Why is Ivy Bridge so hot? Ask that question in any forum currently, and you are likely to receive one of two different popular (but not entirely correct) answers that everyone has been parroting:
- “Power density is greater on Ivy Bridge than Sandy Bridge”
- “Intel has problems with tri-gate/22nm”
The first answer is correct, but wrong at the same time – power density is greater, but it isn’t what is causing temperatures to be as much as 20 °C higher on Ivy Bridge compared to Sandy Bridge when overclocked. The second answer is jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. If you aren’t in the loop, there’s evidence of a considerable temperature difference nearly everywhere you look – we confirmed it by mirroring settings in our Ivy Bridge review, and we have read similar reports in solid testing at Anandtech as well as from other sites.
So why is Ivy Bridge hot?
Intel is using TIM paste between the Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS) and the CPU die on Ivy Bridge chips, instead of fluxless solder.
Ivy Bridge Delidded, showing traditional TIM (Image courtesy of pt1t.eu)
How does TIM paste generally compare with fluxless solder for conducting heat? Heat conductivity can be measured in watts per meter Kelvin. To be technically exact, we would need to know exactly what Intel is using for TIM paste/solder. When I went to Intel and asked, their polite answer may not surprise you – “Secret sauce”! Â Given that, we can use some rough approximations. A solder attach could have a heat conductivity in the range of 80 W/mK. A TIM paste could have a heat conductivity in the range of 5 W/mK. That’s your problem right there! Note that these values are not exact, as we don’t know the exact heat conductivity of Intel’s “Secret sauce”. However, these are values representative of solder or TIM paste, and there is a giant gap between how TIM paste and solder perform in regards to conducting heat. They are in different leagues.
Demonstrating the Problem
Most importantly here, if Intel is using TIM paste between the IHS and CPU die, the IHS effectively becomes a heat barrier rather than a heat spreader. Here is a rough diagram of the current heat transfer on Ivy Bridge:
- CPU Die -> 5 W/mKÂ Â TIM -> IHS -> 5 W/mK Â TIM -> Heatsink
It would be far more beneficial for temperatures to take a more direct route such as:
- CPU Die -> 5 W/mK TIM -> Heatsink
Extra heat interfaces are a bad thing, especially when they have relatively low thermal conductivity. On a fundamental level, it doesn’t make much sense to do things this way from the perspective of optimal cooling. However, it could make sense from a die-protection standpoint.
In contrast, a fluxless solder attach like that described in Intel patents was invented for the specific purpose of quickly and effectively radiating heat away from the CPU die. In this situation with a solder that can conduct heat in the range of 80 W/mK and in light of tighter and tighter power densities as Intel continues to shrink its processor die, you can start to  see on a fundamental level how quickly getting the heat from a very small area to a slightly larger area may be helped by the design of a soldered IHS. This still leaves the problem of a 5 W/mK TIM paste interface between IHS and heatsink, but before you get there you have a high conductivity solder attach between die and IHS that radiates the die heat to a larger area.
Ivy Bridge Power Density
Power density likely became a popular answer because Intel has referenced the challenges it presents with process shrinks, and it just makes sense on basic level. Very hot die, smaller area to conduct heat away from. Blaming power density for the heat issues is easy! However, Ivy Bridge has approximately 75% the die size of Sandy Bridge, which is a big difference certainly, but not enough to explain the stark contrast in temperatures obtained by our peers across review sites and the forums. Where Sandy Bridge would often be around the 60 °C range at a 4.5 GHz overclock, Ivy Bridge has been tested to be in the 80-90 °C range.  How can we blame power density for a difference that large? That dog just doesn’t hunt!
In light of this contrast, we can gain further insight as well from what history has taught us. If you’ve been paying attention, we saw similar issues between the E6XXX and E4XXX processor lines. The E6XXX used a solder attach under the IHS and were far easier to keep cool. The E4XXX used a TIM paste under the IHS and ran hot! Those aren’t the only examples, and I’m certain enthusiasts in the community with better memories than myself can lend further supporting evidence from our past experience. Given hindsight, it is hard to explain why Intel would make a return to TIM paste for Ivy Bridge.
Bottom Line
So based on what evidence we could find from our own investigation, as well as what experience has taught us, Ivy Bridge is running hot when overclocked because of TIM paste between the IHS compared to solder attach used on Sandy Bridge. Why Intel made this choice we aren’t yet sure. We also aren’t sure if they will continue using TIM paste on the Ivy Bridge line, or if this will only be seen on the Engineering Samples like the units sent out for review. Â However, we’ve put word out again to Intel and are waiting to hear back if they have any further insight or comment to offer. If nothing else, we can hope their reply will again be in good humor… “Secret Sauce” did give us a laugh!
- I.M.O.G.
Tags: IHS, intel, Ivy-Bridge, power density, solder
04-25-12 08:28 PM
04-25-12 08:34 PM
04-25-12 08:36 PM
04-25-12 08:43 PM
Great and informative article IMOG!!
04-25-12 08:45 PM
As for crushing the die, I probably won't be delidding myself - my chip will only see LN2 usage, and with remounting the F1EE on a weekly basis, I'd be bound to crack or crush the die before long. In that case, I'll take the IHS for protection alone - the LN2 will do its job well enough. A lot easier to hurt a chip without the IHS on.
04-25-12 08:53 PM
04-25-12 08:53 PM
one question I would have is if sandy bridge has been confirmed to have fluxless solder and not a similar paste. I would guess it is the solder method, as it would explain the huge discrepancy on temps between 2 fairly similar cpu's. I just would love to see a delidded sandy bridge cpu as well.
04-25-12 08:54 PM
The whole direct die cooling era was before my time
04-25-12 08:55 PM
04-25-12 09:01 PM
With waterblocks designed to cool a die without an IHS, microchannels and impingement (don't hear that too often anymore!) were major design features. Impingement over the central area of the die was important in that it greatly increased the interaction between the water and surface area directly above the die. There was more focus on cooling that small area primarily, than the current focus on cooling the larger IHS area.
There are other old timers who are much more well versed than myself within our community who could speak in more detail and with more knowledge. Nikhsub knows, cathar knows, billa knows... Others too, but those are the guys off the top of my head. rge is still very active around here and he could probably explain in more detail than me as well.
04-25-12 09:32 PM
This analogy has no facts to prove this theory either a test of removing IHS and have direct contact needs to be done to confirm.
If this theory was true then water cooling would not help. The heat would build up and not make high enough dissipation for water cooling to be affective.
A heat barrier is like not locking down your heat sink then the temp is high and nothing will cool it.
04-25-12 09:39 PM
04-25-12 09:48 PM
http://forums.vr-zone.com/the-overcl...ml#post9743547
04-25-12 09:50 PM
Hopefully the TIM is only on the review samples.
04-25-12 09:59 PM
04-25-12 10:06 PM
04-25-12 10:31 PM
rather dissapointing that Intel would back off a few nickels savings for the heat terror that those jumping to ivy will be faced with. rather sad day for me. think I will wait it out and see if they change thier minds on a new stepping.
Hoping this thread exposes their choice enough to make them rethink the process
04-25-12 10:39 PM
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.
04-25-12 10:52 PM
04-25-12 11:07 PM
04-25-12 11:10 PM
EDIT: Maybe it would help wo have a higher pressure mount on the cooler?
04-25-12 11:21 PM
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
04-25-12 11:31 PM
04-25-12 11:37 PM
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.
04-25-12 11:44 PM
04-25-12 11:54 PM
04-26-12 12:53 AM
04-26-12 12:56 AM
04-26-12 12:57 AM
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.
04-26-12 01:12 AM
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
04-26-12 01:28 AM
its like a step back to my amd days of creditcard spreading.
04-26-12 01:44 AM
04-26-12 01:50 AM
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.
04-26-12 01:58 AM
04-26-12 02:05 AM
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.
04-26-12 02:13 AM
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
04-26-12 02:17 AM
04-26-12 02:22 AM
04-26-12 02:33 AM
04-26-12 02:43 AM
04-26-12 03:01 AM
But regarding wattage earlier post between sandy and ivy, you cant go by total watts dissipated to figure difference in core temps when comparing across a die shrink, even though total heat output the same, what matters is power density, ie power per cm2, and only the area/size where power is actually consumed or heat "originates" matters.
150 watts consumed over a large area, the temperature would not be very hot.
150 watts consumed in a .001 micron area would exceed temp of a nuclear reactor.
See intels slide that everyone uses when explaining power density increase with die shrinks. Same wattage originating from smaller area = higher core temps.
04-26-12 03:22 AM
04-26-12 03:23 AM
So many Sandy bridges can hit 5+ ghz on affordable cooling.
If almost every 22nm IBk model can hit 6ghz + like the sandys hit 5+ghz it would hurt Intels sales of 6 core SB-E platforms and cpus when you could get the same or even better performance with a 6+ghz IVY
I think the new coolermaster 812s heatpipe/vaporchamber heatsink will let that naked IVY hit 6 ghz maybe more since the bus can almost pass 110mhz add ivys improved memory controller and i think 6000mhz on air
All you need to protect the die is maybe the old amd barton style hard rubber bumpers on all 4 corners or even a ATI/AMD GPU trim ring.Those chips are not cracking.One of those ideas,or a better one is all that is needed to keep the coolers/block from tilting and cracking the chip.
You can use a razorblade and a light to make sure the die is flat and does not have any high spots on the corners and edges.If you do find a high corner i am sure you could carefully shave it with a fine razor.I have seen cracked chips still work so i don't think shaving a minute high spot would hurt a thing.
Get that naked IVY chip in a motherboard and post the oc/temp/voltage results please.BTW i salute the person who found that poison under the IHS
04-26-12 03:26 AM
04-26-12 03:44 AM
04-26-12 03:57 AM
I also have confidence that Intel knows what they are doing with TIM. I also have confidence that every solution they choose is a balance between what is technically ideal and what is realistically appropriate. They could give us 6GHz on air processors by the end of the year - they have the resources skills, and ability to execute. I don't doubt at all that it could be possible if they dumped enough money into achieving that goal - but maybe they won't do that because making it a reality is too expensive, difficult, or otherwise bad for business.
If using an inferior TIM is sufficient and cheaper/quicker/easier/etc... Despite knowing a different solution would keep things cooler, I could see how they could make a decision to use an inferior cooling solution that was good enough due to balancing priorities.
The 6GHz thing is only intended to draw out a point. What they could do, what is best, and what they actually do can very realistically be different things. And if they are different, it isn't because they are dumb.
04-26-12 04:03 AM
I do have high hopes, unfortunately i am not wealthy.But if i was you better believe i would be on it like a fly on doo doo.
I think that paste slows heat dissipation a great deal.CPU die to paste of unknown origin and properties to IHS to paste to heatsink.3 layers of stuff before it touches the heatsink.
I just really have a gut feeling intel made a cpu a little faster then they planned on and that secret sauce will remove SB stockpiles quickly,also aiding in SB-E platform sales.
SB-e has a place for super memory intesive stuff workstation quad sli etc.
But with IVYs potential raw cpu power PCIe3.0 I mean who will need 4 video cards when the dual gpu 690s and AMDs 7990 come out.BTW i prefer the new NV cards
I.M.O.G. i know intel is not dumb they are a powerhouse with no competition.So they use tactics to sell older cpus.If that means crippling a super fast cpu just enough to make it slightly faster then its older brother at identical clock speeds but wont break 5ghz without extreme cooling is good for business.They clear inventory etc.
Good luck to the first naked IVY cpu!!!!
04-26-12 04:07 AM
QUOTE: Intel hasn't announced die size but transistor count has increased to approximately 1.4 billion (layout). This is up from 1.16 billion in Sandy Bridge, a 20.7% increase. With perfect scaling a 22nm Sandy Bridge die would be 47.3% the size of a 32nm die. Even with the increase in transistor count, it's a good bet that Ivy Bridge will be noticeably smaller than Sandy Bridge.
A good percent of the transistors go to the GPU and the CPU portion of the chip did not go through much change from SB it is a TIC, however they added greatly to the GPU transistor count in IB. intel wont give out the split in the transistors CPU and GPU.
04-26-12 04:11 AM
I guess this will be proven or disproven as soon as someone removes their IHS and overclocks the chip. I have my $ on a few C less and a few more Mhz same as any other IHS-less chip. Ocers are a curious bunch so we will see this sooner rather than later. It is not gunna be me though lol
04-26-12 04:19 AM
04-26-12 06:43 AM
04-26-12 08:38 AM
I will stick with the 2500k or grab a i7 SNB if I find it cheap, if the temperatures get as high as that just because you decided to save a few bucks using TIM instead of solder.
04-26-12 10:20 AM
Also possible, if intel thought trigate was going to lower voltage, then only later in design realized wasnt the case, perhaps that played a role in die attach choice. Or the fact that at stock setting, non-solder attach works fine with Ivy.
As IMOG pointed out, intel clearly has the ability to design for overclockers, but the future isnt overclocking, it is mobile, less power hungry platforms, and intel isnt designing chips for us few that push way more volts through to overclock, but for the masses.
No one is saying intel doesnt know what they are doing, we are simply acknowledging intels needs and overclockers needs may not always be the same.
04-26-12 10:22 AM
http://www.linguee.fr/francais-angla...E9culaire.html
04-26-12 10:58 AM
thanks again for the info..
04-26-12 11:24 AM
Has anyone read or perhaps suggested it to those lucky ones around the net that have actually gotten their hands on full retail kits?
These chips have been available for a while now in China and a couple of days in Norway, Hollands, Germany etc
04-26-12 11:30 AM
Not sure if a retail one has been delidded.
04-26-12 12:00 PM
04-26-12 12:45 PM
109059
Image courtesy BlindFreddie @ XS.
04-26-12 12:46 PM
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22855
Overclockers.com editorial: Ivy Bridge temperatures—it's gettin' hot in here
04-26-12 01:17 PM
109061
Here's a soldered IHS removal guide.
04-26-12 01:31 PM
04-26-12 01:44 PM
I also feel anger towards Intel.
04-26-12 02:29 PM
04-26-12 02:52 PM
They tested a 3770K (ES version) and a 3550K (retail version) and there was a clear temperature difference between the two.
3770K http://plaza.fi/s/f/editor/attachments/3770k_oc.png
3570K http://plaza.fi/s/f/editor/attachments/3570k_oc.png
They're not the same CPU, so I don't know how comparable these results are, but the retail 3570K ran much cooler than the ES 3770K. They were both air-cooled with a Noctua NH-D14 and both were running at about the same voltage and clocks.
04-26-12 02:53 PM
04-26-12 02:54 PM
Also, I've got tons of experience with delidding and using direct die stuff. I can manage. ^_^
Common sense says they have to fix it though. Think about it, people will just buy 2600k's instead of 3770k's because in the end they're faster. O.o
04-26-12 02:55 PM
04-26-12 03:09 PM
04-26-12 03:16 PM
04-26-12 03:23 PM
04-26-12 03:52 PM
shows the temps of a retail 3770k
"4.5 ghz 1.200 V at load (2nd highest LLC on gigabyte UD5H), ~20C idle, 72/75/76/71
testing now at 4.6 on same volts. 1 hour in and hottest core at 76
@4.8 83C"
Seems like it does use TIM and therefore shammy@asus's suggestion of changing the TIM to something thicker and filing the IHS feet down would help significantly.
04-26-12 03:54 PM
04-26-12 03:55 PM
04-26-12 03:58 PM
04-26-12 04:21 PM
Also the water bock would need to concentrate water differently for a smaller chip.
04-26-12 04:29 PM
Delete now?
04-26-12 04:42 PM
04-26-12 04:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder
04-26-12 04:46 PM
04-26-12 04:51 PM
04-26-12 05:02 PM
04-26-12 05:55 PM
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)
04-26-12 06:08 PM
04-26-12 06:16 PM
04-26-12 06:22 PM
04-26-12 06:31 PM
If Trinity is anything to go by it should be pretty good, certainly a whole lot better than Bulldozer.
04-26-12 06:35 PM
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.
04-26-12 06:36 PM
04-26-12 07:00 PM
Merging this with the existing discussion. Please try to keep it all in one place folks.
04-26-12 07:01 PM
04-26-12 07:05 PM
04-26-12 08:57 PM
04-26-12 09:02 PM
Fast Edit oh and wow we trade 20c at 4.5ghz but intel says OH WAIT guys it can go 5c higher the sandy
04-26-12 10:20 PM
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
04-26-12 11:46 PM
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.
04-27-12 01:42 AM
04-27-12 01:46 AM
04-27-12 02:44 AM
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
04-27-12 03:40 AM
http://download.intel.com/technology...ally_Green.pdf
04-27-12 04:13 AM
04-27-12 05:39 AM
Nice post on the intel link, good reading just for fun.
04-27-12 08:54 AM
04-27-12 10:01 AM
@dtrunk, they test each cpu, and they worked out voids a long time ago. Just posted this to show the thermal conductivity of intels indium solder die attach, 87 w/mk and melting temp 157C.
04-28-12 01:51 AM
04-28-12 01:55 AM
http://www.overclock.net/t/1249419/p...ed-without-ihs
04-28-12 02:11 AM
04-28-12 02:20 AM
I would trust a scenario much more with just having a mounting system that went through the mobo to mount the hsf or waterblock. and at least having a chance to get good pressure on the chip
04-28-12 02:22 AM
So it's back to TRI-gate and power density
04-28-12 02:30 AM
04-28-12 02:39 AM
04-28-12 02:42 AM
04-28-12 02:47 AM
04-28-12 02:49 AM
04-28-12 03:02 AM
04-28-12 03:17 AM
04-28-12 05:22 AM
04-28-12 06:00 PM
04-28-12 08:37 PM
Plus, you can increase the pressure further by putting something inside where the knob screws down.
04-29-12 03:41 AM
04-29-12 04:09 AM
Gulftown (990X) vs. SB-E (3960X) was between 0 and 25% ~ 12.5% average. (Its just in order to compare, not that anyone ever need them for gaming).
SB vs. IB is between 0 and 15% ~ 7.5% average.
So the improvements this time certainly much lower.
I only mean CPU power, the integrated GPU indeed is much stronger but its of no use for high end user unless they use that CPU as a media center PC and plan not to use any dedicated GPU for. Thats indeed the strong spot of IB.
Regarding Overclocking, because Intel is retourning with a technique most recently used on the C2D 4000 series, it can be a pain to OC. I dont know why Intel decided to do so, probably simply wanted to produce cheaper. But im sure Intel will bring out some better IB end of year, so the powerusers can buy a new IB and sell the old one with a lot of money loss. The one truly gaining lot of money is Intel because many fanatics will buy the almost same CPU 2 times in a row, thats how its done it seems. Probably even better to slowly increase turbo clock capabilitys aswell but not this year, so they can buy a third CPU of same architecture.
The valid reason to get IB is to have higher heat capabilitys because of its lesser nm, and thats the stuff every user would expect. But why? Intel dont have to provide that kind of CPU to us right from the start, as long as there is only the slightest improvements, thats all they need. Yes, they say, its hotter than SB using a cool voice ? WHAT? Unbelievable... we have dynamic TDP control and shrinked nm and still hotter? Well... its magics.
04-29-12 04:14 AM
04-29-12 10:59 AM
The Noctua coolers are actually super easy to mod for this, just put a shim exactly the thickness of the IHS directly next to the springs on the screws and you have exactly the same mounting pressure as before with the IHS. Much better than using the Venomous X's adjustable mounting pressure since there you can't be sure that you keep the pressure constant between IHS/No IHS (not that too much pressure would make much of a difference, never did in my tests with a TRUE and shims).
04-29-12 01:39 PM
04-29-12 02:29 PM
**The heat on the 990X under Intel Burn Test load for 15 min, using Real Temp 3.60 GT monitoring tool, ~25° ambient temp, never created results above 80°, combined with a SFF, size of a shoebox.
Finally, even during hardest conditions (small system, huge CPU): Staying below TjMax is not issue, its to stay stable and that matter is increased by keeping the stuff cool (obviously, my system i tested is NOT made for OC). But how is it done by a CPU very hard to cool down? Stuff like that was easy on huge 6 core CPUs of Nehalem type even. I do worry to put an IB into a SFF system because even a 6 core Nehalem (TjMax of 101°) would not be more of a pain when those results are true. Thing is, its harder to transfer the heat from the cores to the end of the heat sink, thus even when a IB may have lesser TDP, its still same amount of heat hurting the cores.
Besides, Indium is expensive (kinda same such as silver), so Intel will always have to pay more using it, thats certain. Its very soft and will be fluid at above 156° (so the CPU can not be destroyed when its done correctly). Although i dont think its good to fill entire gape with (still better than cheap thermal paste). Indium should be used in order to fill surface irregularities while the main material have to be elemental silver under perfect conditions. And the DIE should be united, in order to remove simply have to heat up the united silver DIE to 156° short time to remove from IHS. Certainly difficult, the indium need to be as thin as possible and totaly even and have to be attached while under vacuum (so no air bubbles). But surely the stuff i see on Intel CPUs from people who dismantled theyr CPUs, is making my eyes hurt (looks like childrens work). At least E types should have a special solution (which is absolutly affordable at a price of 1000$ and up). In general its no quality, despite its insance price of E types. Although many E types may have some better solution, guess thats why my 990X seems to perform better (on heat) than most other Nehalems. Intel could do much better but finally, it will cost them up to 100$ each unit (dependable on material) and why to pass on 100$ each unit if they could make millions charging those 100$ without delivering any real value?! No one gonna stop them, US is free country...
04-29-12 03:16 PM
04-29-12 04:34 PM
04-29-12 04:58 PM
04-29-12 05:27 PM
04-29-12 05:35 PM
Well actually, have to be compared with Silver Arrow, which seems like Silver Arrow slightly beat it. But how is Venomous X in comparison? Most important vs. stock cooler.
As far as i can tell: Not truly to impressive because some other people running 95 W TDP SB CPUs and using Venomous X, had about same results, and i mean, its a CPU with higher specified TDP and older architecture. Because the IB is so close in performance (about 7.5% average, i already told), its kinda a mess of a upgrade. The lowest upgrade i have ever seen (taking out the IGP, its no use for high end user, unless they use it for media center).
Seems like Intels main concern was simply to promote theyr IGP and adding a lot of power considering that matter. Pretty much a foul for high end, but thats a market which isnt to be taken to seriously. The mainstream is the money.
04-29-12 06:01 PM
04-30-12 01:15 AM
04-30-12 03:35 AM
04-30-12 03:39 AM
Overall max temps don't matter, it's the temp differences between the different setups: not lapped IHS, lapped IHS, no HIS, TIM change + lapped IHS, etc. So, whether the cooler is the best for the chip or not doesn't matter because we'll be looking at temp differences, not overall max temps.
04-30-12 03:56 PM
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...e_temperatures
04-30-12 05:50 PM
although we weren't the ones that pried open the CPU, always happy to see some extra publicity for the site
04-30-12 08:19 PM
http://fudzilla.com/home/item/26957-...blem-explained
05-01-12 12:47 AM
05-01-12 01:49 AM
05-01-12 01:53 AM
Ugh. This sounds suspiciously like "we're not trying anymore because we don't have to".
This, to me, is the bad side of AMD backing away from the high end CPU space. I understand Intel's point completely from a cost standpoint, but not on a -K SKU CPU. Charge the extra $50 for a soldered -K CPU and give us an unencumbered enthusiast part, because an unlocked multi and a -K in the name does not an enthusiast part make.
05-01-12 01:56 AM
They can't beat Intel at their own game, so try change the game. It's the only approach in which they have a chance of actually beating Intel. They don't have the $ to try anything else.
05-01-12 02:00 AM
05-01-12 02:08 AM
05-01-12 02:13 AM
05-01-12 02:35 AM
So, as long as CPUs run under their TJmax I'm not concerned about them.
05-01-12 02:38 AM
05-01-12 02:39 AM
05-01-12 02:48 AM
05-01-12 02:50 AM
That still won't matter if the chip reaches its TJmax since the heat has a harder time escaping from the die due to a less than top notch TIM job or solder.back in my hole I go
05-01-12 02:53 AM
05-01-12 02:53 AM
Ten years or so from now us gamers and enthusiasts are going to be the only people that even own desktops in the form factor we recognize today. The mainstream will use mobile devices and HTPC style all-in-ones with something like an APU in them.
05-01-12 02:58 AM
05-01-12 02:58 AM
http://www.overclock.net/t/1249419/p...ed-without-ihs
05-01-12 03:00 AM
The heat output will be less like Janus said since the chip uses less power. the point I was making was about the temps being higher due to the heat that is being produced not being able to get away from the core thus raise core temps.
05-01-12 03:01 AM
05-01-12 03:07 AM
05-01-12 03:12 AM
When you start increasing volts, you won't be able to determine whether heat or voltage kills the CPU. If heat remains under TJmax while increasing voltage, then since the CPU is operating under max rated temp, voltage or defective chip are the only things left to have killed the CPU. For 24/7 use, I always keep my voltage at or below Intel listed maximum in their datasheets, so I'm always within spec on temps and voltage.
05-01-12 03:15 AM
05-01-12 03:21 AM
I'm just saying that higher temperature doesn't necessarily mean more heat.
05-01-12 03:31 AM
05-01-12 03:32 AM
05-01-12 03:34 AM
05-01-12 03:35 AM
05-01-12 03:35 AM
05-01-12 03:37 AM
05-01-12 03:38 AM
05-01-12 03:43 AM
05-01-12 03:48 AM
05-01-12 03:51 AM
Typically, as energy increases, molecular motion increases. However, the rate at which increasing energy increases molecular motion will determine how high temps will get and how fast they will get there.
Here are four theoretical situations:
- High wattage and slow molecular motion = high heat and low temps
- High wattage and fast molecular motion = high heat and high temps
- Low wattage and fast molecular motion = low heat and high temps
- Low wattage and slow molecular motion = low heat and low temps
I believe Ivy falls into the third situation.Indigo could be very difficult to impossible to apply to a bare die since the applications are sold in sizes to match specific CPU sizes, and they need to be applied a certain way or it screws it up. I haven't personally dealt with it because of those issues, but maybe someone with experience can chime in
05-01-12 03:54 AM
05-01-12 04:09 AM
05-01-12 04:12 AM
05-01-12 04:14 AM
05-01-12 04:25 AM
TIM keeps temps under TJmax and is cheap.
So both work perfectly fine for the CPU, which means they will go the cheaper route.
It would be fun trying to come up with a way to get Indigo installed on a bare die. It's just a little expensive for trial and error though...lol.
05-01-12 05:38 AM
What seems to be the average oc range of IB and temps? I was thinking of going with a 2600/2700k and hoping for 4.8ghz, currently I have a 2500k at 4.8ghz 1.408v. BUT since temps dont seem sooooo (not great but anyways) bad with ivy I would really want at least a 4.6ghz If I switch, just curious if most of you guys are getting stable there and what the temps are. Current cooling setup keeps my 2500k @ 1.408v prime stable at 69C with ambient around 74F right now.
05-01-12 12:13 PM
05-01-12 12:31 PM
05-01-12 01:39 PM
05-01-12 03:45 PM
This time around, it looks like Intel stuck it to ambient overclocking by using a less less efficient process to connect the IHS to the core. But using TIM instead of solder won't hold back max overclocks from the benchmarking crowd since they deal with cooling systems that can beat the inefficiencies of the TIM, so Intel can still proudly crow about how bad-ass their new lineup is with the marketing flacks.
I can't wait to get my new IB procs myself just to see how much of a step backwards IB will be as compared to SB. I.M.O.G. was supposed to pick me up a 3770k at MC Sunday and I ordered a 3570K from TD. Since I have their SB counterparts, it shouldn't be too hard to do some comparisons on cooling at various overclocks.
05-01-12 04:06 PM
109333
109334
05-01-12 05:52 PM
05-01-12 07:37 PM
Half because indeed we are used to much lower temps. When i tell a enthusiast that im fine when my CPU is running at 70°, many of those are telling me "what... omg what a bloody heat, i run my stuff max 60°", im worried that your CPU goes boom". Then i simply can answer "what a overly paranoid sense"... up to 70-80° is still pretty safe and when it goes far to high, a CPU will protect itself.
However, its not fully true when it comes to the matter of "that the CPU does not care". Because when its running permannently very high the lifespan is decreased and the stability can get a bad impact aswell. So its possible for it to cause some negative effects. However, a CPU wont get burned down by it... all of a sudden. They have a protection mechanism for, so, being overly paranoid is simply wrong.
CPUs in my history are pretty endurable stuff. I never had any CPU ever burned down in my whole life. Its always stuff and junk such as HDD or SSD or motherboard or capacitors, but NOT the CPU. Thats why i sometimes are even willing to "invest" 1000$ for a CPU because... it does serve me well for a eternity, thats almost foolproof.
05-01-12 09:04 PM
Most GPU's I have owned have operated in the 80-90C range as well.. Those didn't worry me either. I don't see why a CPU running at ~90C during stress test worries anyone..
05-01-12 11:04 PM
So finally, its good to have a cool running system but it doesnt hurt the CPU to run a bit hotter than usual, thats indeed true.
Although, i still enjoy to stay 20 C below TjMAX (at 101 C max it means not to exceed 81 C) during stresstest. So that means in term of IB 85 C is fine for me. However, using SFF and IB, this time i may have to come closer to the TjMax... which isnt the stuff im used to it, but it should work still fine.
Reaching TjMax, which was until now extremely hard (even on SFF), is not causing destruction, but it would hurt the performance, so its surely very important to clearly stay below it. 90 C is already a bit at the upper edge because 15 C away from TJMax and as soon as the CPU gets older (electro migration) and the fan gets weaker (some dust) the temperature can go up a fair deal. So thats the main reason to clearly stay below TjMax. I may however correct the distance to 15 C this time, which is unfortunately closer than i wish it to be.
05-01-12 11:20 PM
05-01-12 11:29 PM
Still weird that IB cant have lesser temp because 22 nm is not the entire issue, nope. There is some other problems such as TIM and maybe a IGP which tends to add additional heat. In that term, a IGP free CPU of IB could be the freezer...
I still wish to know how is the share of transistor count between CPU and IGP. I do believe, because the CPU power barely increased at all, the real transistor count for the CPU is probably equal to the one a SB got. That means, they pumped all the headroom of the 22 nm manufacturing into the IGP. I dunno what to say in term its true. But finally, they dont have to worry, no one gonna beat theyr CPU. All they had to execute is to upgrade theyr IGP, so, lesser customers of "super low end GPUs". Of course Nvidia and AMD should be mad at them (because of the fact that the HD 4000 can compare with some of the very low end GPUs) but thats how the cookie crumbles. Intel can pretty much wipe out the low end GPU market and the CPU market will be dominated aswell.
In future, as long as the CPU (power) demand keeps that criticaly low as its used to be, i could guess that Intel is just slowly increasing the IGP over and over and over, while the CPU power will barely change. Why they should? AMD cant compare, nor anyone else. So they try to set the value at some other spots.
The final question is, if the entire matter is good or bad for IT environment? Well, the efficiency can be increased but the CPU power will be delayed, and many users may have a IGP constantly leeching around, without the need for it. A 100% DISABLE mode is critical. Im not sure about because the heat still stays same when its disabled, according to some rumours, which is amost impossible. All those disabled transistors should cool down the CPU, just by common sense. Intel should give the power users a FAIR PRICED alternate CPU WITHOUT IGP but some increased CPU power. Obviously not gonna happen unless we buy a 6 core CPU with twice the price and half the application support (which is in many terms ineffective and therefore to pricy).
So, does a CPU have FPU? Yes, indeed, but its soon mainly located at the IGP, instead it could be located at the CPU itself. Obviously, the only users who do care are enthusiasts, and are probably blind fated because CPU is still better than anything they ever saw. But how good could it truly be when all ressources only focused on CPU? Good question. Intel and Nvidia, both share something in common: They both are delaying theyr own progress for the sake of secondary possibilitys and marketing related strategys.
And AMD? Well AMD, is kinda reaching out for special solutions in some way. They try to please Apple (which is of course a very powerful deal) and are increasing GPGPU power (GCN architecture, 1D shaders), which comes at the cost of gaming-power to a certain extend. And they try to create server CPUs which are somewhat inferior for desktop (to much cores, most mainstream applications doesnt like it, but server does) but much better for server. On top of that the market of many mini system solutions, including console market, which can be totaly dominated by AMD next year.
05-02-12 12:19 AM
Intel tried to buy out nVidia a while ago however nVidia's wonderful leader decided to try block the deal and succeeded.
AMD's current solutions are stepping stones to where they need to be, the current FX's laid the basics to build upon. PD will improve that slightly but the really interesting stuff looks to be coming in 2013-2014. Interesting times ahead.
05-02-12 12:25 AM
05-02-12 12:30 AM
IB seems to be the way to go for my next build, thanks to OCF mainly, as there are so many things going on with IB + heat, mobos, ram, sata 3, usb 3, cooling options. Man, there is sure a lot to take in. But Intel is going to introduce some higher clocked IB's in the third quarter which is just around the corner. No way to know today if they have any intentions on soldering the next issue of chips or stick with TIM. Buy now? Hold off ?
Gotta believe that perhaps some solder creators are working their mojo to turn in a solution whether Intel has requested them to or not. Would make a great sales pitch if the current solders don't offer a solution, if that is even the problem. And howzabout the cooling solutionists ? (is that even a word ?) Mo better heat sinks, water blocks, rads?
Anybody got a crystal ball? What's the word on the street?
05-02-12 12:30 AM
05-02-12 12:40 AM
05-02-12 12:42 AM
I hope Intel succeeds in buying out nVidia sometime down the track otherwise if AMD succeeds Intels going to be left behind. I don't care which company it is that's on top, we just need to have competition to bring down pricing and drive performance up.
Besides, it's not like AMD is EVER going to beat Intel on pure x86 performance.
05-02-12 02:01 AM
Then I saw the post talking about impingement and had flashbacks to my research in buying my storm g4 block. Good times.
05-03-12 01:08 AM
Details here -> Protecting IHS-less Core !
05-03-12 02:04 AM
05-03-12 04:15 AM
http://www.sidewindercomputers.com/colipro1.html
This would be rather nice to see tested... The Coollaboratory Liquid products can be a bit of a PITA to use, but for bare dies like GPU's and such with copper heatsink (bases) I've had really good luck with them.
05-03-12 04:40 AM
I would like to establish how hot a tri-gate chip is with a soldered IHS.
If a soldered IHS doesn't make Ivy Bridge significantly cooler I'm less inclined to wait for Haswell for the reason that it might reintroduce the soldered IHS.
05-03-12 05:57 AM
05-03-12 04:25 PM
05-03-12 04:31 PM
05-03-12 04:31 PM
As always, the cooler the better.
05-03-12 04:32 PM
Definitely not the desired result.
05-03-12 04:40 PM
05-03-12 04:41 PM
05-03-12 06:58 PM
05-04-12 04:18 AM
Consider that you mount a new heatsink. You tighten it up well.
Unless the TIM is of a different design than anything else I have seen, you will potentially squeeze it a bit (I mean, you actually want to do so I think) and some of it will have to go out to the side.
Remove the heatsink and the pressure, and I would guess the IHS "bounces back" giving you air pockets between the IHS and the TIM/cpu die.
I this could get even worse I guess if you just squeeze hard on the middle of the IHS with your finger and the heatsink would always eventually stop against the side walls of the IHS (depending of course on exactly how tall these are vs. the die, I am sure it is practically the same, but is it accurate enough?).
This would eventually leave it to the TIM you put on top of the IHS to make sure the IHS gets "pushed down enough" to remove any air pockets (potentially benefitting the use of rather thick TIM like arctic silver or ceramique?) if that is even possible on a second mount.
Could it be that the second mount of a heatsink will never ever get the same quality in heat transfer as the first? Just like reusing the TIM on a heatsink multiple times?
Yes, I realize the IHS most likely is is pretty stiff as well (I have not seen the IB one, but older IHS's I have played with was not easily bendable), but I assume there is some microscopic bending of it when you tighten a heatsink well on top of it so the center part will get squeezed down a bit.
05-04-12 04:29 AM
05-04-12 11:19 AM
Unless someone here has concrete evidence that high temps causes CPU degradation to many people? The only chips I have seen destroyed are ones with the safeguards/throttling turned off and chips pushed WAY beyond their engineered realm of operation.
A barrier I would see is if you set it to 104C, and then your ambient temps increase on certain days. So you'd want your max ambient delta to be considered. So something around 90C, expecting a ~+10 fudge factor on your ambient.
Another situation is cooling degradation. If your PC collects dust, with time you might gain some temps, so keep an eye on temps and dust PC often
05-04-12 11:42 AM
05-04-12 12:07 PM
05-04-12 12:34 PM
I wouldnt be too worried about degredation with the warm temps personally. But with stability... the cooler the better.
http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=45302
05-04-12 07:51 PM
05-04-12 08:06 PM
05-04-12 08:10 PM
05-04-12 08:13 PM
05-04-12 08:32 PM
05-04-12 09:22 PM
05-05-12 01:21 AM
Lower temps allow electrons to flow more freely and thus electromigration is lower for a given load. But under extreme low temps we push extreme loads (more voltage and current). Push too far and some of those traces pop like fuses at any temp.
05-05-12 03:01 AM
05-05-12 04:58 AM
If you operate the processor within its design parameters, it should last at least its rated lifetime. Operating outside accelerates the degredation, but if you keep your processor cool and don't apply too high a voltage, it will still last long enough. Electromigration depends more strongly on temperature, than voltage,
The 105C is the temperature above which the processor can be permanently damaged, immediately.
05-07-12 07:41 AM
I don't know how effective oil is compared to air/water, I just know it is a viable alternative.
If they were to do that, the next step would be to compare a 2700k with it(or w/.e the equiv is) to see how the "pressureless" method works.
Circulation would be key...chilling would be a bonus.
05-07-12 10:34 AM
05-07-12 05:31 PM
In oil cooled setups you still need a massive metal HS to spread the heat out from the chip effectively. Die to oil will still have the heat very concentrated at the die. Oil is far less effective than metal at wicking concentrated heat away from the die.
The only way I see too address this issue is to solder a HS or water block directly to the die.
05-11-12 12:30 PM
Their results (image courtesy Impress PC Watch):
109791
VR-Zone can have the last word (though I think their last sentence is a stretch).
05-11-12 07:17 PM
05-11-12 11:30 PM
05-12-12 12:01 AM
If someone can check this sooner than me (My IB is busy working on some reviews) please do.
What I want to do is find a ratio of internal measurement to MB temp on both. If the external temps are similar but the ratios are way off then it could be due to design and location.
05-12-12 01:27 PM
05-12-12 02:15 PM
05-12-12 02:55 PM
05-12-12 03:00 PM
05-12-12 03:29 PM
05-12-12 03:33 PM
05-12-12 04:29 PM
05-12-12 04:34 PM
05-12-12 04:58 PM
Plus, they OC just fine. Intel doesn't care how far they OC, they just want the extra $XX for the ability to OC at all.
I think what everybody is forgetting is that Intel exists for the benefit of Intel. Not us. Not the end user. Intel will do what is best for Intel.
Given that AMD cannot compete, or even come close, to Intel in any way right now there is absolutely no reason for Intel to spend more money on soldering the chips or using a better TIM.
Leave aside the fact that you want them to, and ask yourself "why would they?".
05-12-12 05:02 PM
05-12-12 05:31 PM
They might cost more, but a soldered cpu would sell one or two chips, I think.
05-12-12 05:37 PM
As bob have said intel exist for intel, they are a corporate company and they dont care about us. Simple fact. They only reason they have up until now is because they had competition ( kinda) so had to listen to the consumer. Now they are so far ahead they can cut corners like this and it wont make the slightest bit off difference. Either we are going to buy IB or SB for the price, no1 would seriously considering AMD at this point.
Its win win for them and they are counting the cash......
05-12-12 05:44 PM
05-12-12 06:30 PM
i have a feeling in 6 months intel will release the ivybridge -e's which will be no more than a soldered ivy for the 2011 platform.
05-12-12 06:35 PM
05-12-12 06:41 PM
i think that is the general consensus of everyone here.
05-12-12 07:48 PM
But maybe intel did this for a reason (besides profit), like maybe the new chips had too high a failure rate after the solder process?
05-12-12 08:36 PM
It's us misusing it that causes higher temps, and even then it's fine really.
If it tended to explode and injure people best practices would be rather important. I doubt your company spends an extra 10% to allow 0.1% to push things a little further beyond the warranty.
05-12-12 08:53 PM
And the majority of the people having problems are the average wc/aircooled people.
and out of the people that buy K specific chips id say they are 90% or so of the K sales
05-12-12 09:18 PM
At the same time its a K CPU specificly for the unlocked multi. It would look better to its target market if temps were better when raising multi and vcore.
I would think Intel would prefer everyone talking about how good the performance is, not "the performance is pretty good against sandy but temps can be trouble". In that sense, I think they made an unintended mistake.
05-12-12 09:39 PM
+1 the k is number 1 in sales for retail CPU
05-12-12 09:46 PM
05-12-12 10:07 PM
As to our company: we actually have lost some substantial market share to cheaper products that should be made to the same specs but definitely aren't. A recent sample of a "competitor's" product failed during testing; in the product it was employed within damage, injury and death were a distinct possibility. Our product costs 20% more, not 10% more. So, yeah, considering the tens of millions of dollars involved in market share, to say nothing of the millions in liability, we are taking some hits but sleep well at night.
05-12-12 11:03 PM
They have no reason to improve there products, so why bother? especially if they can make more money by cutting a few corners.
[Smaller DIE + cheaper TIM = more profit]
They have shareholders which they have to pay big dividend and bonuses
05-14-12 02:25 AM
05-14-12 04:57 AM
05-14-12 05:05 AM
05-14-12 05:08 AM
05-14-12 07:26 AM
Additionally, as per the cold comment, i've seen fairly high CBB and CB, but it does seem to scale well.
05-14-12 11:05 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/i...thermal-paste/
05-14-12 11:06 AM
Honestly I feel that a few hundred MHz is worth the sacrifice for the technology.
At the moment I am messing with the voltages to see where I can cut some heat.
I can not say I am impressed with the clock-ability/heat of the CPU but I also can not say I am unsatisfied with the package as a whole.
05-14-12 03:45 PM
Thanks, they fixed that for us.
05-14-12 05:23 PM
05-14-12 05:38 PM
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...atures#slide-3
05-14-12 05:43 PM
05-14-12 05:44 PM
EDIT: Well, its nice to see some actual testing done on it!
05-14-12 07:34 PM
Still I am going to test it against my SB setup @ 4.5 just to see how well the faster memory and CPU do at a clock deficiency of 100.
05-14-12 11:29 PM
http://www.extremetech.com/computing...f-overclocking
Right, wrong or otherwise, it gives one something to ponder and discuss.
05-14-12 11:39 PM
05-15-12 09:26 AM
05-15-12 09:29 AM
05-15-12 11:20 AM
The IB platform at stock is better, as a whole, than the SB is when overclocked.
05-15-12 11:32 AM
05-15-12 11:50 AM
I look at much more than just the CPU benches. I look at the big picture and unfortunately MB manufacturers have not taken full advantage of what the IB CPU has to offer. Some of those 3.0 lanes could be used to boost the poor DMI that is quickly becoming a bottle neck.
We know that the 2.0 spec was plenty for video cards and 1.0 still does fine but the poor south bridge has been neglected. With SSDs and other fast bandwidth hogging devices out there some of those lanes need to be devoted to the south bridge.
05-15-12 12:09 PM
Differences between (Intel) Northwood and Prescott Cores When Intel went from 130nm process to 90nm process the Prescott slurped enough power to destroy capacitors and power supplies on the fleet of Dell desktops I managed at the time. Dell configured the systems for Northwood power needs and then dropped Prescotts in that over whelmed their design. MB manufacturers should have learned but it'd be wise to check all the power capabilities and have someone do an actual measurement of Ivy Bridge power draw compared to Sandy Bridge and see if the published specs are real THIS TIME.
05-15-12 12:19 PM
05-15-12 12:39 PM
05-15-12 12:44 PM
05-15-12 12:50 PM
What we all need is supper conductor based transistors, IBM are making good progress on that front.
05-15-12 12:56 PM
05-15-12 01:01 PM
The chip itself isn't producing more heat. It's showing higher temperatures. This is partially because Intel cheaped out and used thermal paste instead of fluxless solder. If they stuck with solder, the temperatures would be much closer to what you see with SNB. They might be a little bit higher because of the process shrink, but in large part it's due to the CPU-to-IHS interface.
You're confusing high temperatures with more heat production. The two are not as related as you think in this case. Ivy runs really hot temperature wise, but it doesn't spew a bunch of heat out of my radiator. Certainly not what you'd think a CPU running at 70°C+ would put out. Alternatively, when I run SNB-E loaded at 50°C, its radiator puts out plenty of heat. Not so with a 70°C+ IVB.
05-15-12 01:06 PM
My CPU has a 125w TDP, i can assure you its using more then that right now.
77w TDP- Ivy vs 95w TDP Sandy, yet its power draw is only 5w less on Ivy
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,3181-23.html
The TDP does not dictate the final power draw, even at factory clocks, I feel increasingly the TDP number is used more as a marketing ploy.
05-15-12 01:06 PM
You have two pieces of metal. The first is a 1/2" steel plate that weighs 400 pounds and the other is a thin 16GA 4" x 4" square that weighs one ounce. Now the square is 1000º and the plate is 200º. The square is hotter and the plate contains more heat energy.
05-15-12 01:08 PM
05-15-12 01:09 PM
05-15-12 01:12 PM
05-15-12 01:15 PM
05-15-12 01:17 PM
I think this was addressed earlier in this thread. I'll do my best to recount it: The temperature is higher, but it is not necessarily a function of "wasting" more energy. As I understand it, it isn't generating more "heat"; that temperature increase is due to the fact that the "heat" generated cannot escape the core fast enough to allow the core to maintain a lower temperature.
I put heat in quotes because there is a difference between heat and temperature that is explained quite well, again, earlier in this thread.
The way I picture what is happening: the "heat" in the core is like water filling a container. The heatsink is like the opening in the container letting water out. The Sandy Bridge opening to let the water out is bigger than the one in Ivy Bridge. So, the Ivy Bridge water container is more "full" than the Sandy Bridge container. Neither of them overflows but the Ivy Bridge is designed to run a little more full so Intel says it's ok.
05-15-12 01:24 PM
As far as heat creation that is another ball of fur Frakk and I would tell you to pick up a copy of Giecks. You need more than just applied physics you need to understand material properties and.... Engineering.
05-15-12 01:33 PM
His overclock was modest, so not as high dissipated power as some others, but for OC settings he got:
5C better temps after changing out intels tim
15.7C better temps by running bare die
05-15-12 01:36 PM
05-15-12 01:42 PM
CoreTemp will never see my rig again as they use Qinstaller, which tries to force install adware junk.
Its not just that i don't want ad aware on my rig, i don't trust it,- again not just because its listed on virus report sites, but also because of the forceful nature in which it installs that stuff, even if you unchecked the first round of adware the second round gives you an option to cancel as its installing, even if you are fast enough to hit cancel it installs it all anyway..... not having it.
Anyway, CPU-Z reads 126w TDP, HWMonitor reads 134w Package, can't give you any more then that
05-15-12 01:44 PM
05-15-12 01:49 PM
I'm involved with software myself, i know how much work is involved and with that i have been known to use the Donate button on freeware sites, as do a lot of others.
[Edit] i'm to intrigued to know where this is going... so its 124.4w
05-15-12 02:05 PM
What I am getting at is if your CPU is reading through your software that it is at 136 TDP it means absolutely nothing. A HSF can dissipate X heat and the CPU uses V x A watts which generates some heat. This heat is not a direct result of V x A. You must consider material properties at an atomic scale, the resistance at temperature and thermal conductivity of all elements involved in the process.
I, for one, dot not have time, patience or the exact design details necessary to work this out nor do I care to.
Just know what TDP is and then separate it from all assumptions because it is really irrelevant unless you are running @ stock.
05-15-12 02:10 PM
05-15-12 02:12 PM
05-15-12 02:14 PM
05-15-12 02:19 PM
I have to say there is no hiding the fact that BD is just no where, my x6 monsters it and that is based on an ancient K8.
PD needs to better my x6 or Intel gets my money when that time comes again. But honestly, from what data is out there, i prefer SB.
05-15-12 02:26 PM
05-15-12 02:39 PM
05-15-12 02:43 PM
How fast will it go? (compared to the competition {SB and even AMD})
and
How much will it cost? (Thanks for the kill a watt info - real costs)
I was hoping for cooler cores and higher clocks and lower electric usage. This just reminded me to much of the Prescott.
It makes sense from a marketing perspective to use TIM instead of solder. These Ivy's are cheaper to make and in higher demand than Sandy, so why enable huge overclocks right from the start when you can add a bump later by simply changing to solder. It's not like they're under pressure from AMD...
Thanks again - talk to you again in a couple more years...
05-15-12 02:53 PM
No no no... lol, even at stock its probably using about 160w of power, i don't know what it actually is, i could Google i guess, but i'm pretty sure its around there.
I will try to put it another way, the 1075t / 1090t / 1100t - FX-8120 / FX-8150 all have a 125w TDP, those Thuban and BD's are all identical CPU's, they simply have different (stock) clock settings (as set by AMD in the factory) the lower clocked ones draw less power than the higher clocked ones, again with identical TDP numbers stamped on the box.
TDP is simply a base number, the actual power draw depends on what variant of the CPU you have, in the same way my 1090t will draw the same power as a 1100t if i clock it to the same clocks (3.3Ghz)
Add to that the stock LLC causes the vCore to fluctuate all over the place...
Its a bit like "this is a 125w CPU,- BUT.....Not really!
Any CPU can have this and that writen here and there, doesent mean thats what its pulling out of your PSU.
That's what i'm driving at.
05-15-12 02:59 PM
Let me clarify as to not sound stoopid!
"TDP is simply a base number, the actual power draw depends on what variant of the CPU you have"
It is not a number pulled out of the etherial plane though. I will make another post.
05-15-12 03:01 PM
TDP is the absolute most that any CPU with that model number will draw given absolute worst case scenario for loading at stock settings.
Unless your CPU is the worst leaking X CPU ever, it may well not hit TDP stock.
A 3.3GHz 125W CPU OC'd to the same settings as a 3.4GHz 125W CPU may well use more than 125W of power, because it was binned for 125W at 3.3GHz. It also may well use less if it was a low leakage special to begin with.
What the TDP says is that at stock clocks the CPU will not draw more than that. Doesn't mean it will draw that.
Any OCing and the TDP has just become completely irrelevant as you don't know what the actual base wattage was, and without that you can't calculate the new wattage.
05-15-12 03:04 PM
05-15-12 03:05 PM
The 3770k I have at 3.7Ghz stock volts pulls 138W peak while 100% load folding. I idle on that PC around 85W or so, thats with a pump and 4 fans mobo/ram.
05-15-12 03:21 PM
I remember when i first arrived here, you said my CPU was leaky and you would love to get your hands on it to freeze it in your house of CPU horrors.
I'm still trying to determine if it is as you said.
One thing i do know is it runs among the coolest of the Thuban line overclocked at nice low volts (completley stable) check link in sig.
That doesn't look like a leaky CPU to me, unless i'm missing something? it seems among the best Thubans there are.
Do tell
@ ED, have been intent on getting one to satisfy my own curiosity. i just keep forgetting
05-15-12 03:28 PM
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc...ower-paper.pdf
Like I said TDP is not what people think.
05-15-12 03:46 PM
I think AMDs still is.
05-15-12 03:49 PM
05-15-12 03:56 PM
05-15-12 04:15 PM
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/6...um-of-77w.html
05-15-12 04:35 PM
AMD typically contrasts this approach by continuing to offer more freedom for their partners, and I'm not sure if they do this as a competitive advantage, or if its a necessity in order to get partners to play ball with them.
05-16-12 03:28 AM
TDP doesnt necessarely mean "power consume", nor does it mean "heat dissipated", its a matter more complicated than that, so i do understand when the stuff is rather a nuissance to Intel. I however do not support bad thermal solutions (in term soldering is better deal, why not doing so?), thats the only stuff i "throw" negatively at Intel, but not the matter about TDP values.
05-16-12 03:40 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power
Thermal design power From Wikipedia,
The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, refers to the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate. For example, a laptop's CPU cooling system may be designed for a 20 watt TDP, which means that it can dissipate up to 20 watts of heat without exceeding the maximum junction temperature for the computer chip. It can do this using an active cooling method such as a fan or any of the three passive cooling methods, convection, thermal radiation or conduction. Typically, a combination of methods are used. The TDP is typically not the most power the chip could ever draw, such as by a power virus, but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running "real applications". This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power).
In some cases the TDP has been under-estimated such that in real applications (typically strenuous, such as video encoding or games) the CPU has exceeded the TDP. In this case, the CPU will either cause a system failure (a "therm-trip") or throttle its speed down.[1] Most modern CPUs will only cause a therm-trip on a catastrophic cooling failure such as a stuck fan or a loose heatsink.
Since safety margins and the definition of what constitutes a real application vary among manufacturers, TDP values between different manufacturers cannot be accurately compared. While a processor with a TDP of 100 W will almost certainly use more power at full load than a processor with a 10 W TDP, it may or may not use more power than a processor from a different manufacturer that has a 90 W TDP. Additionally, TDPs are often specified for families of processors, with the low-end models usually using significantly less power than those at the high end of the family.
The power consumed by a CPU is approximately proportional to the square of the voltage according to Ohm's law:[2]
(where C is capacitance, f is frequency and V is voltage).
[edit] See also
05-16-12 04:19 AM
Lower TDP = lower power draw.
05-22-12 10:37 PM
http://foro.noticias3d.com/vbulletin...d.php?t=391334
So we have seen several delided Ivy's that got 5-10+C better temps by changing out intels stock tim and replacing IHS when testing in range of 1.2ish vcore, and more with higher vcore. Beginning to wonder if intels secret sauce is some cheap generic non-conductive paste. I never sell anything, too lazy, so when Haswell comes out, going to have to delid mine....but multiple people getting similar results at similar vcore testing...
05-22-12 11:33 PM
05-22-12 11:36 PM
It ran cooler and with more even cores than the other 3770K we compared it to at idle. However under multithreaded load its temperature shot up approximately 40C, while the other 3770K shot up closer to 30C. The load temp readings were about the same for both, just one started out with much lower readings and its core readings were more even.
Under full pot LN2 and 1.8V, the unmodified 3770K ran fine - the delidded 3770K would throttle under load (CPUz would show the frequency dropping, and the score would be bad for the clockspeed).
This is only one delidded/replaced IHS sample however, and we did not delid/replace the IHS ourselves. It looked like a job well done however, you could hardly tell the IHS had been taken off and replaced... So I don't think this example means anything, other than that it might be kinda hard to delid and replace the IHS and get good results.
Our goal at the time was testing 3 different 3770Ks and running them on LN2, so we didn't waste time when one chip throttled - we swapped it out for the other chips. I'll be giving the delidded one another shot to make sure, this was only one mounting and a 15-30 minute test. I expected to see bad contact with the base of the cooler when I unmounted the LN2 pot from the delidded 3770k, however it looked like a perfect interface.
05-22-12 11:51 PM
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...MX4-PK1-LQP-IX
edit: same as a couple posts up....
(sorry i didn't see it.)
05-23-12 12:02 AM
05-23-12 01:22 AM
But I will delid mine when haswell comes out, because I want to see for myself the temp difference on mine, no other reason.
I dont know that many are recommending deliding, just some curious few experimenting.
05-23-12 01:25 AM
05-23-12 02:51 AM
What people are trying to say is that at least a significant portion of the temperature difference between ivybridge and sandy bridge is a result of the TIM. If anything, what people may be recommending is to wait for a fluxless solder variant from intel.
05-23-12 03:04 AM
05-23-12 03:58 AM
Honestly this thing is clobbering my SB in 24/7 clocks and performance and staying under the 105º (usually 90s) in IBT. At times it will drop to 4.4 under load but it is usually 4.6-4.7 under load.
05-23-12 04:12 AM
05-23-12 04:24 AM
http://hwbot.org/submission/2285066_
Look at the scores just above and just below mine and realize I do not evar post my best scores on HWBot.
http://3dmark.com/pcm7/349857
I am telling you a build around an IB will stomp a build based around a SB. I have both. I run my IB faster and it is faster per clock with faster ram. So yeah it is a stomping.
05-23-12 04:49 AM
05-23-12 05:09 AM
6004 is mine. you tell me how much difference there is? We are talking IGP and CPU improvements so yeah I say it kicks my SB around.
05-23-12 06:19 AM
05-23-12 06:26 AM
05-23-12 09:09 AM
Firstly IGP is near pointless for most people. As if you are forking out that much for a computer 90% of the time people wont be using the IGP. So who really gives a rats ass about IGP improvements? Not meeeeee. Not until its actually rivalling mid end GPU's, which i doubt it ever will.
And you keep banging on about great CPU improvements, but we all know that on average that equates to about a 5% increase across the board for real world performance. A 5% that can easily be nulled with a higher clock on the SB and with lower temps. Im not saying that IB wont be worth it when they sort out their TIM issue. But until then it seem illogical to invest in an IB. Intel are keeping the prices of the SB roughly equal to IB because they know that they will not sell half as many IB CPU's if they lower SB prices. Hell that's what ebay is for XD. Pick up a 2500k or 2700k for £50 cheaper and your laughing.
Ivy bridge is just an interim Chip until haswell, its as simple as that. Id prefer to save the £30-50 and fork out extra when haswell is released. The only major advantage at the moment for me is the higher clocked RAM. Then again if i slacken the timings on my corsair ram i can hit 2200-300mhz with a minor V bump. going to 2800 is somewhat pointless when you have to slacken the timings so much to do so. Yes higher freq Vs ram timings is a debated subject but its the general consensus that high freq do = slightly better performance over tightened up timings. But then again you are paying on average twice as much for 2400 ram than for 2000-2133 ram so could get 16 Gb of 2133mhz ram for the price of 8gb of 2400 ram.
05-23-12 10:12 AM
Next, that igor can be used WITH your gpu so ut could help those with not as good gpus
05-23-12 10:22 AM
05-23-12 11:00 AM
05-23-12 11:34 AM
@xander: you don't have to buy high rated ram for ivy. A lot of stuff rated 2000 and lower is clocking to 2500 or better on ivy.
05-23-12 11:38 AM
Many overclockers fear IBT. I must have 100% stable for what I do. Others can set the records I will set the sustainability bar. For a product review everyone needs to be able to take a CPU close to the levels you test at. That is why I never publish my MAX OC or benchmark scores.
05-23-12 11:42 AM
Here it is and you can see what it is a reply to:
I was implying that you did not seem to think it was worth the trouble.
05-23-12 11:52 AM
05-23-12 12:51 PM
The issue I see is people turning off power management, setting the voltage at 1.2 or 1.3 instead of using the dynamic offset. This is not a SB and should not be treated as such. The days of just upping the volts and multi to get a great OC are going away for this CPU.
05-23-12 01:10 PM
...this is the first platform where offset is more useful (for me personally it served to confuse more so than anything). For overclocking, I would still disable power features until you are stable, THEN re-enable them.
05-23-12 01:28 PM
What I did do was increase the Turbo Core TDP, lowered the A just a hair and set everything to dynamic with all power saving features on to see what happened.
Now I have a higher dynamic vCore, higher bench scores and less heat. I also hate sharing at times because it means I can't say nanny nanny boo boo.
05-23-12 05:01 PM
Originally saw this @ XS.
05-23-12 05:37 PM
I am prime 12+ hrs, linx (newest) max mem stable at 4.7 with 1.31vcore, and max temps 85C linx. And zero idle bsods or whea errors. According to fluke reading vcore, I need 1.305 vcore but I run 1 notch above stable testing, ie 1.311v. I can use LLC on turbo or high and adjust vcore accordingly but as long as vcore remains 1.305 or above, Im stable. That overclock was easy and straightforward and temps are fine. And power savings would save me $2 per year with my use (for that 20W several hrs per day), and I dont use them. Sleep mode on other hand saves me over 300W, that I use.
Now look at dynamic vcore (first without power savings). If I set vcore to normal 1.16 on mine and add .140 vcore dynamic, and boot at 35 multi I get 1.16 vcore. At 40 multi gives me 1.26 vcore, and at 47 multi gives me 1.39 vcore. Basically it overvolts, like auto overclocking with higher multi. Now I add power savings, and it overvolts at load, and I get idle bsods because it undervolts at idle/low load. I have played around and got it semistable, but at cost of still higher vcore than necessary at full load, or idle bsods when lowering vcore so load appropriate. There are multiple posts with idle bsod issues from people using power saving and dynamic vid, where mhz scales up faster than vcore.
I could probably get it stable manipulating LLC, some of power features turned off, etc but would take weeks to test for idle bsods, and what a colossal waste of time, especially when it is easy, straightforward, and better temps on mine, to up multi and vcore.
As an aside, I can run prime/linx all day with dynamic vcore + power savings, since load is always high enough (even linx) to maintain high enough vcore....but idle bsods then have to be tested and adjustments made.
