New CPU Time

[haszek]

Tbf to Intel, the reasons for non-soldered IHS isn't just cost saving, there also an environmental impact re Indium to consider.

This environment defence is just spread by some big Intel fans ( don't mean you), but even der8auer recently said, that as what he thinks it's mainly based on difficulties involved with soldering, which then involves costs. So I would trust his judgement more than SS.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

Tbf to Intel, the reasons for non-soldered IHS isn't just cost saving, there's also an environmental impact re Indium to consider.

Dude, this theory is even worse than the other two.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

Need to remember the guys on YouTube need to stay on the right side of Intel. Slating them for skimping out here and there won't do them any favours in the future. Reasonable doubt is the safest way to play things.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Dude, this theory is even worse than the other two.

You are quite right:-

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1300/2004-1300.pdf

 

[RavenXXX2]

Tbf to Intel, the reasons for non-soldered IHS isn't just cost saving, there's also an environmental impact re Indium to consider.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

lol my thoughts exactly.

 

[Doobedoo]

Dude, this theory is even worse than the other two.

Tbf fair it's not really a theory it does costs a lot to mine indium apparently. It's not the sole reason they don't use solder but it is a reason. How justifiable that is is up to you but no matter how you put it, it's certainly mostly due to cost than anything else. If Amd can afford to use solder then their is no reason a much larger, more profitable corporation such as Intel can't.

This is what der8auer said back in 2015.

Before we start with the soldering details there are few things you need to know about indium. Similar to aluminium, indium forms a small oxide layer exposed to ambient air. Indium is a post-transition metal and very rare on earth. Compared to the worldwide gold production of about 3000 tons per year, indium is extremely rare. The world production of indium does not even reach 1000 tons per year. The average price of indium was about 800 USD per kilo in 2014. The price dropped now to about 400 USD, but the material is still pretty expensive. Depending on the size of the CPU, the raw indium will already cost about 2-5 USD.

Whenever I read sentences like “What a ripoff – Intel doesn’t even solder a 300 USD CPU” or “Why does intel save 2 USD on soldering” I’m thinking

Stop hating on Intel. Intel has some of the best engineers in the world when it comes to metallurgy. They know exactly what they are doing and the reason for conventional thermal paste in recent desktop CPUs is not as simple as it seems.

Micro cracks in solder preforms can damage the CPU permanently after a certain amount of thermal cycles and time. Conventional thermal paste doesn’t perform as good as the solder preform but it should have a longer durability – especially for small size DIE CPUs.

Thinking about the ecology it makes sense to use conventional thermal paste. Gold and indium are rare and expensive materials. Mining of these materials is complex and in addition it’s polluting.

After soldering one of my 6700K CPUs I can tell it’s a pretty complex process. I’m still working on it and trying to make it available for extreme overclockers. However, I doubt that Intel will come back with soldered “small DIE CPUs”. Skylake works great even with normal thermal paste so I see no reason why Intel should/would change anything here.

Again this is what der8auer has said so please don't shoot the messenger. Full article here http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

 

[Bluntwrapped]

I've read and heard him say similar things recently, but as above what good would it be to him or anyone in a similar position to criticise Intel when year after year they receive exclusive access to the lastest and greatest.

Surely it would be a mistake to be too critical of Intel products?

Reading that piece you've linked the line "stop hating on Intel" absolutely stinks. It's a biased piece of writing.

Wouldn't we all tell our boss he's a **** if we thought we could get away with it?

 

[Doobedoo]

That's up to you to make that assumption but tbf he probably has much more credibility than the majority of us.

I couldn't really care less because I won't be buying one so it doesn't affect me personally. If you don't like it then don't buy it would be the smartest thing to do.

 

[iakhtar]

I always thought the real reason was maxing yields as Intel was prob losing a small % of dies during the soldering process.

 

[humbug]

Tbf fair it's not really a theory it does costs a lot to mine indium apparently. It's not the sole reason they don't use solder but it is a reason. How justifiable that is is up to you but no matter how you put it, it's certainly mostly due to cost than anything else. If Amd can afford to use solder then their is no reason a much larger, more profitable corporation such as Intel can't.

This is what der8auer said back in 2015.





Again this is what der8auer has said so please don't shoot the messenger. Full article here http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/

Whenever I read sentences like “What a ripoff – Intel doesn’t even solder a 300 USD CPU” or “Why does intel save 2 USD on soldering” I’m thinking

Stop hating on Intel. Intel has some of the best engineers in the world when it comes to metallurgy. They know exactly what they are doing and the reason for conventional thermal paste in recent desktop CPUs is not as simple as it seems.

Micro cracks in solder preforms can damage the CPU permanently after a certain amount of thermal cycles and time. Conventional thermal paste doesn’t perform as good as the solder preform but it should have a longer durability – especially for small size DIE CPUs.

