OCUK Official IC Diamond/ Perihelion Test Results

Good explanation ...thanks
Have you done any longevity tests with any of the other compounds.

Just an idea, as ICD is so thick, why not have a Page on " how to get the best out of your ICD " especially as very high mount pressure is essential. Not every bodies heat sink or water block is capable of attaining such pressures. Perhaps outline some of the better alternative methods of mounting to help get around the lack of pressure.

j.col said:

imo if using IBT, you need 2 runs with the same gflops.
as higher gflops stresses the cpu more, therfore giving you higher temps
and obviously lower gflops will give you lower temps

Click to expand...

This is correct.

Guys if you are going to use IBT/Linx for testing the compounds, make sure your GFlops values are more or less same in all the tests otherwise your results will be invalid.

For example

MX-3 or any other thermal compound: 33-35GFlops in IBT

IC Diamond: 40-45GFlops in IBT

What will happen is that your temps will be higher in the case of IC Diamond as you are getting higher GFlops values even if IC Diamond is better than MX-3.
So you need to get GFlops values in a similar range for both compounds. So it should be e.g:

MX-3 or any other thermal compound: 43-45GFlops in IBT

IC Diamond: 43-45GFlops in IBT

Consistent/same GFlops values across all tests

Edit: I would request IC Diamond to place this in opening post aswell so people have idea on how to get accurate results when running Intel Burn Test/Linux .

Mick-1965 said:

Good explanation ...thanks
Have you done any longevity tests with any of the other compounds.

http://innovationcooling.com/Reliabilty1.htm

Just an idea, as ICD is so thick, why not have a Page on " how to get the best out of your ICD " especially as very high mount pressure is essential. Not every bodies heat sink or water block is capable of attaining such pressures. Perhaps outline some of the better alternative methods of mounting to help get around the lack of pressure.

Click to expand...

We provide a trouble shooting guide on our site with a lot of detail but the detail is stuff most of you end users know anyway we just state it a little differently.

If somebody posts a thermal compound problem on a forum the typical responses run something like "is your sink tight?", "How is your contact?" "maybe you need to lap" "try using more/less compound" etc.

Basically the suggested solutions are just good shop practice for all thermal compounds as the issues are most always mechanical (sometimes measurement calibrations as noted in recent posts) and one of contact and pressure.

So for ICD & ABCDE compounds if you want to get the most out of it just tighten down the sink and lap if necessary.

Intel specs something like +/- 10lbs tolerance from a base of 45 lbs I think so @ 35lbs you would be to light for ICD and probably a little light with other compounds also, @ 55 lbs all compounds will perform better but the more liquid compounds get closer to their optimum bond line thickness (BLT) at lighter loads than ICD so when you increase pressure they perform a little bit better. ICD being thicker and farther from optimum BLT improves more with added pressure than the compound which are near optimum to begin with.

LM have no particles and no real mechanical resistance and are candidates for people who are in the lightly loaded category probably hit optimum BLT @ 20lbs. But for some rough contours products like the metal pads may have a problem filling the gap but would work well with lapped surfaces. Just a thought while I am writing this - Do liquid metals Pump Out? Any thoughts? I think that maybe surface tension holds it in place, never read anything on it. just curious.

In any event from our sampling 80% are over 50 lbs and see an improvement in performance. I have studied the 20% that had no improvement and usually it's a contact and pressure problem. Special guides from users exist on all forums who have experience with particular equipment like shims or brackets can do a more thorough job advancing other end users performance gains than we ever could.

Also it is kind of up to the end user what effort he/they want to apply for better temps.

So what's funny about all this to me is from the first few giveaways I have made a significant effort on the 20%. Expended money on private lab tests, extensively detailed every nuance in an effort to move the curve over a degree, so now pushing 20 giveaway's the avg moved maybe a couple tenth's of a degree with all the educational effort. I can work 1 on 1 with an individual and improve results most times in a focused effort on a problem but as a group it is awkward and has not yielded much.

So maybe the final solution is a 5.5mm bead on center, tighten down the sink as much as you can, lap if your are motivated and have done with it.

920 DO 3.8 @ 1.1 Supreme HF CU, XSPC RX 360, D5 Vario on Min,5870 EK Block, 800D AKASA Vipers 120mm, Full Fans

Getting some strange results with Perihelion

After 24 Hours + tightening with a 20 Min LinX Run
Max 67,66,64,63

Day 2 Same
Max 70,69,67,67

Strange I would have thought it would get better.

Strange I would have thought it would get better.

Click to expand...

Me too -every paste I have tested drops as it resolves down to it's bond line and stabilize not reverse temp direction

I have had mounts blow on me when I disturb the compound - bump the sink or move it maybe the screw tightening?

LAPPED i7 920 DO 4.2 w/HT @ 1.45 EK Supreme HF NICKEL

LINX, 100 times

G FLOPS were pretty much the same around 55 GFlop +/- 1
After 24 Hours + tightening
Surface was cleaned with the cleaning stuff that comes with the indigo extreme kit.

MX3
Max 76,72,74,73

ICD
Max 74,71,72,71

INDIGO XTREME
Max 71,68,70,69

Overall pretty happy with ICD. Easy to install and good results.

IC Diamond said:

Me too -every paste I have tested drops as it resolves down to it's bond line and stabilize not reverse temp direction

I have had mounts blow on me when I disturb the compound - bump the sink or move it maybe the screw tightening?

Click to expand...

I couldn't tightenen the nuts any more. I did remove the heat sink to find spreading had occurred about 75% non at the top of the CPU. Now I did apply the pea shaped TIM while the machine was in the vertical position to avoid air in the loop. So it's either not enough compound or the mount wasn't complete tight at the top some how.

My normal method is credit card. On the NT H1 install I used the cross method. Coverage looked good but like I said before caused thermal throttling in linx which skewed the results.

I am now trying some MX4. I have applied the pea in a flat position and moved the block around.

Dumped some liquid while pulling the pipes around. I hate these coonectors. Might look good but barbs are far better. Grrrrr.

Mounting is always half the issue especially with fiddly mounts.

IC Diamond said:

The short explanation <ubersnip>

Click to expand...

You call that short? LOL

Seeing some cracking results on here!

momo56 said:

LAPPED i7 920 DO 4.2 w/HT @ 1.45 EK Supreme HF NICKEL

LINX, 100 times

G FLOPS were pretty much the same around 55 GFlop +/- 1
After 24 Hours + tightening
Surface was cleaned with the cleaning stuff that comes with the indigo extreme kit.

MX3
Max 76,72,74,73

ICD
Max 74,71,72,71

INDIGO XTREME
Max 71,68,70,69

Overall pretty happy with ICD. Easy to install and good results.

Click to expand...

I have heard that Indigo extreme is supposed to be the best thermal compound. However it doesn't come in the regular tube does it?

Its a liquid metal pad. It melts and solidifies the 1st time. Its time consuming to install though. Includes wearing gloves and thoroughly cleaning the surfaces. Then you have open up a stress testing program, while either your pump is off for water cooling or no fans spinning for air cooling. Have to make the cpu heat up to 90-100 degrees, the metal in the pad then melts at this temperature and fills all the gaps on the surface. Kinda like soldering on a heatsink.

They only give you 2 pads per pack so pretty screwed if you mess up the install. ICD is amazing in the sense that its easy to install (i.e. just place a bob in the middle and clamp the heat sink down.)

momo56 said:

Its a liquid metal pad. It melts and solidifies the 1st time. Its time consuming to install though. Includes wearing gloves and thoroughly cleaning the surfaces. Then you have open up a stress testing program, while either your pump is off for water cooling or no fans spinning for air cooling. Have to make the cpu heat up to 90-100 degrees, the metal in the pad then melts at this temperature and fills all the gaps on the surface. Kinda like soldering on a heatsink.

They only give you 2 pads per pack so pretty screwed if you mess up the install. ICD is amazing in the sense that its easy to install (i.e. just place a bob in the middle and clamp the heat sink down.)

Click to expand...

Hmm I guess IE does have many downsides. So in this sense it will never be popular with mainstream but only with hardcore extreme overclockers.

done a test on a gfx card instead of a cpu (hope this is ok ).

9600gt 512mb using unigine tropics dx10 demo ran for 30 mins for temp test and took the highest temp recorded by hwinfo32 over the course of the test.

AS 5
ambient temp - 20c

idle temp - 37c
highest recorded temp over the 30 mins - 65c

ICD
ambient temp - 19c
idle temp - 36c
highest recorded temp over the 30 mins - 62c


given the 1c difference in ambient temp (according to my ancient min/max thermometer) that idle temps seem the same but the load temp was 2c lower.

the icd is very thick and hard to get just a little out of the tube so i think i have over applied it to the small gpu core as i probably had enough on it to do a cpu but it still seems to outperform as5

Here are my results. I tested the cpu and gpu. New tim applications were given 24 hours to settle in before being tested.

Cpu= i5 760 @4.0ghz 1.228v
GPU= Asus 5850 @900mhz core/1200mhz memory @ 1.162v

Cooling Thermochill PA120.3 rad
3x Yateloon D12SM-12D 120x38mm in pull configuration
Aqauextreme 50z pump 700lph
XSPC 250mm passive res
CPU block= EK Supreme HF with plate #2 fitted
GPU block= XSPC Rasa VGA
Liquid= De-ionised water with a syringe of Primochill Liquid Utopia.

My rad is mounted in a box on a windowsill, so due to the pull configuration of the fans draws cooler outside air through the rad when the window is opened. Water temp in refers to the water temp on entering the pc, out is leaving the pc. Load temps were taken after a 30 minute run of Prime 95 small fft's and Furmark stability test both running at the same time to get the water temp up to a stable temperature. Idle temps were taken 10 minutes after the pc came off load.

Arctic Cooling MX-2
External temp 9 C
Water temp, in 22.5 C/Out 23.5 C
Idle temp
CPU 28/23/26/23 C
GPU 22 C

External temp 9 C
Water temp, in 25.2 C/out 27.2 C
Load temp
CPU 51/47/47/48 C
GPU 33 C


Perihelion
External temp 9 C
Water temp, in 22.5 C/Out 23.5 C
Idle temp
CPU 29/24/27/24 C
GPU 22 C

External temp 9 C
Water temp, in 25.1 C/out 27.1 C
Load temp
CPU 51/47/47/48 C
GPU 32 C


ICD
External temp 9 C
Water temp, in 22.5 C/Out 23.5 C
Idle temp
CPU 29/24/27/24 C
GPU 22 C

External temp 9 C
Water temp, in 25.3 C/out 27.2 C
Load temp
CPU 50/46/46/47 C
GPU 32 C


Personal thoughts.

Perihelion.

No advantage over the MX-2 apart from 1 degree off the GPU load temps. I hated this stuff. Extremely thick and terrible to clean off. It takes a lot of pressure to sqeeze out of the syringe. In use it appears that the liquid seeps out leaving what i can only describe as clay behind. The liquid went all over my cpu retention bracket and dripped down onto the back of my graphics card. I only used the recommended peas sized amount and it did actually spread very well and evenly under the pressure from my blocks. In my opinion though it's not worth the hassle and is double the price of MX-2 so will not be using again.

ICD

Little better than Perihelion, only 1 degree better on the cpu and no difference on the GPU. Not quite so bad to work with and no liquid dripping everywhere. Still hard to clean off though. It also spread very well and evenly under the pressure from my blocks. The biggest problem i have with this is the price. £15 is ridiculous for a tim with minimal gains. My results were only 1 degree better than Arctic Coolings MX-2 of which i can get 6x 4g tubes or 1x 30g tube and still have a couple of pounds change.

Personally i would'nt buy either of these products and it's highly unlikley that i will use them again. I have gone back to MX-2 now as it is so easy to work with and clean off.

Firstly - thanks to IC for allowing me to help in this test!!!

Setup i5 2500k @ 4.6ghz
Previous Compound - MX-3
Current - IC Diamond.

Previous Temps:
Idle - 18
Ambient -15-17
Load - 62

Current Temps:
Idle - 18
Ambient - 15-17
Load - 58

Thanks Again!!!

WingZero30 said:

This is correct.

Guys if you are going to use IBT/Linx for testing the compounds, make sure your GFlops values are more or less same in all the tests otherwise your results will be invalid.

For example

MX-3 or any other thermal compound: 33-35GFlops in IBT

IC Diamond: 40-45GFlops in IBT

What will happen is that your temps will be higher in the case of IC Diamond as you are getting higher GFlops values even if IC Diamond is better than MX-3.
So you need to get GFlops values in a similar range for both compounds. So it should be e.g:

MX-3 or any other thermal compound: 43-45GFlops in IBT

IC Diamond: 43-45GFlops in IBT

Consistent/same GFlops values across all tests

Edit: I would request IC Diamond to place this in opening post aswell so people have idea on how to get accurate results when running Intel Burn Test/Linux .

Click to expand...

Done & thanks for the info

WingZero30 said:

This is correct.

Guys if you are going to use IBT/Linx for testing the compounds, make sure your GFlops values are more or less same in all the tests otherwise your results will be invalid.

