Glaciators, The Emperor Speaks! :)

[stroligo]

Seriously, if you haven't seen it already, I posted an email from Andy LeMont explaining why you're getting the MBM readings you're getting, along with how MBM can be manipulated: you can design a heatsink that cools the CPU worse but gives you a better MBM number:

Article here.

Probably later today, Joe is also going to post an article on the same subject.

 

[William]

great article and thanks for the Ed Notes, that helped me translate it much better!

 

[Thelemac]

Great article (I read it on my way in here, as I stop at the front page every time...)

I must say that this is a must read for those who
1) are upset with their temp readings
2) use MBM (article definition here) as their monitor

I hope that many DO read this so that there can be a better understanding of reliable methods of getting temps

 

[Tambo]

makes a lot of sense and i believe and trust it all, but actions, er, uh, numbers speak louder than words. could any of you guys ocing w/ a glaciator please back this up with some results? i'm expecting the results to lean in andy's favor, and i hope they do, but i'd still like a bit more solid proof, after all, i'm easily confused with words such as those in the article.

 

[Thelemac]

Tambo (Jun 17, 2001 05:38 p.m.):
makes a lot of sense and i believe and trust it all, but actions, er, uh, numbers speak louder than words. could any of you guys ocing w/ a glaciator please back this up with some results? i'm expecting the results to lean in andy's favor, and i hope they do, but i'd still like a bit more solid proof, after all, i'm easily confused with words such as those in the article.

The whole point of the article is that most people don't get thier readings unbiased enough for comparison between hsfs. The thermometer on the motherboard that is read by software is inheritly flawed as it doesn't really read the temp of the cpu at all, and can be affected by the different airflows that come off of different hsfs.

 

[Colin]

Thanks Ed, that need to be said for the masses.

 

[Spewn]

Why is it that on-die thermistors can be innacurate as well(as in, intel cpu's)? I mean, you would think that a thermistor actually INSIDE the cpu would be more accurate than one "close" to the junction between the heatsink and the core. Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Phil]

Because that information then has to travel from the on die diode to a chip that interprets the information, until it reaches that chip it is still an anolog signal and easily corrupted and mis-interperated. The only way to get an accurate temp erading would be to put this chip on die which would take up more room and it would still be slightly inaccurate.

 

[Megahurtz]

For anyone interested in further reading..and I hope that some of you are..Mike Warrior's Socket-A temperature inaccuracies site is worth a thorough going over.

Mike was a monthly prize winner here a while back, and most if not all of the content on his site is archived here.

T

 

[Tambo]

thelemac, i meant results as in overclocking speeds. again, i know this isn't all that accurate either but at least it would give us a bit of a better idea for those whose chips haven't previously reached their maxes. sorry for the confusion, i woulda thought i was asking about temps if i were you too. i knew what i was saying, but i forgot that the rest of the world can't read my mind. and yes, i'm aware ocing results were posted in the review, but i'd like to see some more in addition. hope that clears it up.

mark

 

[Thelemac]

Tambo (Jun 17, 2001 07:49 p.m.):
thelemac, i meant results as in overclocking speeds. again, i know this isn't all that accurate either but at least it would give us a bit of a better idea for those whose chips haven't previously reached their maxes. sorry for the confusion, i woulda thought i was asking about temps if i were you too. i knew what i was saying, but i forgot that the rest of the world can't read my mind. and yes, i'm aware ocing results were posted in the review, but i'd like to see some more in addition. hope that clears it up.

mark

Ah...sorry about the misunderstanding. More results are always nice...especially as it gives a broader range of possibilities (different mobos, cpus, case cooling, etc, etc)

I totally agree.

 

[Spewn]

Phil (Jun 17, 2001 07:28 p.m.):
Because that information then has to travel from the on die diode to a chip that interprets the information, until it reaches that chip it is still an anolog signal and easily corrupted and mis-interperated. The only way to get an accurate temp erading would be to put this chip on die which would take up more room and it would still be slightly inaccurate.

Isn't that true for ANY temperature signal though? It has to travel from the source to the chip that'll read/interpret it.

 

[phiber]

i really didnt understand this but could it be that this is happening with my MC462 with a Sunon high output fan could this be the reason MBM says it is 50C when the heatsink is not really even warm??

 

[taz1004]

Article is great and certainly something to consider but what other choice do users have other than MBM? I have hard time believing inaccuracies up to 20'C but let's say it's true and Glaciators is the best heatsink. If MBM reading goes above 70'C, should the user just assume that MBM is inaccurate and it's really only 50'C and don't worry about it? Or should they all start drilling holes in their heatsink and place another thermistor in it?

How is it possible that in this day and age there could be 20'C inaccuracies with temp readings? 20'C difference can kill a CPU. Unless chipsets with better temp monitoring system is in place, heatsink manufacturers have to deal with current system and it is their responsibility to design a heatsink that will not only perform, but also report correct (or close enough) temp reading for that chipset. We can't just take the heatsink manufacturer's word and assume that it's actually working well when MBM reports 70'C. Weather it reports higher or lower temp, misleading temp reading is a design flaw in the heatsink nevertheless. Otherwise, heatsink manufacturer will keep blaming chipset for inaccurate sensor and chipset manufacturers will blame heatsink and the users will get screwed in between.

Reminds me of Ford and Firestone. Regardless of whose fault it is, Ford Explorer owners will avoid Firestone... not the other way. People will not go out and by 4 sets of Firestone first and say "hmm, Explorer wont work with my tires so I'll buy a Chevy" It is responsibility of Firestone to make their tires work with Explorer. Likewise, designing a heatsink that reports correct temp for the chipset it is designed for should be one of the design goal of the heatsink manufacturer.

Car manufacturers will not design a car based on certain brand of tires and chipset manufacturers will not design a thermal sensor for certain brand of heatsinks.

--BrianC

 

[castle lager fan]

So using watercooling will be the only way? No "hot air" blowing about!

Can someone test the accuracy of MB's temp readings with watercooling and then compare with HSF. A benchtest with a constant heatsource will also help settle the issue?

Just asking as it seems we will be going in circles for a long time.

 

[Tambo]

very well said and thought out, taz.

 

[Spewn]

Keep in mind taz, if you're trying to sell an hsf, you're trying to sell it to the people who read sites like this. If you can make a heatsink that "fools" the system into thinking it's getting better temps than it actually is, and a bunch of hardware review sites hype up your heatsink because of that, that means you get business. As far as the firestone vs ford explorer analogy goes, it's a little different here. It's not that heatsinks don't WORK with the motherboard's, it's that they cause the system to report innacurate temperatures. Reporting an accurate temperature has nothing to do with how well the sink is actually doing it's job. It's up to motherboard/cpu manufacturers to provide us with a means of getting an accurate temp reading, regardless of what heatsink we're using.

 

[Yomama]

stroligo (Jun 17, 2001 02:20 p.m.):
Seriously, if you haven't seen it already, I posted an email from Andy LeMont explaining why you're getting the MBM readings you're getting, along with how MBM can be manipulated: you can design a heatsink that cools the CPU worse but gives you a better MBM number:

Article here.

Probably later today, Joe is also going to post an article on the same subject.

Ed - I ususally concur with your findings, but this one is hard to understand. If I read the article correctly, you are impying that temparture misreadings may be caused by over-heating or "over-cooling" (by excess air from the heatsink) of the caps on the side of the CPU. To that extent it should be able to reverse this effect - at least temporarily by isolating the caps from the warm or cold air, e.g. by means of a piece of cardboard or plastic.

I still think that what we are seeing is an inherent design issue of all copper heatsinks; they can absorb a lot of heat, but unlike aluminum they retain the heat, ultimately requiring more airflow to dissipate it. I am kind of busy right now, but I bet with a strong fan blowing from the front onto the cpu, one would be able to relieve the heatsink, and get lower temps overall.

For now I have to believe that despite the higher readings, the system is more stable, as I was able to reduce the voltage by 0.05 -0.1V. OTOH I was not able to o/c further, but this may be just a matter of getting rid of some more heat.

Yo

 

[taz1004]

Spewn, I'm not trying to pick on your post but I knew someone was gonna say what you've said and I can't resist.

"It's not that heatsinks don't WORK with the motherboard's, it's that they cause the system to report innacurate temperatures"

I disagree. Temperature monitoring is a feature (important one at that) and if the heatsink and certain motherboard reports inaccurate temp, it is NOT working properly. Like I've said, heatsink and motherboard manufacturers can point fingers all they want but the fact is that they're not working together properly. And since heatsinks are designed around motherboards and not the other way around, if the heatsink is reporting misleading temp readings, it is fault of the heatsink designer.

"Reporting an accurate temperature has nothing to do with how well the sink is actually doing it's job."

But if there's no easy means of determining weather the sink is actually doing its job... well... then how the heck do you know if it's doing its job? My point was that the MBM with the chipset monitoring feature is the most accesible means of measuring temp right now and the heatsink designer is saying ignore that. If such inaccuracies exist in that big margin, how are we supposed to know if my CPU is burning up or not? And in case of Glaciator, I overclocked my CPU and it is now reporting 70'C. Should I go higher since MBM is incorrect? If so, how high should I go?

"It's up to motherboard/cpu manufacturers to provide us with a means of getting an accurate temp reading, regardless of what heatsink we're using."

Can't argue with that. But do such means of getting perfectly accurate temp reading exist? From that article, it sounds like Intel's way of measuring temp within the die itself isn't accurate enough. But are they close enough? I think so. Should heatsink manufacturers design based on this imperfection? I believe so.

--BrianC

 

[taz1004]

Also, consider the fact that this article is based on email from the designer of the heatsink in question. I would be surprised if it isn't biased.

--BrianC