OCUK Official IC Diamond/ Perihelion Test Results

Last edited:
lol, nasty rumor from our competitors

Post # 11 page 1 of this thread
Feels the same because particle size is probably close

Most thermal compounds are Liquid sandpaper or lapping compounds by definition.

Light gray compounds are usually/mostly made up of aluminum oxide.

Aluminum oxide is what they make sandpaper out of.....MOHS Hardness scale 9

Diamond on the MOHS hardness scale 10

Copper MOHS 3

To be abrasive you just have to be harder than the material to be cut.

Most thermal compounds have particle sizes in the range of 600 - 800 same as your 600 - 800 sandpaper

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/grit.html

If you are ambitious you can calculate cutting speeds and material removal between diamond the hardest (cubic boron nitride is actually harder than diamond) and the second hardest aluminum oxide, you will find a insignificant difference.

For the insignificant speed- distance traveled, light pressures, minuscule time slice You will not see any difference between the two under normal use.

Abrasives have to move to work,

For all compounds- if you are a habitual abuser who re-installs his sink 20 times a week or constantly rotates the sink under pressure then switch to something less abrasive like a zinc oxide compound .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You can test it on your own, AS5 has aluminum oxide, the mx compounds Shin Etsu etc. are all abrasive.

Take an oxidized copper coin and try polishing for 20 seconds - they all should polish it up nicely and pretty well equally.
 
Any comparisons against the Zalman "paint on" stuff? I'm always up for something cooler, but I'm not sure if its worth sacrificing the sheer ease of application of the Zalman stuff for a degree or two?
 
Reading the application method on the IC website suggests that the pea-sized blob method is the best method and that 5-5.5mm or half a cm of paste should be applied in the middle. I agree with that part.
However will this amount of thermal paste really fill the whole IHS of the cpu seeing as they come in different socket sizes and 1366 is bigger than 775? So 5mm may well fill the whole 775 cpu IHS but may not do the same thing for 1366 cpu.:confused:

Afaik the general consensus is that centre of the cpu is all that matters where most heat is concentrated. However IC are saying that even with blob method in the middle, it should cover the whole IHS otherwise air bubbles will form around the edges. How much do air bubbles on the edge affect the performance? I understand air bubbles would have mattered the most if they formed in the centre of cpu IHS. But air bubbles around the edge:confused:?
 
Last edited:
WingZero30 said:
Reading the application method on the IC website suggests that the pea-sized blob method is the best method and that 5-5.5mm or half a cm of paste should be applied in the middle. I agree with that part.
However will this amount of thermal paste really fill the whole IHS of the cpu seeing as they come in different socket sizes and 1366 is bigger than 775? So 5mm may well fill the whole 775 cpu IHS but may not do the same thing for 1366 cpu.:confused:

Afaik the general consensus is that centre of the cpu is all that matters where most heat is concentrated. However IC are saying that even with blob method in the middle, it should cover the whole IHS otherwise air bubbles will form around the edges. How much do air bubbles on the edge affect the performance? I understand air bubbles would have mattered the most if they formed in the centre of cpu IHS. But air bubbles around the edge:confused:?
Click to expand...

But air bubbles around the edge?


Left to right 1,2 4 started with small air bubbles - this halo of air bubbles at the edge expand under heat and pressure and accelerate compound failure

20hoursat150C.JPG


The example we use is for 30mm X 30mm just ratio it up or down for the area. We recommend to the high side to try and cover the variables encountered in end user contact with IHS and sink - concave IHS you need more compound, lapped IHS and sink you could use less so we try to cover both scenarios with the suggested amount.

Excess just squeezes out, I have tested this by applying excess compound between glass slides on a simulated IHS with a couple of binder clips and @ room temps it resolved down to about 95% of the average particle size in about 2 hours and 99% overnight of the final bond line thickness (BLT) measured with a micrometer.

Better to use to much than too little to avoid having to redo your mount, you have 10-12 applications in the samples provided don't be stingy you can refine amount as you get a feel for it you have enough to experiment with so have at it.

There are always exceptions or nuances, this week I had a guy who due his mounting set up did not allow for a blob in the middle as the mounting bracket design had to be locked in on one side first and as you pressed down to lock the other side the compound was pushed ahead of the closing joint leaving about a third of the IHS uncovered.

With the glass slides I tried X corner to corner and a + or a cross side to side and both ended with air in the joint. I ended up with a V pattern with apex on the initial load side as being the final solution.


Users are a great source for us on problem solving giglamesh @ overclockerstech came up with the the idea for subzero cooling to preheat/cure the compound with a hair dryer to thin the joint. Just going to straight to subzero the paste hardens before it has a chance to resolve down to the ultimate BLT or average particle size.

