- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Looks a little light on amount, add more compound
OCUK Official IC Diamond/ Perihelion Test Results
- Thread starter IC Diamond
- Start date
Looks a little light on amount, add more compound
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Your compound pattern is fine as the centre of cpu IHS is well covered. As IC Diamond mentioned apply a bit more and it should cover the IHS even more. I don't even get this pattern as the base of my heatsink is convex.
Using too little is a concern for air entrapment affecting performance and reliability
http://innovationcooling.com/applicationinstructions.htm
You cannot use to much paste, we have tested this and the excess just squishes out. You could even immerse the mounting set up is a bucket of compound and get the same result as the clamping force far exceeds any local ambient pressures or fluid spreading drag or resistance.
Better to use a little more on the first mount to eliminate the potential of a failed mount, the TIM waste associated with a rework and the time expensed doing so.
2 hrs @ 50 PSI will get you 95% overnight 98% maybe at most a half degree more.
@ 70 PSI probably 1/2 hour
@ 20 PSI maybe a month or perhaps never.
Just speculating that might be one of the reasons AS5 is recommended 200hrs cure time is to cover worse case scenarios on reaching optimum BLT.
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
X method works great and entrains no air and final results are same as applied bead. My preference towards the bead on center is more of economy for the end user as people tend to use more with X applications. But that might be my bias as I have infinite amounts at my disposal and always slap on enough without worry that I need to ration it.
I did not think it necessary as it seems straight forward to me but we could put a window on the label and spec something like 0.15-0.2 ml per 30 X30mm
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Some stock coolers are are great - Give it a shot
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
As long as we are into the nuances of mounting and application - This is something that came out of a Tech support question in the last two weeks.
"with many mounting systems it is required that you lock down one side then the other side and when doing so causes the compound to flow from the closing gap to the unloaded side"
Some number of paste impressions I have looked at in the past I attributed to the sink being unbalanced on mount, but after looking into this some number of those may be the mounting procedure.
I had to test this with some slides and if you are a few seconds fast with it the compound will backfill and give good coverage with bead on center method.
Now if you are slow in mounting it back fills less and might leave as much as 20 - 30-% on the initial load side bare.
Now a corner to corner "X" pattern after a couple of tries left some air in the mount.
A Cross + Pattern side to side middle worked great
A "V" pattern with the apex on the initial load side worked great.
Solutions I have not tried are locating the bead off center towards the initial load side to compensate. Probably the simplest would be to press down on the sink for a few moments to spread the compound some before locking down.
not a major point just one of those details that you encounter from time to time.
"with many mounting systems it is required that you lock down one side then the other side and when doing so causes the compound to flow from the closing gap to the unloaded side"
Some number of paste impressions I have looked at in the past I attributed to the sink being unbalanced on mount, but after looking into this some number of those may be the mounting procedure.
I had to test this with some slides and if you are a few seconds fast with it the compound will backfill and give good coverage with bead on center method.
Now if you are slow in mounting it back fills less and might leave as much as 20 - 30-% on the initial load side bare.
Now a corner to corner "X" pattern after a couple of tries left some air in the mount.
A Cross + Pattern side to side middle worked great
A "V" pattern with the apex on the initial load side worked great.
Solutions I have not tried are locating the bead off center towards the initial load side to compensate. Probably the simplest would be to press down on the sink for a few moments to spread the compound some before locking down.
not a major point just one of those details that you encounter from time to time.
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
interesting grouping
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Perihelion should test near ICD
Perihelion is slightly less forgiving than ICD on the pressure side
Perihelion is slightly less forgiving than ICD on the pressure side
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Application Notes -Amount of Applied Compound
There is always some debate on amount of applied compound to use, our approach is based on a best to worst case scenario with a one size fits all so the user can experience best odds of a successful mount out of the gate without having to redo his mount.
Say that Intel has a spec of Flat and parallel // to .002. - At the extreme end you get something like the 2 images of the candidate below, to fill that gap/volume you need .05 ml volume of compound for a 30mmk X30mm area about the size of a grain of rice.
Our difference with the rice method comes from the other side of the equation The heat sink base, while many are good some can be off as much as the IHS and to cover the contingency of irregular contour on both sink & IHS and as few people lap to correct the problem (5%?)and fewer lap to perfection we add another .05 ml for a total of 0.1ml.
Another factor associated with irregular contours is another mil or two layer of compound is added on the high spots depending on the pressure applied. To fill that gap we add another .05 ml for a total recommended amount of 1.5 ml which approx. equals our 5-5.5mm size bead on center. or 3-4 applications with a 7 carat/0.5ml tube
Thermal compound is a volume application to fill gaps, not one of weight, liquid spread-ability etc. and our view that whatever the compound you still need the equivalent volume to close that gap.
There is always some debate on amount of applied compound to use, our approach is based on a best to worst case scenario with a one size fits all so the user can experience best odds of a successful mount out of the gate without having to redo his mount.
Say that Intel has a spec of Flat and parallel // to .002. - At the extreme end you get something like the 2 images of the candidate below, to fill that gap/volume you need .05 ml volume of compound for a 30mmk X30mm area about the size of a grain of rice.
Our difference with the rice method comes from the other side of the equation The heat sink base, while many are good some can be off as much as the IHS and to cover the contingency of irregular contour on both sink & IHS and as few people lap to correct the problem (5%?)and fewer lap to perfection we add another .05 ml for a total of 0.1ml.
Another factor associated with irregular contours is another mil or two layer of compound is added on the high spots depending on the pressure applied. To fill that gap we add another .05 ml for a total recommended amount of 1.5 ml which approx. equals our 5-5.5mm size bead on center. or 3-4 applications with a 7 carat/0.5ml tube
Thermal compound is a volume application to fill gaps, not one of weight, liquid spread-ability etc. and our view that whatever the compound you still need the equivalent volume to close that gap.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Curing
I mostly test at pressures from 55lbs to 90 psi as the compounds stabilizes or reaches the near final bond line thickness faster and without exception for any compound after a few hours I am within 95% of what the final thermal performance will be within a degree or so even if I run the test for a month.
That's not to say multi degree improvements do not happen enough people report it so some basis for it probably exists and my speculation on it is that extended cure times could relate to to lighter pressures under 50 PSI. In any event it this has not been my experience.
Link
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
I average all cores then subtract ambient from load temp on both tests so you are left with the temperature rise with the ambient factored out. Then subtract the difference in temps.
so
TIM 1 AVG - ambient = 65C - 21.5 = 43.5C
TIM 2 AVG - ambient = 63C-18 = 45C
so between test 1 and 2 you have a difference of 1.5 C
At the ambient micro temp level a lot of macro stuff is happening that is not picked up as temperature is always in a state of flux.
I've watched thermocouples all day long for years, with HVAC you easily see a swing of 5c in hour and in a stable environment with no HVAC 2-3 C is the order of the day in a 10 min period. Just stand next to an open bench test and and body heat and breathing you can raise the ambient a couple of degrees, I take my readings from a distance of four or 5 feet just so I do not affect the ambient reading.
For an accurate reading on a fan heat sink you would take several at the inlet of the fan and average them as localized component heat can vary 5C side to side. floor to ceiling can be 5- 10C different. In the summer morning temps could be 20C and late afternoon 35 C.
When users report same number ambient for multiple tests or any single number I assume that they are probably 2-3 C+/- to the best of their ability, so on any single test the margin of error can exceed the tested result along with contact area %, pressure applied, different thermal/pressure paste curves etc. which are a lot of uncontrolled variables which is one reason not to get excited at any solo result. Give me +30 users and I have a number that's been more or less the same from the beginning to 700 tests within a few 10th's of a degree
Some will be high and some will be low but they average out in the long run.
so
TIM 1 AVG - ambient = 65C - 21.5 = 43.5C
TIM 2 AVG - ambient = 63C-18 = 45C
so between test 1 and 2 you have a difference of 1.5 C
At the ambient micro temp level a lot of macro stuff is happening that is not picked up as temperature is always in a state of flux.
I've watched thermocouples all day long for years, with HVAC you easily see a swing of 5c in hour and in a stable environment with no HVAC 2-3 C is the order of the day in a 10 min period. Just stand next to an open bench test and and body heat and breathing you can raise the ambient a couple of degrees, I take my readings from a distance of four or 5 feet just so I do not affect the ambient reading.
For an accurate reading on a fan heat sink you would take several at the inlet of the fan and average them as localized component heat can vary 5C side to side. floor to ceiling can be 5- 10C different. In the summer morning temps could be 20C and late afternoon 35 C.
When users report same number ambient for multiple tests or any single number I assume that they are probably 2-3 C+/- to the best of their ability, so on any single test the margin of error can exceed the tested result along with contact area %, pressure applied, different thermal/pressure paste curves etc. which are a lot of uncontrolled variables which is one reason not to get excited at any solo result. Give me +30 users and I have a number that's been more or less the same from the beginning to 700 tests within a few 10th's of a degree
Some will be high and some will be low but they average out in the long run.
