Ivy Bridge (3770K & 3570K) Results and Discussion thread

[TURN & BURN]

Let's make that easier to understand. People are confusing temperature with the rate of transfer of temperature. (heat transfer)

Ivy bridge produces less heat, as evidenced by the low power usage but has a higher temperature than sandybridge mostly due to the TIM used between the die and the ihs.

A report has shown that reseating the ihs will yield temperatures very close to sandy bridge temperatures.

Airport analogy: an airport can be busy because there are many people going in and out. An airport can also be busy because a snowstorm has grounded all the airplanes.

True almost, I dont recomend LAPPING or remove the IHS not worth the risk for a small cooling + return.

The other thing PPL aren't paying attention to is the fact, smaller die heats faster or so i think? and even though the wattage is lower on these as soon as you apply any stress under OC be it running games or programs the watts come up and the heat is on! anyway here is what I found running 4 of these chips on AIR,WATER,SS,DICE and LN2

MY chart in respect to these chips

2 of my (regular) chips run as follows with good temps

4.5 low v AIR
4.6/5.0 low v water
5.0/5.6 SS start pounding v
5.6/5.8 DICE again more v
5.9 up LN2 massive v

My 2 other chips run a better OC and much cooler up to 5.6 after that I dont think any of these chips do well with the heat.

Bottom line want more from your chip easy.....better cooling but for normal use Air or Water a good chip can run 4.5 to 5.2 pending the chip with good temps under stress.

Just my thoughts from running these for soe time now.

 

[MattNo5ss]

"Hot" implies heat. Temperature is not a measure of heat or any other type of energy, it's a number relating to average molecular motion of what you are measuring. So, you can have something that is low in heat and high in temperature because they are two completely different things.

 

[TURN & BURN]

"Hot" implies heat. Temperature is not a measure of heat or any other type of energy, it's a number relating to average molecular motion of what you are measuring. So, you can have something that is low in heat and high in temperature because they are two completely different things.

Heat and temperature are related to each other, but are different concepts.

Heat is the total energy of molecular motion in a substance while temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a substance.

Yeah got it

 

[Ivy]

Oh, im totaly based on common sense. I dont try to be scientifically correct or something like that. When i think its hot its simply hot and when i say "high temperature" its simply high temperature. We know by common sense what it means.

I do measure the temperature, and when its getting hot i do mean its high temps. I have limited knowledge about anything which goes further than that.

As far as i understand right: Temperature is caused by a action, resulting into a atomar condition, and heat furthermore is the result of that condition. So, the final result. The temperature is created at the CPU, and the action, its heat, is flowing into my system. So thats why i say "temp is internally, and heat is the stuff moving into my system".

Now, indeed i may get what you mean, after many mindful min.

Because the heat is the total energy of those atoms, it isnt directly linked to its individual temperature. For example, a stone could be 1000 C of temperature but the heat is still very low because that stone is located at the deepest point of the lake. While, some other stone could have a serious impact on the environment in term its located at a more sensitive area, for example when that stone is located inside our bed, its causing lot of heat and stress. So what it means simply is, a IB is high in temperature but heat is actually considered low.

Still, its very hard to say like that because again: Heat is the result of that temperature, and it can even affect the IB internally and finally its total energy can heat up that CPU and cause lot of pain. So, it can be considered heat as soon as that CPU is heated up by that temperature condition, even internally, it doesnt matter what location. That stuff is cracking my mind, all i know is, that the IB is hot.

 

[White_Pawn]

True almost, I dont recomend LAPPING or remove the IHS not worth the risk for a small cooling + return.

The other thing PPL aren't paying attention to is the fact, smaller die heats faster or so i think? and even though the wattage is lower on these as soon as you apply any stress under OC be it running games or programs the watts come up and the heat is on! anyway here is what I found running 4 of these chips on AIR,WATER,SS,DICE and LN2

MY chart in respect to these chips

2 of my (regular) chips run as follows with good temps

4.5 low v AIR
4.6/5.0 low v water
5.0/5.6 SS start pounding v
5.6/5.8 DICE again more v
5.9 up LN2 massive v

My 2 other chips run a better OC and much cooler up to 5.6 after that I dont think any of these chips do well with the heat.

Bottom line want more from your chip easy.....better cooling but for normal use Air or Water a good chip can run 4.5 to 5.2 pending the chip with good temps under stress.

Just my thoughts from running these for soe time now.

turn, i understand there is a thermodynamics component to it. However, i am very doubtful about size of the effect from the smaller die. It is offset by the fact that it uses less power.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/ivy-bridge-proven-to-suffer-from-poor-thermal-grease/15844.html

If the results here are to be believed, reseating the ihs, does not yield minimal temperature differences, but a rather drastic difference that would definitely be beneficial to overclockers on air or water.

 

[MattNo5ss]

Well, temperature is just a number. It's related to kinetic energy, but not a measurement or cause of that energy (energy change causes temp change, not the other way around). This relation could be anything, even an inverse relation where temp decreases as kinetic energy increases. However, it's usually kinetic energy increase = temp increase, but not directly proportional. For a measurement of the energy, we would need to use Joules, Watts (Joules per second), etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that temperature isn't that important as long as it's within spec. A CPU will not die due to a temperature if it's at or below max rating unless it's defective. If you have an Ivy Bridge OC'd to ~5GHz running at 100C 24/7 and it dies, then it's not because of the 100C, it's because of other out-of-spec factors. Basically, you can keep pushing your OC and not worry about temps limiting you until you get close to TJmax. Running it at ~90C is safe for the CPU because it's quite a bit below max rating of 105C. It boils down to what the user feels comfortable with, but people shouldn't be concerned about current CPU operating temps based on what previous typical CPU operating temps were and unnecessarily limit themselves to previous gen operating temps.

What if TJmax on Ivy had turned out to be 180C and their stock temps were 110C while loaded? Just because the previous gen ran at half that temperature, that wouldn't mean the new CPUs are defective or "run hot" because the previous gen temps are irrelevant. It's just what we were "used to" and, who knows, somewhere down the line we may see 100+ C temps being the norm, and then when we see a CPU running 80C we'll think it runs SOO cool.

 

[jd101]

very good point MattNo5ss .

 

[xander89]

Well, temperature is just a number. It's related to kinetic energy, but not a measurement or cause of that energy (energy change causes temp change, not the other way around). This relation could be anything, even an inverse relation where temp decreases as kinetic energy increases. However, it's usually kinetic energy increase = temp increase, but not directly proportional. For a measurement of the energy, we would need to use Joules, Watts (Joules per second), etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that temperature isn't that important as long as it's within spec. A CPU will not die due to a temperature if it's at or below max rating unless it's defective. If you have an Ivy Bridge OC'd to ~5GHz running at 100C 24/7 and it dies, then it's not because of the 100C, it's because of other out-of-spec factors. Basically, you can keep pushing your OC and not worry about temps limiting you until you get close to TJmax. Running it at ~90C is safe for the CPU because it's quite a bit below max rating of 105C. It boils down to what the user feels comfortable with, but people shouldn't be concerned about current CPU operating temps based on what previous typical CPU operating temps were and unnecessarily limit themselves to previous gen operating temps.

What if TJmax on Ivy had turned out to be 180C and their stock temps were 110C while loaded? Just because the previous gen ran at half that temperature, that wouldn't mean the new CPUs are defective or "run hot" because the previous gen temps are irrelevant. It's just what we were "used to" and, who knows, somewhere down the line we may see 100+ C temps being the norm, and then when we see a CPU running 80C we'll think it runs SOO cool.

I highly doubt they raised the TJmax on IB because it has a higher tolerance to heat than SB. I think they had to raise it because of the increased heat that IB put out as a result of the use of a cheap TIM. It would seem a bit illogical to have a chip running so hot and not raise the TJ max. Im sure there is plenty of science behind it, but im looking at it from the standpoint of a company. It would freak people out to have temps that high and not have a raised TJ max so i think thats the main reason behind it, well at least i think so.

Also to say running your cpu at 100c is fine as long as the TJ max is 105 is just silly. Its not about the issue of it melting etc its the problem of it becoming unstable. A processor is going to become a lot more unstable if its running at such a high temp so therefore seriously hinders the performance for people who arnt sub zero cooling. I doubt that we will ever see a TJ max of much above what we have now. I would say that 105 is somewhat an arbitrary number plucked by intel due to the temps being higher in the first place. i doubt that IB has more stability at higher temps than say SB or any other Gen. It was shown once the IB had the cheap TIM replaced with a aftermarket TIM say a massive drop in temps, and as a result could sustain a higher clock, volts, had better stability. This kind flys in the face that this magical 105c will suddenly make the CPU unstable/ damage it.

 

[txus.palacios]

But, if that new and higher TjMax isn't something the CPUs (running stock) can handle without going unstable, why would Intel give us a warranty for that?

IMHO, the IVB may be able to handle (when running stock, let's ignore the forum's name for now) that TjMax and still be stable. Not that it may be able, but that it must be able, if not, they'd just lose money.

 

[xander89]

But, if that new and higher TjMax isn't something the CPUs (running stock) can handle without going unstable, why would Intel give us a warranty for that?

IMHO, the IVB may be able to handle (when running stock, let's ignore the forum's name for now) that TjMax and still be stable. Not that it may be able, but that it must be able, if not, they'd just lose money.

I would say all the CPUs can "handle" much higher temps before you do serious damage to them in the long term so voiding the warranty wont be too much of an issue to Intel. It just a number to make sure that you don't get near to damaging them. But you would never be able to get it stable enough to run at those temps for sustained periods of time so in essence Intel's warranty is safe.

I challenge anyone to run a IB @ over 100c for 12 hours prime stable. It just wont happen. I think these processors will have to get up to seriously high temps before you degrade them enough to break within intels warranty/ outright fry the chip.

I just find it a bit naive of people to think that this is based on the actual properties of the processor being able to withstand higher temps. Intel is a company, and ultimately the TJmax is just a way of making the consumer feel safe and stop them from having to pay out for replacements. Also how they could ever check you had run your processor over 105c is beyond me. I mean just imagine if they had kept the TJ max at 95c or whatever it was for SB and then their chips were getting up to those temps? They go "ah this is going to cause some issues when people are pushing the clocks. Lets push up the TJ max to make it seem as if IB is meant to be able to run at higher temps" ( which we know isnt true, and its just down to them cutting corners) but it will get unstable before they ever get there so we are safe "

 

[Ivy]

The TjMax difference between Nehalem and IB is only... only... 4 C. Between SB and IB its 7 C. For the IB 105 C is not enough always to keep the CPU clearly away from TjMax. The other CPUs however will have no issue with. SB is 98 C with possibility of 99%, Gulftown i still dont know accurate info, Intel is hidding it (?). According to some sources its 101 C but 99% of the time all i get from google is "i believe, i guess, around something else"... kind a religious believe and not a clear science. But the difference is truly low.

My stable operational temps for a processor is usualy 20 C below TjMax. Gulftown 81 C (which is successful), SB 78 C, IB 85 C.
A GPU however, can safely heat up to 100 C if it have to be (in order to decrease noise). Most GPUs can handle that. Although the stable operational max temp is about 90 C, but it always depends on OC and other factors (quality of PCB, PSU and more).

 

[MattNo5ss]

TJmax is where the CPU begins to throttle itself, and it's built to run below TJmax without throttling itself due to dangerous temps.

If a CPU dies at stock frequency and voltage while running close to TJmax, then RMA for a defective CPU. Yes, the temps are close to the max rating, but are not over the max rating. If Intel doesn't want their CPUs to run at temps that high, then they would have lowered the TJmax to make the CPU throttle sooner.

The main point of my last post was we shouldn't base things on previous gen hardware or what we are used to seeing. Another extreme example D) would be looking at PIII CPUs with TJmax of 70C or so. Someone coming from that CPU would think we are running insanely high temps for going over 70C. We would have to tell them that current CPUs can handle higher temps, and that they are okay running over 70C.

In my opinion, like Ivy's example above, max safe temps for 24/7 use should be based on distance from TJmax, not absolute temp readings. Something like "Max safe temps = TJmax - 15C" or similar, not something like "70C, regardless of TJmax". We just have to make sure to take possible temp spikes and possible changes in ambient temp into consideration.

One last thing... I just noticed this smiley...

 

[stainlineho]

I cannot make up my mind between this is Sandy-E....

 

[Janus67]

I cannot make up my mind between this is Sandy-E....

Do you really need 6cores/12threads? If so, get SB-E. If not get IB.

 

[Archer0915]

Well to get back on task here. Wow the IGP is great! OCs like a champ to boot.

 

[Archer0915]

I have reached one conclusion at this point:

I think the most impressive things about the Ivy Bridge over the Sandy for the normal human being that does not have a poisonous lust for power are the lower heat output @ stock, lower power usage at stock and the kick *** IGP!

Intel has a consumer win here! Not so much for us though.

 

[Eldonko]

Dont forget 40 lanes.

Do you really need 6cores/12threads? If so, get SB-E. If not get IB.

 

[I.M.O.G.]

This may also apply to people interested in determining if they have a "good" Ivy or a "bad" Ivy:
How to Bin Ivy Bridge

 

[wingman99]

Well I just purchased my IB CPU and was going to do some testing, when i found my gigabyte board won't let me overclock the CPU Clock Ratio does not work.

It will only advance to 38X and when i save settings only the turbo works to 3.6 with prime 95, i'm screwed.

 

[TURN & BURN]

Well I just purchased my IB CPU and was going to do some testing, when i found my gigabyte board won't let me overclock the CPU Clock Ratio does not work.

It will only advance to 38X and when i save settings only the turbo works to 3.6 with prime 95, i'm screwed.

What board you using?