For example

MX-3 or any other thermal compound: 33-35GFlops in IBT

IC Diamond: 40-45GFlops in IBT

What will happen is that your temps will be higher in the case of IC Diamond as you are getting higher GFlops values even if IC Diamond is better than MX-3.
So you need to get GFlops values in a similar range for both compounds. So it should be e.g:

MX-3 or any other thermal compound: 43-45GFlops in IBT

IC Diamond: 43-45GFlops in IBT

Consistent/same GFlops values across all tests

Edit: I would request IC Diamond to place this in opening post aswell so people have idea on how to get accurate results when running Intel Burn Test/Linux .

Click to expand...

This means that thermal throttling is occurring with the CPU. Performance should be constant regardless of the TIM used. If it isn't then the TIM is not doing it's job and failing.

The Asgard said:

This means that thermal throttling is occurring with the CPU. Performance should be constant regardless of the TIM used. If it isn't then the TIM is not doing it's job and failing.

Click to expand...

Basically when you have more or less similar GFlops values in IBT/LinX for both TIMs, you are ensuring that cpu is processing/executing Guassian Elimination equations at similar rate.
(Any one who has done maths/engineering etc will know what Guassian elimination equations look like which are algebraic simultaneous equations solved by making use of matrices)

Lower GFlops values mean that cpu is processing/executing at a slower rate so the coretemps will also be lower. Likewise higher GFlops values mean cpu is processing/executing at faster rate hence higher coretemps. You can even ask fellow ocuker C64 and he will confirm it. TIMs won't make much difference whether they are good or not because you are getting different GFlops values in different tests and your TIM results will be inconclusive as the dominant baseline factor is the cpu execution rate which will overshadow the effectiveness of TIMs.

So with similar GFlops in all tests you are ensuring cpu is performing at similar rate. Since this was the major variable which has been now controlled, then you can proceed to make note of temps. Then you can see which TIM is helping to reduce temps.

For example Invalid Test

MX-3 or any other TIM: 33-35 GFlops in IBT/LinX
Average Coretemp = 58C

IC Diamond: 40-42GFlops in IBT/LinX
Average Coretemp = 66C

Valid Test

MX-3 or any other TIM: 40-42 GFlops in IBT/LinX
Average Coretemp = 68C

IC Diamond: 40-42GFlops in IBT/LinX
Average Coretemp = 66C

As you can see that in the invalid test your GFlops were different for both TIMs and hence there was also a large difference between coretemp values. So any person not familiar with the LinPack (IBT/LinX) tests would have assumed that MX-3 gave a reduction of 8C temp on average compared to IC Diamond totally ignoring the GFlops values which actually played the major role.

However in the valid test with similar range of GFlops values the results were much closer for both TIMs and hence consistency was achieved. Not saying that IC Diamond is better than MX-3 or vice versa as this is what we trying to prove anyway on this thread but you do get an idea.

It's sort of like with prime95 if you use IC Diamond for blend test and MX-3 etc for small FFTs test and then compare the results, they will be invalid since you are using two different test for two different TIMs. So if you use small FFts for both TIMs then you can compare temps results which will be valid for comparison purposes.

The only difference is that major variable factor in prime95 is the nature of the test whereas in Intel Burn Test/LinX it is the GFlops values along with amount of RAM used which should also be same for all test to ensure the cpu is executing same amount of equations and hence the loading time is similar.

Any test is almost useless unless you constrain your variables and maintain the same procedure...

qbazdz said:

Any test is almost useless unless you constrain your variables and maintain the same procedure...

Click to expand...

Exactly this is what I am trying to point out in the case of IBT/Linx and as mentioned in my post above.

j.col said:

right guys
i am getting mixed results, and it seems to be IBT thats doing it.

ambient temp was 21.C for all tests.

my first run on original MX-4
idle- 28, 28, 26, 29
load- 74-74-73-73
ibt test. free ram was 2450 so used 2400mb custom ram in test (36 gflops)

first run on IC-D
idle- 27-28-26-28
load 69-69-69-69
ibt test, free ram was 2135 so used 2100mb custom ram in test (30 gflops)

Click to expand...

i also agree with what wingzero30 is saying.
i have expierenced it myself, with the results above.

when i did finally get an IBT run with 36gflops my temps were 1.C lower with ICdiamond, but i will reseat the HSF as i think i didn't use enough TIM.

imo you need the cpu to be stressed the same as original test, not more or less gflops, but the same