Associate
Is dry and flaky necessarily bad? It is bad if you are trying to seat the CPU, but if left undisturbed what is the problem?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Ivy Bridge Temperatures Could Be Linked To TIM Inside Integrated Heatspreader: Report
- Thread starter Twirlywoos
- Start date
Associate
Soldato
Nice work Jokester. Some proper old school modding there. 
I actually want an IB now just so I can do that to it!
I actually want an IB now just so I can do that to it!
Soldato
Great job, conclusive proof that the tim Intel uses sucks. That's a fair bit voltage reguired for 4.6
Soldato
Has anyone seen or heard of any attempts at solder-mounting the IHS on to the core?
If it worked so well for Sandybridge, why not for Ivy?
Edit: Or more simply, a shim to put around the core?
My thoughts would be that an IHS may be better because of the heat dispersion (happy to be proven wrong).
If it worked so well for Sandybridge, why not for Ivy?
Edit: Or more simply, a shim to put around the core?
My thoughts would be that an IHS may be better because of the heat dispersion (happy to be proven wrong).
Soldato
I was wondering that. Maybe there is a technical reason why the IHS can't be soldered to an IB core and that's why Intel have done this.
Associate
See my earlier post - there was a problem found in Intel's own research with the solder where it suffers stress fractures under repeated heat cycling.
Obviously a fracture = air gap, which is very BAD for heat dissipation. It's thought this is why the change was made.
Obviously a fracture = air gap, which is very BAD for heat dissipation. It's thought this is why the change was made.
Soldato
Right, that makes sense then. Where did you get that information from?
Last edited:
Associate
I'd have to search browser history, I have a feeling it was overclock.net or xtreme though.
Edit: It certainly makes more sense than the conspiracy theories about Intel intentionally doing it to stop overclockers
Having said this it's all guesswork by everyone. Intel aren't telling and until they do no-one will know for sure why it was done.
Edit: It certainly makes more sense than the conspiracy theories about Intel intentionally doing it to stop overclockers
Having said this it's all guesswork by everyone. Intel aren't telling and until they do no-one will know for sure why it was done.
Last edited:
Don
I just whacked the voltage up to get it as hot as possible as I found that as I wasn't on Win7 SP1 that I couldn't get the AVX instructions to run so it was running fairly cool on standard Prime.Great job, conclusive proof that the tim Intel uses sucks. That's a fair bit voltage reguired for 4.6
Don
There's a discussion on this earlier on in the thread and the use of an IHS increases temperatures slightly as it's just another lump of material for heat to travel through.
Associate
So actually the problem is really the heatspreader rather than the TIM between it and the core. I mean it stands to reason if replacing the TIM with something higher end has little effect, yet removing the heatspreader altogether has a significant effect on temps.
Soldato
Just like the good ol' days 
Its down to the TIM as well have read thru the posts.
Soldato
Big big balls jokester, surprised you can sit down after that. Great work, Really given the whole IB a new talking point and dare I say it, hope.
Don
I'm ilined to believe it's a mixture of both, broadly 50/50, with maybe TIM having a slightly bigger effect on temps. The other thing us, not all IHS will be mounted identically. There used to some A64 chips that would see much bigger drops than others.