Thinking about the ecology it makes sense to use conventional thermal paste. Gold and indium are rare and expensive materials. Mining of these materials is complex and in addition it’s polluting.

After soldering one of my 6700K CPUs I can tell it’s a pretty complex process. I’m still working on it and trying to make it available for extreme overclockers. However, I doubt that Intel will come back with soldered “small DIE CPUs”. Skylake works great even with normal thermal paste so I see no reason why Intel should/would change anything here.

So AMD must have better engineers than Intel, Ber8auer?

Stop being so defensive for Intel, you look like a fool, Ber8auer.

 

[gavinh87]

I find it funny how they can't find a way to solder £1000 CPUs but AMD can do it to £100 ones. Of course they can do it, after all intel have the better engineers don't they? Or that's what we've been told over the years.
It's obviously a cost cutting measure.
Of course there are bigger companies that won't call them out on this. Roman won't say anything bad about it, he afterall is making money from his delid tool!
Silicon lottery/ocuk are also making money from it.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel has a history of segmentation and trying to ring every penny out of every tier it can - look at how they progressively locked off overclocking,dropped stock coolers and even made sure the "overclocking bug" on Skylake was "fixed" with Kaby Lake. If they can use some excuse to cut costs they can and the enthusiasts on forums really should know better. Intel has enough money to invest in fabs,so you honestly are you having a laugh when they can't even make a proper thermal interface between a chip and a cooler?? Seriously??

But,but we can delid and invalidate our warranty whilst spending stupid amounts on coolers. If Intel wanted to formulate a better thermal compound and better IHS,they could - except enthusiasts will fall over themselves defending their practices.

What about their utterly crap stock coolers?? Surely if a poor company like AMD can include decent stock coolers,a massive company like Intel can??

Intel has to be held to this,since that is the only way companies will improve their products.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I find it funny how they can't find a way to solder £1000 CPUs but AMD can do it to £100 ones. Of course they can do it, after all intel have the better engineers don't they? Or that's what we've been told over the years.
It's obviously a cost cutting measure.

BTW,interesting stock and overclocked benchmarks by DF,don't you think?? Interesting comments they made about minimums too.

 

[gavinh87]

BTW,interesting stock and overclocked benchmarks by DF,don't you think?? Interesting comments they made about minimums too.

We've been saying this for ages. Eddy izzard.gif

 

[Doobedoo]

So AMD must have better engineers than Intel, Ber8auer?

Stop being so defensive for Intel, you look like a fool, Ber8auer.

It was back in 2015 so not sure how he thinks about now. I don't think it's got anything to do with having better engineers or not, it's more likely a boardroom decision than an engineering decision.

It's not much of an issue though really. The only people who need to worry about it or justify it is those that want to pay money for it. Simples.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

That's up to you to make that assumption but tbf he probably has much more credibility than the majority of us.

I couldn't really care less because I won't be buying one so it doesn't affect me personally. If you don't like it then don't buy it would be the smartest thing to do.

Hmm as purist consumers I would tend to disagree. If we remain loyal to one brand or another it is purely out of personal choice. When you add good business practice or desire to maintain working relationship things then become a little muddy.

 

[haszek]

It was back in 2015 so not sure how he thinks about now. I don't think it's got anything to do with having better engineers or not, it's more likely a boardroom decision than an engineering decision.

It's not much of an issue though really. The only people who need to worry about it or justify it is those that want to pay money for it. Simples.

He actually said like last week that he thinks it's mostly due to cost, rather than anything else. Sure it's difficult, but why solder if they don't have to.

44.45min

 

[Doobedoo]

Hmm as purist consumers I would tend to disagree. If we remain loyal to one brand or another it is purely out of personal choice. When you add good business practice or desire to maintain relationships things become a little muddy.

It's all about education mate. If you make an educated, well informed decision then you'll less likely to fall for dodgy business practices, if you can't be bothered then that is on you.

You can't rely on a corporation to tell you the truth, they are after all a profit making instrument above all else. Share holders do not care about the consumers they care about numbers and Benjamin's. Just the way corporatism works.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

I get that and completely agree, but you're talking from our perspective rather than someone who has shared interests with Intel. They're both quite different.

Lol this thread seems to have gone off on a tangent. OP:

Hello Guys

I am seriously considering upgrading my current setup, which is a 2600k cpu @ 4.6, Also i have a 1080 GPU, 16gb of ram that come with the 2600 so prob slow not sure the speed. Have a samsung ssd although not the very fast one. Was wondering what kind of speed increases i would get going to the R7 1700 or even 1800, or waiting for the coffee lake ones, i am sold on getting more core to future proof so dont want 7700 even though it is faster in games.
I primarily use my PC for gaming and streaming occasionally, and play games like pubattlegrounds and H1Z1, Battlefield sometimes.

Edited to add that I use a 1440 monitor and have 2 monitors if that makes much difference.

Thanks for your help.