but your link went to a study by the NREL, which seems like a different agency than NASA which you referenced. Was that a typo, or do the two agencies have a close relationship. I'm not that familiar with either, other than a normal casual familiarity with NASA that any American should have.

[rge]

yep wrong agency had both nasa and nrel studies open, I had too many pages open, both of those are nrel. I think skinnee did a good job. But my only comment was cant go by w/mk of published specs, since no standard testing. Professional testing of consumer tim by government agencies and professional companies I have seen maxes out 4-6w/mk range. Dow does a lot of testing as well and publishes results, granted they have a horse in race, but thermal conductance is similar to nrel and others. I havent ever seen any community tester list w/mk of any tim as wouldnt have means to test, and wasnt referring to any community tester for those values.

[I.M.O.G.]

There are also some pretty strong arguments against going by w/mk alone... Heat conductivity is only one of many factors that affect the quality of the interface. I just talked to Arctic Silver earlier to get some better background experience, and they reminded me of some things I've read previously, as well as brought to light additional items I hadn't previously considered.

[rge]

Nrel etc test the actual resistance through the die interface when applied to chip. And they list bulk conductance, contact resistance.

finally found intels 87 w/mk indium tim quote...well one spot, I had originally seen in a slide, but here it is in intel technical journal page 9.
http://download.intel.com/technology...ally_Green.pdf

Intel introduced polymer thermal interface
materials (PTIM) initially with 3-4 W/moK bulk thermal
conductivity and then successfully transitioned to Pb-free
solder-based thermal interface material to meet the ever
increasing demand for thermal cooling capability as
shown in Figure 16 [5].
Figure 16: Improvement in thermal cooling capability
with TIM materials (Polymer vs. Solder)
The introduction of Pb-free solder-based TIM materials
posed significant integration challenges. The STIM
needed to relieve the mechanical stress caused by CTE
mismatch of the integrated heat spreader lid and the
silicon die and to minimize stress transfer to the silicon
die during thermal cycling [6]. The thermal conductivity
and the mechanical compliance requirements resulted in
the development and qualification of low melting
temperatures (157oC Tm), low mechanical yield strength
(4-6 MPa), and relatively high thermal conductivity (~87
W/moK) pure Indium (In) metal for STIM applications. In
order to use In for STIM applications, appropriate