Another end user used a torq wrench on a screw mount and picked up some thing we had not considered.

When you first mount your sink you are not at the final bond line thickness, so when you power up the system the compound continues to flow - the screws do not move so you end up with a loose BLT. A re-torque after warm up improved his temp a couple of degrees. This is like re-torquing the head gasket on the old cars after the first 1,000 miles. I would not have picked that up as it is not an issue with a constant pressure spring mount which I use in all my testing.

I had one guy at Anandtech use a massage vibrator to spread the compound - worked pretty well.

After initial test I encourage people to experiment - you have plenty compound have at it.

Andrew
 
Last edited:
IC Diamond said:
But air bubbles around the edge?


Left to right 1,2 4 started with small air bubbles - this halo of air bubbles at the edge expand under heat and pressure and accelerate compound failure

20hoursat150C.JPG


The example we use is for 30mm X 30mm just ratio it up or down for the area. We recommend to the high side to try and cover the variables encountered in end user contact with IHS and sink - concave IHS you need more compound, lapped IHS and sink you could use less so we try to cover both scenarios with the suggested amount.

Excess just squeezes out, I have tested this by applying excess compound between glass slides on a simulated IHS with a couple of binder clips and @ room temps it resolved down to about 95% of the average particle size in about 2 hours and 99% overnight of the final bond line thickness (BLT) measured with a micrometer.

Better to use to much than too little to avoid having to redo your mount, you have 10-12 applications in the samples provided don't be stingy you can refine amount as you get a feel for it you have enough to experiment with so have at it.

There are always exceptions or nuances, this week I had a guy who due his mounting set up did not allow for a blob in the middle as the mounting bracket design had to be locked in on one side first and as you pressed down to lock the other side the compound was pushed ahead of the closing joint leaving about a third of the IHS uncovered.

With the glass slides I tried X corner to corner and a + or a cross side to side and both ended with air in the joint. I ended up with a V pattern with apex on the initial load side as being the final solution.


Users are a great source for us on problem solving giglamesh @ overclockerstech came up with the the idea for subzero cooling to preheat/cure the compound with a hair dryer to thin the joint. Just going to straight to subzero the paste hardens before it has a chance to resolve down to the ultimate BLT or average particle size.

Another end user used a torq wrench on a screw mount and picked up some thing we had not considered.

When you first mount your sink you are not at the final bond line thickness, so when you power up the system the compound continues to flow - the screws do not move so you end up with a loose BLT. A re-torque after warm up improved his temp a couple of degrees. This is like re-torquing the head gasket on the old cars after the first 1,000 miles. I would not have picked that up as it is not an issue with a constant pressure spring mount which I use in all my testing.

I had one guy at Anandtech use a massage vibrator to spread the compound - worked pretty well.

After initial test I encourage people to experiment - you have plenty compound have at it.

Andrew
Click to expand...

I have Thermalright IFX-14 heatsink and it has two UNC 6-32 Spring loaded screws (which are about 1.5 inch in full length) placed on each end of the mounting bracket to tighten the heatsink on top of the cpu IHS.

So when using IC Diamond, considering torque; should I tighten them all the way down fully or partially and then turn on the computer for heating the thermal paste?

I am using the pea-sized blob method with MX-4 and tightened the screws all the way down to max.

Edit: Btw here is the complete mounting system. The black plate is the backplate. The heatsink base goes under the mounting plate held by the 2 screws which have to be tightened downwards

ifx14mountingsystem.png
 
Last edited:
WingZero30 said:
I have Thermalright IFX-14 heatsink and it has two UNC 6-32 Spring loaded screws (which are about 1.5 inch in full length) placed on each end of the mounting bracket to tighten the heatsink on top of the cpu IHS.

So when using IC Diamond, considering torque; should I tighten them all the way down fully or partially and then turn on the computer for heating the thermal paste?

I am using the pea-sized blob method with MX-4 and tightened the screws all the way down to max.

Edit: Btw here is the complete mounting system. The black plate is the backplate. The heatsink base goes under the mounting plate held by the 2 screws which have to be tightened downwards
Click to expand...

Run at load for 10 min? hour? let the compound heat up liquefy some and flow then you should get a half turn on the screws.

That was this guys experience

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=681429&high=ic+diamond
 
I'm prepared to believe the average difference achieved but I wonder how scientific your tests really are? Have the testers done multiple mounts and taken an average? Have they promised to do nothing else other than dismount, clean and then apply IC-whatever? Absolutely while they were there, not remove a single piece of dust?

For many testers, because it's a test, they take extra care to ensure a good spread and a good mount, and this is likely to have a greater impact than the TIM.

Older tests, like this particularly famous one showed how little difference TIM makes with a proper mounting and two good surfaces to bridge.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic but if TIM can make a 7C difference, then I for one believe it was far more down to the user than the paste.

YMMV, of course.
 
MikeTimbers said:
I'm prepared to believe the average difference achieved but I wonder how scientific your tests really are? Have the testers done multiple mounts and taken an average? Have they promised to do nothing else other than dismount, clean and then apply IC-whatever? Absolutely while they were there, not remove a single piece of dust?

1. Even collecting multiple readings the cluster size is = 1. An individual can collect all the data readings off one system, and will still have almost no statistical power (]in statistics this is known as "Intra-Sample Cluster Correlation" because the test set up is dominated by methodology. I can measure 20 different points simultaneously to within a 1/100 of a degree, watts within in 1/10, Airflow CFM within 5%, I can do multiple mounts and average the results. The problem is it is anecdotal and particular to my set up and puts me in the sample group of "1".

I would classify most PC hobbyists as a group as bright and pretty attentive to their mounts and you will get that percentage that break out the thermometers, torque wrenches, micrometers and go to town on it and you will have some percentage that slap it on, lick their finger and put put it to the wind and guess ambient to within 3 C.

So good mount, bad mount - too much compound, too little compound - good ambient reading, bad ambient reading - faster fan, slower fan -personal bias in favor for, personal bias against. So it all averages out The Central Limit Theorem & and the Error law pretty well encapsulates the issues you brought up just have to delve deeper. Statistics have been pretty well vetted for the last 600 years by the world greatest mathematicians, Fermat, Pascal, Bernoulli, Gauss, Laplace with probably Einstein legitimizing it for broad integration with Physics in his 1905 paper on Brownian Motion. Probably most of the products and parts in your house have had an engineer do a statistical analysis for acceptable reject rates study, your PC for example. Take an aspirin lately? Vetted through public trials analyzed with statistics - Have car insurance ? what you pay is determined by statistics Like the color on your shirt? Some marketing guy probably chose it as an acceptable color based on a statistical survey.

2. Absolutely - There are no absolutes. Take the classic problem of a group of astronomers, they all have the best equipment, well educated, competent in their field all measuring the same celestial event they will all have different numbers, their equipment may have slight variations, one may have an extra glass of wine at dinner and been modestly impaired, one took his reading at the wrong time etc. Like Bernoulli's example of shooting arrows at a target you can infer the location of the bullseye from the locations of the arrows. say with 50 arrows the inferred location has a confidence level of 95% sample a thousand and probability might be 2%


For many testers, because it's a test, they take extra care to ensure a good spread and a good mount, and this is likely to have a greater impact than the TIM.

Older tests, like this particularly famous one showed how little difference TIM makes with a proper mounting and two good surfaces to bridge.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic but if TIM can make a 7C difference, then I for one believe it was far more down to the user than the paste.

YMMV, of course.
Click to expand...

Compound is a mechanical function, one of pressure. contact % , surface area, amount, of watts applied

In order to qualify a test result you have to quantify it as all thermal compounds have their own unique pressure thermal resistance curves some compounds do better at higher pressure and some do better at low pressures with lower viscosity @ even lower pressures difference tend to become homogenized so they are usually quite close in performance. Was the reviewer at 70 lbs or 30lbs pressure? 90% contact or 50% and how does that correlate to the manufacturers pressure/resistance curve? How does that compare to the Vegemite curve? does Vegemite crap out @ 50PSI? while the other compounds keep going?

The advantage to reviews that are formal or just some peoples experience on the forum, end users can and most do instinctively do what we are doing here and that's mentally averaging the results for comparison

This is a pretty simple survey/promo and has it's pros and con's but people get to try something new and they can either like it or hate it, but at least they get to try it and decide for themselves
 
Last edited:
PROCESSOR: i3 540
VOLTS/CLOCKS: 1.4v 4.5GHz
HEAT SINK: Corsair H50

Before Compound: the stock TIM which came with H50
Ambient Temp: 25
Idle Temp: 35
Load Temp: 85

ICD
Ambient Temp: 25
Idle Temp: 32
Load Temp: 82
 
Indigo Xtreme is better, i've used both in the past (currently using Indigo on my 2600K)

Dropped my temps 6-9 degrees over MX3

You only get 2 applications though, that's the downside
 
Last edited:
TO: IC Diamond.

I'm not having a go. I said that I believe your average. I cannot believe differences of 7C and suchlike can only be down to the TIM. Either the original TIM was no longer working properly, it was badly applied, the mount was poor or other environmental factors changed.

I'll stay out of this thread from now on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom