• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Haswell delidding, any news?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
The IHS is an heat spreader ... ( integrated heat spreader. IHS ). the IHS help to spread the heat from the tiny die on a bigger surface so your heatsink is more efficient.

The Problem is not only about the GAP or the TIM or the IHS, it's also cause of the CPU die itself is being smaller and smaller each time they shrink the manufacturing process. This mean that your usual, lets say 75w CPU, have a much smaller area to dissipate it's heat.

When haswell, the die are is a bit, very small bit, bigger than the Ivy because of the integrated VRM control but this parts also generate heat ... in the end, haswell heat up a little but more than Ivy.


Edit : info about die size.
anandtech said:
The two numbers for the most common Haswell configuration, Haswell GT2 4C, are 1.4 billion schematic transistors and 1.6 billion layout transistors. Why and what is the difference? The former count is the number of transistors in the schematic (hence the name), and is generally the number we go by when quoting transistor counts. Meanwhile the second number, the layout number, is the number of transistors used in the fabrication process itself. The difference comes from the fact that while the schematic will use one large transistor – being a logical diagram – production will actually use multiple transistors laid out in parallel for layout and process reasons. So how many transistors does Haswell have? It has both 1.4B and 1.6B, depending on which number we’re after, with 1.4B being the number Intel is passing around.

In any case, even among quad cores Haswell is going to come in a couple of different sizes. Along with the 1.4B transistor, 177mm2 4C/GT2 version of Haswell, there is the 4C/GT3 version of Haswell, which Intel doesn’t list the die size or transistor count for. Based on our rough measurements of the physical die we’re at 264mm2, which including the epoxy covering the die will run a bit large.

Breaking things down to the GPU portion of Haswell, based in turn on these measurements I came up with an 87mm^2 adder for the extra hardware in Haswell GT3 vs. GT2. Doubling that 87mm^2 we get a rough idea of how big the full 40 EU Haswell GPU might be: 174mm^2. If my math is right, this means that in a quad-core Haswell GT3 die, around 65% of the die area is GPU. This is contrary to the ~33% in a quad-core Haswell GT2. I suspect a dual-core + GT3 design is at least half GPU. Meanwhile Crystalwell, the 128MB eDRAM, adds another 84mm2 die (by our measurements) to the entire package.

On a comparative basis, the 4C/GT2 version of Haswell is roughly 200M transistors and 17mm2 bigger than the comparable 4C/GT2 version of Ivy Bridge. The transistor count increase is roughly what we’d expect, with most of those transistors going to Haswell itself while the GPU remains relatively unchanged. Though it’s interesting to note that while this marks a 17% increase in transistors, it’s only an 11% increase in die size. Ivy Bridge was a small die for an Intel, and while Haswell grows larger in exchange for the additional functionality the new architecture provides, it’s still a fairly small GPU and reaches a density greater than Ivy Bridge itself. Or to put this another way, Intel’s last tock CPU, Sandy Bridge, was larger still by almost 40mm2. It’s only once we start adding the relatively big GT3 GPU, and not the CPU, that we see Intel go well above 200mm2.
 
having said that i would put the IHS back on, i think the danger isnt that massive delidding as long as you do it properly.

lapping your cpu is just as dangerous but i still did that ;)
 
Some more about the die size and it's thermal dissipation.

pcper said:
All indications point to overclocked Haswell processors requiring more aggressive cooling than their Ivy predecessors. The Core i7-4770K does have a higher TDP than the 3770K, but the associated heat is also spread over a larger die area. The 4770K's TDP per area works out to 0.47W/mm², while the 3770K's is 0.48W/mm². Haswell and Ivy seem to be on even footing in that regard. The die layouts follow the same basic blueprint, as well.

Haswell and Ivy Bridge also use a similar interface material between their dies and external heat spreaders. Intel used to employ a fluxless solder between those two pieces, but it switched to thermal paste with Ivy.

We don't have a definitive explanation for Haswell's apparent need for most robust cooling, but the chip's integrated VRM may play a role. Voltage regulation was handled off-chip in Ivy Bridge, but Haswell brings it—and the associated heat—onboard the die. Integrated voltage regulation is a big part of Haswell's appeal for mobile platforms. Unfortunately, it may also limit the processor's overclocking potential on the desktop.
 
Crushing the core of a $330 CPU is the main reason I would guess.

But if you are using a mounting system that is engineered to stop the downforce at a certain point I don't know why it would crush the core...unless, of course, EK screwed their specs, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time.


Boulard83 said:
The IHS is an heat spreader ... ( integrated heat spreader. IHS ). the IHS help to spread the heat from the tiny die on a bigger surface so your heatsink is more efficient.

The Problem is not only about the GAP or the TIM or the IHS, it's also cause of the CPU die itself is being smaller and smaller each time they shrink the manufacturing process. This mean that your usual, lets say 75w CPU, have a much smaller area to dissipate it's heat.

I'm fully aware of what IHS stands for, and its purpose. I understand the logic behind the idea of the heat from the cores being spread across the IHS and then a block or cooler removing that heat over a larger cooling area. That said, it also adds the requirement of another layer of TIM between the core and the waterblock, as opposed to the direct contact method.

I have seen threads where guys have posted getting better results with direct contact, others have seen threads with worse results, so I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe, to a large extent, it is impacted by the accuracy of the mounting process and the TIM used.
 
Sorry, didnt click on the link to see that mounting from EK. That said, I still wouldnt do it, its just so pointless for so many with so much risk, its not worth it (to me).
 
Also, I found that temps WITHOUT IHS were hard to trust with my 3570k.

Temps looked lower at idle, but almost no difference under load.

i think it may just have something to do whit the fact that you dont have the IHS to spread the heat. At idle it's ok and the bare DIE can dissipated it's heat to the bloc effectively but under load the IHS could be needed.
 
i think it may just have something to do whit the fact that you dont have the IHS to spread the heat. At idle it's ok and the bare DIE can dissipated it's heat to the bloc effectively but under load the IHS could be needed.

I had just purchased a Vformula and didn't want to take the socket apart so my mounting was mediocre at best.

Iv'e always looked at the IHS as 75% protector 25% heat spreader.

Why is that? it shouldnt make a bit of difference considering sensor locations, no? :shrug:

idk where the sensors are, i just mash the buttons and turn the screws... My physical building skills far out way my knowledge of the products i'm using.
 
So, again, why does it make it 'hard to trust'? What I am saying is that delidding doesnt matter when it comes to 'trusting' temperatures. ;)
 
your promised reward is merely a fictitious motivator, the heat is a lie.
 
Delidding works guys, 15-40c less depending on how bad the ihs/tim/die interface was done by intel at the factory and on the kind of tim used.
I wouldn't do it cause I wanna bench with ln2/dice and it used to hurt oc headroom under cold (not sure if it's still the case with Haswell)
 
The issue is not if it works or not, we all know it can help decrease temps sometimes significantly. The issue is (always was) if its WORTH IT or not and that is situation specific. For example, there isn't a point to delid if you are near the top of the voltage 'limit' for the CPU. If you have a poor IB at 4.5Ghz 1.4v, lower temps wont help there. If you are running hot and still have some voltage headroom, then it could be worth it.

It is very situation specific, but is really cut and dry when it comes down to it. I still stick with it just not being worth it. 4.5, delidding to 4.7Ghz isnt going to make a darn bit a difference in what most do, however you do take a risk at making the lightest and most expensive paperweight in computing, with an absolute guarantee to lose your warranty when doing it. It just doesnt sound worth it unless you have plenty of voltage headroom and dont care about borking a $330 CPU.
 
You can go up to 90c, before delidding. Intel says heat does not kill voltage does.

LINK:
 
Last edited:
Back