OCUK Official IC Diamond/ Perihelion Test Results

Actually pretty much the way we do our comparisons, multiple test dies for months and comparisons made on the same die. We record the data every morning to get a trend line up or down. have to be rigorous about ambient's

You and WingZero30 should be in R&D as your interest lies in that direction.
 
Going over the numbers and the return is pretty good so far with 60+% reporting in with good commentary/observations.

I will post up the ongoing results in a day or two, takes time to wade through couple hundred posts. Good Job all.

Though some will make it to the Wall Of Shame the return is good enough to date to open up another 20 samples for giveaway.
 
Informational request-

Going over the numbers and found an interesting trend. Most, not all of you included a heat sink description - manufacturer, model, type of cooling etc. To get the full picture I need to fill the blanks if you could edit your posts or post your sink info would be a great help.

Much appreciated

Andrew
 
Chart below has a statistical cluster marked in red. Points 38 and 39 are zero but I marked them 0.1 to highlight them otherwise they are not visible.

The red marked data points all have a something(s) in common - 5 free ICD24 tubes to the first one who who can guess what I am looking at.

you get one guess each

overclockersUKDatasort.png
 
Jokester said:
So is the chart showing that the spread of results for watercooling is much tight than for say aircooling?
Click to expand...


No I do not believe so, C/W is C/W and not going to change.

I have another data point that's within range -3C I did not post because I wanted to highlight the cluster.

You can see from the data results that as a group there was a pretty rigorous effort to get it right as far as application/pressure this probably goes for the water users as well.

May be a weakness in hardware. I was thinking of flipping the coin and looking to see if there are standout heat sinks with exceptional hardware mounting hardware for increased delta's which is why I asked for users heat sink details.

There are pros and con's for each product, for example ThermalRight makes great sinks but the ones with the bowed base in our giveaways often tests great and sometimes it does not(not sink, our compound - more on that later) although it has the best overall pressure I have seen. I have Ideas about it but some were concerned enough in Germany to do a petition for TR to do away with it, Often these things are subtle and will try the patience of the best of mechanics.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/thermalright-convex/

Each giveaway has it's own variables, Power users vs the undervolters, some forums will use 70% AS5 others might use mostly stock compounds or they might favor a particular sink.

OCUK favors a higher % of water cooling and this is after 18-20 of these surveys. In the past I would get a couple water samples per giveaway and some were good and some were not. I tried to do some focused sampling but still inconclusive as size was small.

Sample size here is small but it may indicate where the trend is going - I believe it does.

In any event here is some H50 C/P data from a guy who was seeing only a degree or so difference. Contact was light, pressure was on the edge etc. Not a good test, but many do see a good result. It is hard to tele troubleshoot these things and at the same time many have a good result from the H50

test3-h50.png
 
Thanks for taking the time to test it is much appreciated by us.

Yes it is a marketing promotion but is also a educational process for us that helps us refine our marketing message and improve on our troubleshooting on user problems. Application method and amount were determined from user tests and further refined by IC.

It continues to reveal valuable information even after 20 of of these exercises.

The Asgard -Thanks again for the extra effort
 
rawimgb.jpg
rawimga.jpg


From the onsite Review

Testing/Troubleshooting Notes

Picture the test results above as coming from 2 different website reviews with identical systems and identical heat sinks and run under the same conditions.

1st reviewer sees a 1 C difference

2nd reviewer sees 3 C difference

Not to dither here on the details of testing but which one is more accurate?

They are both equally accurate as the reviewers both reported what they saw.

But on a single test you have to Quantify your result to Qualify your result.

Both were tested @ 75lbs + (TR sinks have some awesome pressure!)

and if the reviewers both report contact area of 0.64 and 1.14 square inches respectively the tests are now comparable with the obvious conclusion that better contact improves performance. (Most here on this board are aware of this as experienced end users, I re-emphasize so everyone gets it, simple point but a key one)


In this test the lapping exercise improved performance for both compounds but ICD -2 C more so than the AS5 for overall of -3 C.

Low pressure and light contact area tends to homogenize the differences between compounds so that differences of perhaps maybe only +/- 1-2 C over an array of several tested compounds marginalizing test results within the range of the margin of error.

So to hammer the Point it is just good shop practice to insure good contact and tighten the sinks down
 
Latest update - Any errors or omissions on my part let me know and I will make the change.

Well so far we have an interesting set of data that separates OCUK from all the 20 or so groups tested by us.

In the past water cooling is usually less than 5% of the sampled results, on OCUK at this point we are 30% water cooling(marked in red), 70% air! You guys are unique.

What made it readily obvious was the statistical cluster of 20% water in the marginal-zero-negative result category. The other 10% is mostly the H50 in the performed as expected group. Might be linked to compound mix but I have a sense that it may have an overall edge in C/P for the H50. (Curse you water coolers for sinking my averages!,lol)

In any event The air cooler group (marked blue) has it over the water with pretty much positive results across the board. I highlighted the ThermalRight (yellow) sinks as they were generally lower but the sample is small and may not be telling us anything and as in water cooling the overall performance is good enough that they accept results as they are. I believe the TR convex base has merit but as you push limits you reach a hysteresis point where minor differences can put you off a degree or two but again probably mitigated by sink overall performance.

I would be interested in a sub test with the water group if I can get enough of a sample size using the contact and pressure paper same as what was used in the review. Any takers?

Perihelion will be revised separately







OCUKMARCH282011update.png


OCUKMarch27updatechart.png
 
Last edited:
LiamJ said:
Sorry, I can now see that I forgot to mention ambient temperatures! :D

I am certain it was 21c for both. :)
Click to expand...

pa
stymuncher Some mistakes in the update for my result.

1. My paste was MX-2 not MX-3.
2. You left out the idle difference. MX-2 was 1 degree cooler than ICD24.
3. Load temps difference is also wrong. The average ICD24 is 47.25 degrees not 47 degrees meaning ICD24 was only 1 degree better, not 1.25 degrees.
4. Waterblock is a EK Supreme HF not the older Supreme.
5. You left out my cpu and speed as well. I5 760@4Ghz @1.228v.

This info is all in my results post.
Click to expand...

Noted and will make the changes - Thanks
 
Sink's base spreads the heat, the heat pipes do their job. both of you are running near the same temps.

I believe from the pictures and description of dried paste in center the difference would be that Bainbridge's 60C is a kind of a heat/contact signature with the heat load carried in a smaller area (Increased Heat Density) with compound dry out contrasted with pastymuncher's experience where the heat is spread over a broader area so the overall heat density may be 2-3-4 X? lower than Bainbride's

In essence Bainbridge's test bed is similar to an accelerated reliability mini test till compound failure.
 
Last edited:
I would be interested in a sub test with the water group if I can get enough of a sample size using the contact and pressure paper same as what was used in the review. Any takers?
 
WingZero30, Rare event to do the whole hog out of 700 forum tests I have only had one other and he was in the UK also. Had his own synthetic test block and could measure pressure applied!

One thing that struck me was the apparent cure time on ICD I usually test @ approx 60 -90 psi and hit BLT in a couple of hours with maybe another 0.5 C overnight. Does not mean it does not happen and many report it especially at lower pressures it is just something I do not see. Sink pressure on the TR's is awesome and it's unique configuration on the base make it a nice candidate for troubleshooting compounds.

The MX Tim, thinner in consistency looks to have hit the BLT quickly as the lightly bulk loaded pastes are prone to.

The Perihelion perplexes me as most user tests and my own it runs pretty close to ICD within a degree or two but vs ICD there is a larger group than the diamond negative result tests that do not see a positive result. I have some Ideas on it but would like to focus on a configuration where there is a mismatch to try and pin it down.

Would you be interested in doing one of the Contact and pressure tests?

Well executed tests and report and much appreciated detail- Overall I have not had a group put me through the wringer like this one has since the first couple of giveaways and am getting lots of good info. so thanks all.
 
I will be interested in the 'Contact and Pressure Test' as I want to find out myself how much pressure Thermalright IFX-14 mounting system exerts on cpu IHS and to get broader overview of contact pattern.

How will I conduct this test and will you provide any further equipment for this test?

However I must say it will be couple of weeks before I can carry out such test and present results as I will be very busy in the next few weeks.
Click to expand...

Send me your address with your AKA in the subject line and I will dend you a test kit.

Very simple to do just mount sink as you normally would without any compound, remove paper and you are done and have your pressure and contact picture.

Thinking about the ThermalRight convex strategy. From a heat sink or thermal paste perspective on optimizing performance, there are three legs to the stool.

1.) Pressure
2.) Contact
3.) Application

Application is more or less easily solvable

Contact is a variable that is up to the end user (lapping sink and IHS) and can not be controlled by the heat sink manufacturer.

Pressure is the dominant factor and resolves or mitigates many contact problems, not all but a good number of them.

As in the review done by Ace Modder at 75psi as far as pressure goes there is not much left to squeeze out on the performance, he is pretty maxed out.

The other side of the equation, contact had a palatable effect on sink/ paste overall performance from the original AS5 configuration as final lapping with ICD was -6C so the increased contact with the IHS improved performance -3C.

If the sink was @ 50 lbs both contact and pressure I believe would have been significantly lower in performance.

Not entirely sold on the convex because of the trade offs involved. For example when I test on synthetic die using heat pipes I can only use the large die because on the small die the spreading resistance on the heat sink base is too high and the sink under performs on a one cm die by about -5C as the heat does not make it to the pipes farthest away efficiently. So with a 1 cm approx wide band of contact you will encounter some spreading resistance there.

In any event if you can control pressure as a heat sink manufacturer it is the way to go, the difference would the design trade offs assumed.
 
Thanks people for posting up your results and taking the time to test. Not as many as I thought for wall of shame candidates.

Will be updating ongoing results with corrections in a day or two
 
EniGmA1981 said:
Just started my work with ICDiamond - for starters I want to say that the Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme is an absolute ARSE to hold steady while screwing it back down!!! I hope the twisting motion won't bugger up the performance of the TIM!! lol

Also, is this enough/too much/not enough...
glob.JPG

(by the way, that 'artifact' in the northeast of the image is dust, not a big scrape!)

First impressions: when booting with the stock paste, CoreTemp registered a temp spike of 65c, first boot with ICD registered a peak of only 58c - good start! It doesn't seem to need any 'curing time' so I'll proceed with my testing of the ICD now... will post results shortly :)
Click to expand...

Hard to tell from the picture but Looks a little to the low side maybe 5mm? when I have time I will resize and do an overlay. This is where the artful guess comes into play - you put your thumb into the picture and say a little more or a little less...

5-5.JPG
glob.JPG
 
thunderflash said:
Ok thanks very much. I have tried 3 times with ICD on my 480, 1st I did a large 8mm blob in the centre, took off heatsink after a few hours and the paste had only covered about half of the GPU, then put on a 10mm blob and it wasn't much better, now I'm using a 12mm blob but no more paste left to try again so am hoping that is enough paste. My motherboard is getting swapped so waiting for that to return before I can test temps. Impossible to spread ICD so has to be a blob method. If I get higher temps after next test I will just go back to another brand for the gpu, one that spreads and I know is completely covering the area I want it to.
Click to expand...

Alternatively "X" pattern works great - If it is not spreading it is most likely a pressure issue.

I would re-torque the screws periodically over a few days to take up slack as the compound thins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom