• 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

It's easy to forget quite how much heat is being put out in such a small space, after all if you try holding the end of a 15W soldering iron it doesn't take very long to hurt at all.

The sun only gives out 6mW (and that is a small m) per KG so a scaled down sun would need a lot less cooling. Unfortunately I am not sure what socket it would fit in :P
 
For IB the power will be only about 100W, plus some of that goes the other way down through the socket. It's also worth noting that the 3mm figure only applies directly up from the core, the effective distance at the far edge of the IHS is much greater, so the delta will be higher than that calculated. As a rough estimate I would put it half way between the figure for a IHS the size of the die and the value calculated using that equation.

Edit: IB core is 160mm2, overclocked power consumption seems to be approx ~150W gives a best case delta with a full size IHS of 1.25degC, assuming worst case that the IHS is only on the core surface gives 7degC so in reality it's going to be somewhere between the two, probably about 3-4degC. The best TIMs are only 1-2degC behind Indigo Extreme (effectively solder) so having a heat spreader adds a good 5degC to the core temperature, even when solder is used, for one of the interfaces.
 
Wow that's usefull to know. I've never thought about replacing the TIM between the core and the IHS, normally I just put some on top the ISH and the HSF. That's made me feel quite a bit better about buying an Ivy Bridge CPU!
 
Normally you would'nt see such a huge difference between the best and worse TIM, usually you would see just a few degrees difference. That makes me wonder if they put the IHS back on or left it off and had the heatsink directly on the cpu core. These articles need to be clearer on the methods used.
 
pastymuncher said:
Normally you would'nt see such a huge difference between the best and worse TIM, usually you would see just a few degrees difference. That makes me wonder if they put the IHS back on or left it off and had the heatsink directly on the cpu core. These articles need to be clearer on the methods used.
Click to expand...

By the description it looks like they put the IHS back on afterwards.
 
Im not actually having any "temperature/OC isse's" with my 3770k infact I actually love the performance Im getting from it. The temperatures aren't that bad either.
 
Ollie1132 said:
Im not actually having any "temperature/OC isse's" with my 3770k infact I actually love the performance Im getting from it. The temperatures aren't that bad either.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it's relative, obviously I don't know the exact numbers or average OC results of all Sandy/Ivy chips but the overall feeling seems to be that 4.8GHz was more common with decent temps on Sandy than Ivy. Also I think this is the first time in a good few years where the change from one generation to the next didn't result in better overclock results? (Core 2 -> i7 1st gen -> i7 2nd gen.)
 
Last edited:
True but 4.6Ghz on IB is 4.8Ghz on SB performance wise at least. Not sure what kind of temps 4.8Ghz on SB gives but on IB you're just sitting above 70C (with HT on my i7) at 4.6Ghz possibly approaching 80C depending on how lucky you are with your vcore etc.
 
Ollie1132 said:
True but 4.6Ghz on IB is 4.8Ghz on SB performance wise at least. Not sure what kind of temps 4.8Ghz on SB gives but on IB you're just sitting above 70C (with HT on my i7) at 4.6Ghz possibly approaching 80C depending on how lucky you are with your vcore etc.
Click to expand...

I think usually around the same with high end air/all in one water cooling. Although 4.6GHz isn't a poor overclock by any means I just would have liked to see a little more improvement between CPU generations than what is essentially just a little power saving from improved efficiency and IPC.
 
Interesting read. I don't get why Intel would want to sabotage their product offering like this though. They must have tested their choice of TIM to know it didn't perform as good as it could. I feel some backlash coming if they don't explain themselves.
 
thenewoc said:
Interesting read. I don't get why Intel would want to sabotage their product offering like this though. They must have tested their choice of TIM to know it didn't perform as good as it could. I feel some backlash coming if they don't explain themselves.
Click to expand...

Possibly, however as usual the opinions/complaints of the overclocking community don't really mean all that much to Intel. Keep in mind last generation everyone was complaining about the 'locked' CPUs which stopped people from buying a low end CPU and clocking the nuts off it as they could with Core 2 and first gen i5/i7. Sadly Intel can do more or less whatever they like and people will still buy their products, especially as AMD aren't anywhere near competitive in the mid-high end desktop range right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom