Ivy Bridge Temperatures Could Be Linked To TIM Inside Integrated Heatspreader: Report

[Krono5]

When i lspped my q6600 it came out to a nice copper finish. Was nickel or aliminium coated copper iirc.

 

[mmj_uk]

I was thinking this myself but it was a bit conspiratorial, Intel may have done it to intentionally limit overclocking...

For example the SB-E heatspreader has a hole in the corner which helps improve IHS contact during manufacturing, afaik it stops gases getting trapped so Intel obviously take more care in ensuring the IHS contact is good on SB-E.

What Intel should really do is release the overclocked 'K' models without any IHS at all like AMD used to, IHS for the most part hinder cooling. Or pehaps they have gone this (solderless) route so that those who dare CAN remove the IHS and void their warranty in the process. Is the IB IHS easy to remove?

 

[buchtis]

Is this more of a reason to get SB then?

 

[Yaayuh!]

Maybe this will change with future revisions of the chips?

 

[muon]

Is this more of a reason to get SB then?

Not really.

It's not like this is somehow inherently bad. It's just a possible explanation for heat issues, issues you know about already.

Maybe this will change with future revisions of the chips?

Don't know. The impact of the change could be nothing in reality.

I find it hard to believe Intel didn't consider the effect when they made it.

 

[Yaayuh!]

It would be interesting if somebody were to solder the IHS back onto an IB cpu (if possible) and test the temperature and see if it actually makes a difference. Could have next to no improvement..

 

[Bleek]

Didn't people do this back in the days of socket 939?

Yep! Did it on my old Athlon.

 

[Twirlywoos]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1248454/...egrated-heatspreader-report/170#post_17079860

Someone who de-lidded the CPU posted his results, but what is unknown is if he changed the mounting of the water block.

 

[P3N9U1N]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1248454/...egrated-heatspreader-report/170#post_17079860

Someone who de-lidded the CPU posted his results, but what is unknown is if he changed the mounting of the water block.

Thats good, its good to know that Intel using cheaper methods isn't the problem

 

[Bleek]

Intel aren't stupid, I'm sure they tested many variations and applied the most suitable arrangement.

Removing or replacing the TIM isn't going to be some magic cure to heat issues!

 

[mmj_uk]

Replacing the TIM between the die and IHS is retarded, if you're going to rip off the IHS the best thing to do is to not use it altogether, direct contact between die and the heatsink is the most efficient way to transfer heat... you just have to be carefeul not to crush the die.

It may be that Intel realised that IB runs hot as hell and gave enthusiasts the option to completely remove the IHS, which with solder is not possible.

 

[pyropetepete]

You do know the IHS increase the surface aera of which is to be cooled? Thus proving it's a reason to keep and have one

 

[Twirlywoos]

Thats good, its good to know that Intel using cheaper methods isn't the problem

Yeh, just need to verify if proper contact was made and what TIM he used. I would imagine from the posts at Overclock.net that Intel don't use regular of the shelf TIM and judging from charts it does make a difference in temps.

The plot thickens

 

[muon]

You do know the IHS increase the surface aera of which is to be cooled? Thus proving it's a reason to keep and have one

Having a large copper heatsink directly touching is even better than a tiny IHS

 

[Krono5]

I changed the paste between the IHS and die, but the IHS HAS to be in place, or else the brittle processor pcb does not make proper contact with the socket pins. This operation helped a little, now it doesn't throttle so easily near 4.9Ghz. I got +50Mhz, so there is NO BENEFIT. So, DO NOT destroy your cpu's

That sounds like he simply removed the IHS, replaced the existing TIM with some other TIM and then put the IHS back on which would do precisely nothing. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.

 

[panyan]

You do know the IHS increase the surface aera of which is to be cooled? Thus proving it's a reason to keep and have one

so why do temps drop when its removed?

 

[mmj_uk]

You do know the IHS increase the surface aera of which is to be cooled? Thus proving it's a reason to keep and have one

There's a bigger surface area yes but it acts like an insulator compared to a direct contact between die & heatsink.

 

[new boy]

You do know the IHS increase the surface aera of which is to be cooled? Thus proving it's a reason to keep and have one

Why would transferring the heat from the small core, to a large heat spreader to a large heat sink be more efficient than taking the heat directly from the core to a large heat sink? either way you are limited by how fast the heat can be removed from the small core to the mating surface...

Its just adding another layer for the heat to travel though.

 

[Martini1991]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1248454/...egrated-heatspreader-report/170#post_17079860

Someone who de-lidded the CPU posted his results, but what is unknown is if he changed the mounting of the water block.

From reading that it doesn't look like he's de lidded the IHS, rather change the paste from the IHS and die.

 

[covenantuk]

You do know the IHS increase the surface aera of which is to be cooled? Thus proving it's a reason to keep and have one

If that's the case, I'm sure AMD would have added one to all the Athlon lines which ran notoriously hot. They didn't because putting another layer in between CPU and heatsink does nothing to improve heat dissipation, the IHS is more about protecting the CPU core.