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
We do not have many TX - 2 tests, 10 or so) but so far seems to be one of the more competitive competitive compounds
Like to see more Perihelion test comparisons should be competitive on it's own.
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
[
You know... after reading the first page with the results I find it amusing how far too many on this board seem to diss Arctic Silver 5 from todays thermal paste yet the difference is minimal.
Well in the old days people bought AS because it was what, a couple of degrees better than stock? difference was minimal as you say.
Point is cooling is the whole body thing - Lower case temp, better sink etc. A few degrees here and a few degrees there adds up to some substantial numbers.
Some tests shows 0 difference at idle some shows 3 degree's difference on load. Nothing overly breathtaking about like some people try to claim.
The thing to keep in mind when you are looking at the averages they also average power/watts. A power user vs an end user who under volts their system will generally experience a very different result.
The C/W of a compound is a constant, so at low power you will observe in the temperatures a small difference, in the example below idle delta 1C - load 6C, double the watts to 240 and it's 12 C.
Granted you have the good and bad mounts which cancel each other out but you do have Power Users that cancel out low power users. My lowest averages were from Silent PC where most of the users were under volters.
While not directly comparable as larger contact area will lower delta temps* GPU's run hot, more watts some as high as 350W.
Below is a power user comparison with an average 2X the under volting group
*Example my 1cm test die delta temps will be approx 2X higher than my 1 inch die @ the same Watts/power has to do with the watt density kind of like a soldering iron 30W will give you a nasty burn, spread it out a bit and you have a heating pad for your neck - it's all in the power density
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsYd6RE6aW3VdFM4d2VEM3FrMTB5dHhBQm5lR1MzYXc&hl=en#gid=0
The most amusing part is so many people act like a marketing campaign then the next they are preaching how they are real enthusiasts that only go by real world numbers. As well as reading a few others findings on page 2.
I've lost count the amount of posts saying AS5 is so outdated by too many people like as if you're going to gain 10 degrees. What's that all about...
I believe this is what it's about. Again the 3C comparison is not a one shoe fits all it just reflects average user power/watts
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Is the main performance measure actually the temperature rise/ delta t?
Generally higher ambient temp will result in higher cpu coretemps and lower ambient temps will result in lower cpu coretemps.
So we are looking at the difference between ambient temp and load temp as a measure of TIM performance and it's effectiveness?
E.g
TIM1
ambient 18c
load temp 75C
delta t = 75 -18 = 57c
TIM2
ambient 20c
load temp 76C
delta t = 76 - 20 = 56c
So although with TIM1 coretemp was lower as ambient temp was lower, TIM2 actually performed better by 1C. Is this correct and is this how we should be looking at results especially if the ambient temp differs? Exactly right, you have to normalize the data so it is directly comparable which is the reason for the ambient request
Edit: In the quoted text TIM1 performed better, right?
You got it
Many thanks
Your Welcome!
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Many thanks for clearing this up
Just one more thing about ambient temp.
I have been researching about ambient temp in relation to computers and it is mentioned that in computing, ambient temp refers to the temperature inside the pc case and not the room.
You mentioned in the earlier post that accurate reading of ambient temp is noted by taking several readings at the inlet of cpu cooler fan and then averaging them. In the picture below is the layout of fans in my HAF 922 case.
So will I need to place thermometer near the inlet to record several readings and then averaging them? Yes, Intel thermal docs has diagrams and much info on testing I juct can not put my fingers on the link right now
The 2 akasa viper 120m fans and the 140mm fan are pwm controlled by motherboard via akasa pwm splitter cable:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CB-031-AK
So their speed varies from idle to load but they are in sync. So at full 100% cpu load, the akasa viper fans will spin at full 1900RPM while the 140mm fan I believe goes only up to 1000-1200RPM at full load.
At idle load, vipers spin around 850-900RPM and the 140mm fan I presume also spin at around same speed or may be less as HWmonitor doesn't give individual speeds for the pwm controlled fans.
The 3 remaining case fans spin at constant speeds.
At idle as the fans spin at their constant respective speeds, I guess the ambient temperature inside the case should be more or less similar in all the tests, though it will vary in the actual room at different points and as mentioned by you in earlier post.
Love all the fans - you have a thermal cascade -- CPU to TIM to IHS to TIM to Sink to Case Ambient to Room Ambient.
Change any of the parameters upstream or downstream and it will impact overall results.
Lower room temp 5C and it will lower your case temp/CPU temp.
Use a stock sink and CPU and case temps will change etc.
What's your case temp vs room?
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
@ IC Diamond
Do you mean the following intel diagram for taking ambient temp:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6376564&postcount=1
Looks familar
It seems we have to place thermometer very close to the fan intake or right infront of the fan and take several readings and then average temp.
Yes, but remember the motor generates heat, 75% of the fan air flow occurs in the last 25% of the fan length. I would be a little more out board than the Intel diagram as edges of the fan tend to be closer to local components and as the bulk of the flow is at or near the tip.
I can only think of two methods for doing so:
1 Take off the side panel and place the thermometer more or less in the required locations by hand as graphics card is in the way. So all this time side panel is off.
2 Take off the side panel and place thermometer close to the fan but not in the desired location. Put the side panel back on.
1 leave the case open, you do not really care for this measurement. If I was interested in the case flow for some reason, maybe trouble shooting airflow then I would leave it closed.
In either case at what interval should I record thermometer values and then average them. Would 3 be enough? I would probe the area first to look for problem areas if it fairly even do 2-3 if you have one or two sides that are higher by 2-5C do 4.
Assuming paste has been applied more than 2 hours run at full load a half hour to let it heat up and stabilize. Depending on the reaction time of your temperature device when it stabilizes I would take CPU temp and Ambient at the same time when ambient changes CPU temp will change a second or two later (might be one source of some of the fluctuation in the OCCT scores as a speculation as CPU adjust to changes in air temp) then average the readings 2 or 4 point or whatever you deem appropriate from your observations
Also whatever method I choose I will need to stick to it as the other method will affect the ambient temps relatively.
What do you think?
Edit: Room temperature was 18C. The case ambient temp was 20C. I used the 2nd method as mentioned above and took the reading after 30mins.
Looking at your diagram i thought they would be close but thats pretty good.
Probably goes without saying is not contacting fan blades with the thermometer.
if you can tape or clamp your temp probe in position is nice then you can monitor temps for a while and get a feel for what would be a good reading and also watch your fan speeds for minor fluctuation as well to see if that makes a difference in your reading.
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
My experiments are more or less similar but I am only doing them at intervals of 1 week each. So each of the three compounds are applied for 1 week one after the other and tested. So that will be 3 weeks total application + testing
Edit: I carried out MX-4 testing last week. Tomorrow I will be testing IC Perihelion and then next week from tomorrow I will be testing IC Diamond. The thing that is very thrilling and exciting for me is that it is total unknown until all testing is done and then results analysed!!. Oh boyI aim to keep the testing as accurate as I can using Intel Burn Test.
I have some contact and pressure paper laying around if you want to do the full boat -get a snapshot of your mounting contact and pressure - send you some Monday if you would like to do the test
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
I didn't get this bit? Can you please enlighten me on this info?
Don't break the fan blades
Would this be a good method aswell for noting ambient temp inside the case as this seems to correlate with method2 mentioned above?
As long as you are into it - Testing is always relative, a data point on it's does not mean much in this case relational things things like cpu temp, watts, contact, pressure, airflow etc. all tell you something. Even testing through alternate methods and comparing results
Test the case open and closed or upside down and backwards, floor/desk against the wall, middle of the room. The more you test and the more you probe opportunities will present themselves for improvement or refinement and a better understanding.
Applying different test methods - Intel has temp sensors in the CPU - In their thermal docs they recommend embedding a thermocouple in the IHS. Why would they do that? more accuracy/higher resolution? Obviously they expect a different number than what you get with the on board sensor. Comparing both is useful for design purposes I would assume. Different methods tell you something new and no one test gives the whole story.
My synthetic test stands, small die, large die give me another view but are different than real world user tests, now add in the Intel thermocouple method and you 4 ways of testing add in an ASTM test and it tells you something else. No one method alone has all the answers, start comparing them and lots of indicators about the tested material become readily apparent.
It's being relative that counts
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
Results for Diamond after 3 weeks of testing, final test for this stuff will be next week which is quite timely as its getting warmer now & today it didn't take long at all to bring the room up to ambient temperature.
* Pea-sized blob
* 70lbs pressure
* Ambient temerature 21c
* Idling temps taking 1hr after bootup
* Loads temps taken after 1hr on full load
* 1 weeks use = approx 14hrs use & 7 on/off cycles
I missed something here, You are testing on 3 different PC's ?
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 223
OK, so the data was from a previous comparison? That's no problem just trying to understand the test