Glaciators, The Emperor Speaks! :)

[Hoot]

SeaDog, that's something like 1.3%. Though it undenyably runs slower, I have seen such small changes using identical components and just the difference from one dismounting/remounting of the HSF to the next, not to mention other subtle differences. Don't get me wrong. I am not discounting your results, nor what they imply. My in-socket thermistor is calibrated with several thermocouples and this whole issue has me chomping at the bit to get my Glaciator. I just hope it arrives before everyone but me has one, along with an opinion! ;D

Hoot

 

[taz1004]

"---Article is great and certainly something to consider but what other choice do users have other than MBM?
If you have a clock that's broken and cannot keep track of time accurately, and you can't afford another one, do you say, "It must be OK?" That's essentially what you're saying."

I was asking for other means of measurements. I asked a question. How do you derive a conclusion from a question?

"---but let's say it's true and Glaciators is the best heatsink.

We aren't saying it is."

Really? The Emperor Speaks?

"---Or should they all start drilling holes in their heatsink and place another thermistor in it?

If they need an accurate temperature reading, something along those lines would need to be done. However, most people don't need that level of precision; we put together that calculation so people could at least have an alternate means of checking their situation."

Are you absolutely positive that the calculation is accurate? How can it be? It depens on the system, thermal compounds, method used on applying compound, case fans. It seems even more unreliable than the MBM.

"How is it possible that there's world hunger? How is it possible that Windows crashes? How is it possible that Intel and Via chipsets have bugs in them. It is. Saying that there shouldn't be doesn't change the "is.""

You don't wanna hear my answer on these. In case you haven't noticed, it was just an expression.

"When something breaks in your house, for the next six months, do you say, "It shouldn't be broken." What does that do?"

Doesn't have nothing to do with what I said.

"This is like having a guy with very poor sight judging the Miss America contest, and you're saying it's the contestant's fault."

Beauty contest are never contestant's fault. If I'm the judge, yes, I make decision based on my vision and taste. It's matter of opinion and my opinion says this one doesn't look good. If my eye sights are bad, at least it's consistantly bad. I don't favor one contestant over the other like some do.

"Firestone made tires before the Model T. The tires work fine with other SUVs. They don't work so fine with Ford Explorers. On the other hand, Ford Explorers work fine with other tires. Again, it's not just one party's fault."

I didn't wanna spread into another subject but... Is the tire made before the Model T the tire in question? I don't think so. Tire in question is released well after Explorer. I'm not interested in determining who's at fault. I'm interested in solution. Is it cheaper for Explorer owners to get other tires or is it cheaper for them to keep the tires and get a new car? Does it make sense for them to replace tire at the place they bought them? or should Ford recall all Explorers and fix the problem and send the car back to owners in months?

Firestone designer didn't do their homework and excluded Explorer in their research. Every car companies have their own suspension system and Firestone is well aware of that fact. They will loose that market and it's their loss. I don't think there's soul out there that's gonna stay away from Explorer because it doesn't go with Firestone.

Do you even think car manufacturers have time and resource to deal with all these ridiculous brands and models of tires out there? They design a car for standard radial tires and that's it. If the tire manufact goes out of this spec, it's their problem. On the other hand, how many car makes do tire manufactures have to deal with? Only a handful. I hope this subject doesn't come back.

You asked for it.

--BrianC

 

[seadog]

SeaDog, that's something like 1.3%.

Hoot, I agree that the differences are extremely small. I don't think that anyone should regret the purchase of any of the 3 HSFs that I tested.

For me the loss of 20mhz is significant because, like all of us, I am trying to get the most out of my system. I did re-mount the hs numerous times and still was not able to run P95 stable at 1430. I don't have a definitive answer for this.

I have never represented these results as anything other than MY results on MY system. At the bottom of my initial post, I acknowledged that others have shown and may yet achieve different outcomes. I only posted the numbers because I believe that the more information we all have the better able we are to make informed buying decisions.

Hopefully, your temperature studies will shed some more light on the situation.

 

[sfa ok]

It seems quite clear to me that hsf's should be designed around a CPU, not a $0.10 mobo sensor. If you want more accurate readings without drilling, get a probe that sits next to the core (I'm not saying that this is super-accurate, but better than mobo). I've been frequenting this site for a while (a long time before I joined the forums), and I doubt that preferential treatment would be given to a hsf.

 

[William]

Taz, I don't see why you think reading your temps through the cpu ceramic is going to be so accurate and why you think sticking a thermocouple above the core inside some highly condictive piece of metal will be more inaccurate. I think the explination of the Glaciator MBM troubles is perfectly valid. Yes the thermocouple is the best we have, but why don't we trust the review sites? Especially the ones that do it to the directions of AMD. I would think AMD would know how to get the most accurate temps from their chips. Just take for example the Asus thermocouple which is typically as much as 10C off of the actual temperature. SFA is totally correct, why design a heatsink that gives better readings with MBM rather than a heatsink that gives poorer numbers in an inaccurate measurement system but produces better results. The flaws with the thermocouple are extremely well documented elsewhere and they have no mention of a specific HSF.

 

[Spewn]

Wow, I don't check for a day and this is what happens! Just back to the issue about it being a heatsinks job to allow the motherboard to report an accurate temperature. If heatsinks were designed to report temperature, and not just regulate it, they would come with thermocouples drilled into the bases, or at least a thermocouple and any wiring or whatever you'd need to attatch it to a thermometer. Do any? I don't know, but I highly doubt it. As far as temp readings go, yeah they can be important, but how important are they really? If you're cpu is hot enough that it may be damaging itself, wouldn't it be crashing before it started burning? That's the whole idea behind overclocking right? Keep the temp down to a point where the system runs stable, and you've overclocked successfully. Do you really need to know exactly what the temp is to do this? If your cpu is stable at a given speed, but you're worried that maybe MBM is innaccurate, and that your HS isn't *really* 60'C, try touching the base of the heatsink. If it's not REALLY hot, you're fine. That's the way I look at it anyway, I've had a K6-2 333 oc'd to 450 for...I dunno, about 3 or 4 years now. I have no idea what the temp is, but I know it runs stable, and the heatsink doesn't burn my hand, so everything's fine(not to mention the fact that the cpu hasn't died yet).

One thing that might pose a problem is changes in ambient temperature. Or at least, I'm sure someone will reply saying something along those lines. If you're so close to the edge of being stable that 1 or 2'C higher temps cause your system to crash, or you're worried it may cause your cpu to get burned over time, maybe you need be stepping back that oc in the first place? As far as I see it, accurate temps are for interest-sake only. Given that the whole basis behind all of this is "lower temps means higher oc'ing" if a heatsink allows a higher oc, it cools better. THAT is really all I'm interested in.

 

[sequoia464]

Another consideration is this...

...the Thermosonic Thermoengine has just the opposite effect happening. When tested using the socket thermistor it seems to be a great sink, 2cooltec tested this similarly to the methods used here at Overclockers and the sink FAILED their tests. Not didn't perform well but failed. The reason they give is the path of the airflow, I'm sure quite a few of you have read about this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm bummed that I can't trust the temps that I see from the boards system. It doesn't seem like rocket science either to drill a hole and plug a sensor in the Glaciator either, might have to be my next project.

Stroligo, if you happen to read this post, perhaps you could point me to some info on this.

 

[coldmop]

The legendary ducted Superorb effect, swirling air being forced under the socket giving false readings. But the fop38 with its wicked fan and open sides was never suspect of the same effect. Why? Just once I'd like to see some tests with a paper shield clipped under the heatsink and covering the socket and surrounding components. Is that a real world test? No but it helps isolate the role of the heatsink. In truth you want air cascading off the HSF onto surrounding components especially the clock gen chip (those things are hot). Another funny thing, you get a nice immediate temp drop when you direct a fan at a waterblock...must be the fine fin arrangement. Didn't Sherlock Holmes mention something about discovery of the improbable.

 

[Slake]

I'm SO confused! Having read a lot of Ed's articles, as well as all of the intelligent posts in this thread, I concede that almost all of you are far more knowledgable than myself. The one thing I am very confident in saying is I will continue to rely on Ed's reviews and opinions to be more accurate than novices. I see the point and logic of those who say that on core measurement is bound to be more accurate than readings from any point not on the chip. Also that measurements taken this way even though not accurate are repeatable and should be a fair reference point to judge heat-sinks. Ed does this for a living, and as such is acutely aware of the myriad of influences that combine to produce various measurements. Most of his in depth "scientific" theories are a bit over my head. That's why I bacame a member here, to benefit from others knowledge. Ed's inegrity as well as that of Overclockers.com, as far as I am concerned is beyond reproach. Any thoughts that he may be swayed by a manufacturer are totally BOGUS. It's great to have access to all of you guys opinions but I believe Ed is correct in his assertions based on his years of expertise. If Ed is proven wrong I'm sure he will publicly acknoledge it. None of us is above human error.
I'm happy to have a ThermalRight SK6 on the way.
Accusations of me being a yes man or a Ed's butt-boy are graciously accepted. ;D

 

[William]

bump

 

[M@€$†®Ö™]

What is the point of picking this subject apart the gains are so small. You would never notice it. Or so I feel and I have messed with as many computers as most anyone here. Oh well that is my 2 cents in the barrel

Maestro

 

[CalCoolage]

Another consideration is this...

sequoia464 (Jun 21, 2001 07:01 p.m.):
...the Thermosonic Thermoengine ... 2cooltec tested this similarly to the methods used here at Overclockers and the sink FAILED their tests. Not didn't perform well but failed.
.

It FAILED did it? The moral of this should be don't make the mistake of thinking a reviewer is competent just because he used a thermistor on the top of the CPU..

No the Thermoengine didn't fail. Mr. 2Cool failed. The fool didn't get it to contact his synthetic heat source firmly. He should have realized that and said so. Instead he maligned an excellent heat sink, and mislead the people who read his article. The thermoengine sink, and some others like the Thermaltake orbs, have a clip that does not press on the sink at a single point centered over the CPU slug. This makes the sink more prone to making uneven contact, pressing on one side of the slug more than the other, or maybe not even making contact except on one edge. Not making good contact is the ONLY reason ANY heat sink will "fail". Mr. 2Cool's makeshift clip mounts are not positioned in the same relation to the CPU slug as on a real socket. The clip works OK in real life even though it doesn't on the botched test jig.

I don't know if Mr. 2Cool ever admitted his stupidity or issued an apology. I doubt it.

There are difficulties with using a synthetic heat source the size of which is much larger than the CPU slug, which Mr. 2Cool did not deal with well, and therefore his test results should not be taken seriously.

Tests have been done on the Thermoengine with a top mounted thermistor. Although they do not show the Thermoengine to be as exceptional, it retains its excellent rank among the aluminum sinks that were its contemporaries, essentially the same ranking as it had in tests done with in-socket thermistors.

That stuff about "blowing directly on the thermistor" is a load of horse manure. The most likely reason for the extra coolness at the socket thermistor is that the ceramic chip carrier is getting cooled more.

Joe Citrella has said that getting the back of the chip cool does have some effect on CPU stability, so it is not true that the top mounted thermistor tells the whole story.

Nothing on the mobo represents an infinite resistance to heat. Therefore the path of heat flow is complex and can't be very well modeled using lumped resistances (as in electrical circuits) . Everything is thermally connected to everything near it.

It is not often mentioned, but the silicon substrate of a chip is quite a good condutor of heat, about half as good as aluminum if I recall correctly. Although the substrate is too thin to conduct much along the surface of the chip, its cross-section in the perpendicular direction is large, so it can conduct heat very well toward the back. Some ceramics are pretty good conductors of heat. Although I don't know if AMD is trying to get heat out through the back, I don't see why not. It people will recall, up to a certain point, Intel chips were mostly encased in ceramic and the heatsink only contacted the ceramic. Until the flip-chip (as in FCPGA) Intel mounted the bottom, or substrate toward the top of the chip, so heat really came out through the substrate, the bottom. Considering all this, it does seem as though heat conduction could be doubled if chips were designed so heat was conducted out both the top and bottom.

The heat dissapated by a chip is generated almost entirely when the transistors switch state. That's why heat dissapation is proportional to MegaHertz. The switching time is a small part of a whole cycle. Therefore the actual maximum temperature of the transistors must be much higher than the average temperature. An average is the only possible temperature a probe could possibly measure. Likewise transistors only account for a portion of the whole chip area, the rest of which is wiring and spacing. .Any probe measures an average over a large area. Again, the transistors maximum temperature must be much higher.