Some people prefer dynamic, Im not a fan yet.
05-23-12 05:48 PM
On air I could not run IBT extreme without hitting 105º strait up clocking like the SB. Moving to an offset dynamic voltage (same as the set voltage) I could keep the temps a little lower. I added the turbo back and started getting warm again so I turned on power management adjusted the TDP to 82 (I have no idea if it really did anything) and lowered the A by two.
Now my temps dropped quite a bit due to the dynamic voltage and then even more when the CPU idles down to 1600. The turbo allows me to gain when I can without really affecting heat as well.
When I had it locked at 4.4 it sucked.
05-23-12 05:52 PM
05-23-12 05:56 PM
this is for 4.5 gig - pretty rubbish
and even though I have a decent case (Corsair 550D) and a decent Noctua cooler - I get temps up to 92-93C during handbrake encodes (which use AVX)
pretty unacceptable for a touted "overclocking" CPU I'd say - unacceptable from a temps point of view
ALSO for note - when I was trying to get 4.6 stable and WHEA error free - I had to keep upping the voltage, and my temps went up, I got to ap oint where I was almost WHEA free .. went one notch higher, temps during encodes got to 96-97C and suddenly windows logs were full of WHEA CRC errors .. every 30 seconds ... so thats a worry - seems the CPU doesn't like temps above 95C - even though it doesn't throttle till 105
05-23-12 06:09 PM
A very small percentage of people use water for one reason or another and the rest of us do not for various reasons. When you discount things that could help the majority (I know you were speaking to me here and that is fine but we have a big audience you know) you may unintentionally cause someone not to even try other ways. Hey Hokie and RGE said...
Well I know that is not the case but it can be interpreted that way. Now do not make me build a cooler and take you boys to school for 24/7 clocks. I have a buddy with a machine shop itching to play.
05-23-12 06:15 PM
05-23-12 06:16 PM
What are the thoughts here on whether it makes more sense to run a higher offset with more vdroop versus getting rid of vdroop altogether and running a lower offset? Are there advantages/disadvantages for either method?
05-23-12 06:26 PM
Locked voltage with droop or dynamic with no droop are two.
05-23-12 06:28 PM
I guess I'll leave it at level 3 and ride the fence
05-23-12 06:40 PM
Current settings:
http://youtu.be/QhCGMb4CmOU
Evidently I am @ 1.35 not 1.3
05-24-12 09:10 PM
I was playing more with LLC off and dynamic vcore to get 4.7 with semi-reasonable load and idle vcore for heck of it....but then read on another forum about power savings affecting SSD performance, Toms article is here from 2009, so I tested mine.
With power savings, ie C states enabled with dynamic vcore, I get consistent 40% decrease in random 4K writes, and 10-25% decrease in 4k random read performance on my SSD versus DISABLED C states with AS SSD and crystaldiskmark. But the effect and what it affects seems to be mobo/bios dependent. I tried timing an app installation multiple times, and it took consistently longer with power savings enabled.
Toms conclusion from 2009 was:
05-24-12 10:27 PM
05-24-12 11:59 PM
On a desktop, I would expect the only difference between the default profile and max performance to be in peripherals... Disk, monitor, and sleep/hibernation settings.
05-25-12 12:36 PM
Everyone's vote and input welcome
Also does anyone know how long it is generally before a 2nd revision gets released? I really want a 3570K but much rather get a soldered 3570k...
05-25-12 12:57 PM
+1.
I do not believe the windows power saving features reach to the CPU and its 'c states'. so adjusting that shouldnt have an effect.
05-25-12 12:58 PM
05-25-12 01:41 PM
05-25-12 01:46 PM
05-25-12 01:54 PM
I don't think it ever totally disables them (Power User used to, now I don't think it does), but it definitely changes where it bottoms out and/or where it prefers to sit.
05-25-12 02:04 PM
05-25-12 02:09 PM
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...ep-states.html
Is it possible that the power options in windows controls the S states but not C states which apparently effect SSD performance?
05-25-12 03:44 PM
Might even be "S"oftware Based CPU Power States and "C"PU Based CPU Power States.
Who knows?
05-25-12 03:55 PM
05-25-12 05:23 PM
If I disable C1e and C3/C6 and EIST in bios, SSD has full performance. When I go to power options, under CPU power management, I only have the option for cooling, ie presumably fan control. I do not have min/max processor state options, since my hardware setting of disabling c1e and c3/c6 and EIST makes them nonavailable, since hardware setting overrides any software control. Note, this causes an extra 20W usage while my computer is on vs turning on eist/c1e/c3/c6. I think once hardware disables eist/c1e/c3/c6, the only power savings are peripherals like IMOG suggested.
If I enable c1e, c3/c6 and EIST and overclock using dynamic, I then lose 40% of SSD 4k write and ~20% SSD 4k read performance. But, I then have access to min/max processor power states via software by going to power options, so I could "tune" min max processor states further.
This doesnt affect my ability to use sleep mode either way, as I overclock the easy way of turning off c1e, c3/c6, eist and just raise vcore/multi. My computer at idle uses 210W idling (280W including monitor). And sleep mode just 20W for everything, which goes into after 30 mins of not using computer. And of course 185-190W idle if I run same settings, but dynamic OC with C states enabled.
05-25-12 08:06 PM
05-25-12 08:10 PM
What did I miss here?
Thanks!
05-25-12 08:36 PM
The trade off being discussed with air cooling where heat more an issue:
option 1) use dynamic vcore + c1e/c3/c6 enabled and plus is 20W power savings most of time, better temps when cpu is not max stressed, but downside is loss in SSD performance.
option 2) disable c1e/c3/c6, use 20W more power while computer in use, have higher general temps since vcore is maxed all time, but plus side is max SSD performance.
Sleep mode not relevant for above 2 options, I just threw it in there to say I get my power savings via sleep mode 180w x 18hrs, not going to worry about 20W during use for 6hrs. And since I am on water, I dont care about hotter general temps since my vcore maxed all time, though as Archer pointed out if on air, and temps are a concern, then may be something to consider.
05-26-12 05:31 AM
...anyone got any ideas when intel going to release the next revision?
05-26-12 10:08 AM
05-26-12 10:52 AM
Sticking with SB untill second half 2013 (if God gives me life till then...).
05-27-12 12:30 AM
I think i'll check out the bios and start tweaking to see what I can get.
05-27-12 12:36 AM
Both my IB chips do it (or more) easily with quiet cooling and acceptable temps.
05-27-12 01:09 AM
I have a coolmaster V8 and was thinking of getting a H80 or H100 but not sure if it's worth the upgrade or not.
05-27-12 09:27 AM
05-27-12 11:53 AM
And as far as 4.5? I was not speaking about any given number I was thinking about using you head to OC and not a guide.
05-27-12 08:42 PM
05-28-12 02:35 AM
05-28-12 03:13 AM
05-28-12 04:41 AM
05-28-12 05:20 AM
What do they look like in IBT? Also are you using dynamic or locked voltage?
05-28-12 07:03 AM
05-28-12 10:51 AM
05-28-12 03:02 PM
EDIT:
Dynamic/offset on one board, fixed on the other.
05-28-12 04:34 PM
07-06-12 11:47 PM
The new gigabyte motherboards have double copper this heat can’t make it to the cooler effectively like it happens in a sandy bridge I believe it will spread out thought the pins to the back of the motherboard through the double copper all over the motherboard like an umbrella!! In the end you will get high temperature readings all over the motherboard.
I still can’t believe why Intel made such a strange move. Most people will not risk to open the processor apply indigo extreme or a better thermal paste that the author of the topic make it clear will fail to remove the heat effectively as the soldier did. I will not invest any more serious thoughts to this, I guess the most people will end up down clocking it I really hope the best for them, seriously.
07-29-12 01:14 AM
07-31-12 02:35 PM
07-31-12 03:28 PM
What are consumers going to buy as an alternative?
It's not polite to consumers, but it's a perfectly reasonable decision on their part.
They won't lose any customers over it and they'll make more money.
07-31-12 03:35 PM
Remind me of the 80's.
07-31-12 03:38 PM
My point is, it's not a mistake on their part. From their point of view it is the correct decision. They lose nothing and make more money.
They aren't in the business of making people like them, nor in the business of being warm and fuzzy, they're in the business of making as much money as possible for as long as possible.
07-31-12 03:43 PM
It (IMHO) is less about greed and more about ignorance in the beginning. The greed kicks in when the engineers get fired for protesting.
07-31-12 03:50 PM
Hey thats corporate companies for you! This is why we need AMD to bring out a kick ass chip that will really push intel into having to get their act together. I would happily defect to amd if the performance was good enough. I think many people would share that sentiment, screw brand loyalty if they cant be assed to keep their customers happy. Provided AMD thrive one day intel will rue the day they used tim on their chips! or at least i hope so
07-31-12 03:54 PM
07-31-12 04:09 PM
08-01-12 10:05 AM
11-10-12 01:46 AM