Ivy Bridge Temperatures – It’s Gettin’ Hot in Here

[I.M.O.G.]

Originally Posted by sin0822

that is P1T1's picture right?

Correct, its referenced as such in the article, and used with permission.

Originally Posted by K404

Until someone does a With & without IHS comparison on temperatures and MHz, this is FUD and this story is popping up all over the internet. It's just a theory....

Agree its a theory, one that is tangible which I think makes it interesting considering the other possible explanations. FUD, I don't think so - the heat issue is there in most tests it seems, this is just one way to explain it that no one had been so much as even looking at previously, let alone mentioning. I would hope the article shouldn't inspire FUD - the facts are the facts on the temps - this is just another potential explanation for what we are seeing in the communities.

FWIW, at stock TDP W/mm^2 is .439 for SB, .481 for IB - power density isn't that different. There are tests showing some OC'd/loaded wattage for SB/IB in some reviews, but I don't want to talk about that as those numbers may not be very accurate in how they were obtained (if they are accurate, the power density comes out roughly the same anyways).

There will be problems actually testing the theory. First, can't test the soldered indium IHS on IB, because Intel doesn't appear to be making them that way as far as anyone has found so far. Second, if you remove the IHS, you may need to account for clearance with the clamp/socket as the die sits lower than the IHS. Third, if you remove the IHS, you may need to do custom mounting retention to ensure the pressure is the same/similar - very hard to do accurately. Fourth, in order for the test to be good it depends on the cooler - older coolers used to be designed to cool dies directly, current ones are designed to cool IHS and not for direct die cooling (especially waterblocks, compare storm versus modern block). Fifth, these numbers are getting high and I'm having trouble counting... There are many issues with someone actually doing good/quality tests on this. Some may try, but a test is only as good as the methodology and control.

That said, I would expect a slight improvement by cooling the die directly even with a cooler not designed for cooling the die directly. I think if Intel would be using solder under the IHS, that could be more ideal in light of currently available cooling solutions. Solder IHS was good for E6XXX when TIM paste sucked for E4XXX; solder IHS was good for SB and maybe TIM paste sucks for IB.

Just ideas, and I thought the topic was interesting. Certainly got people talking. I have some other ideas now about why Intel did it, but none as nefarious as some other people are thinking... I think its silly to think they did it to cripple anything.

[Vinster]

IMOG, the logic you have I think is sound imo, and I think you're right, there is no right way to compare all these results given the variances that could be present.

this is a tricky one to say the least. but I hope that the TIM version is for the ES versions and that once the testing starts on the production version they will be soldered.

Only time will tell.

Vin

[K404]

People have been removing IHS for years and successfully running their chips that way. IMO, that removes reasons 2,3 & 4.

Reason 5 comes down to who you trust. We trust all these review site to get meaningful numbers that tell us the chips are hot in the first place.

Reason 1 is true, but we don't need to re-create that scenario.

Remove Ivy IHS. Get "tweaked" cooling system mounted that the user is satisfied is safe and even. Check temperatures. Have the temperatures dropped by any noticeable amount?

Yes? Thermal path through IHS is to blame.

No? Thermal paste is NOT the problem, options go back to process and thermal diode. Could it be mis-calibrated? Reviewers have checked that high temps are matched by a hot heatsink, right?



@Sin, you're right. x57 is too much. If Intel don't want SB-E to look ridiculous (oops, too late) cap the multi at x45. Could even offset the thermal diode by +30 degrees so thermal protection hits early. Intel don't even need to offer massive unlocked multi anyway if we're so unimportant. Could almost accuse Intel are falling between stools.

[I.M.O.G.]

K404: I agree with your thinking generally. However, my concern is kinda demonstrated best with an example. Do you trust ANY of the thermal paste roundup testing done in "reviews" anywhere? In my opinion, no one should. The testing was faulty in every case, though I respect the effort and think it should be commended - ultimately the results are misleading when people interpret them however. Thermal tests involving the quality of the interface are very difficult - no good way to evaluate/analyze/report bond line thickness, total wetted area, corresponding wetted area, forget about actually cleaning out residue on a microscopic level so every sample is tainted after you initially tint the surface, etc, etc. These are issues which make respected industry laboratory testing inconsistent and incomparable from one lab's result to the next.

A lot of unknowns and important factors that people don't have the ability to account for... Thermal conductivity of the TIM is only one of many factors that result in actual performance and resulting temperatures.

User testing by modifying the IHS and seeing results is interesting, and I'm paying attention to what people are seeing... But I have a hard time putting much faith in the actual outcomes, good or bad, due to the number of problems inherent to testing it. If anything, my article was an attempt at another possible explanation of what we're seeing with Intel's IB chips as we've seen them. Making the jump to testing it, "fixing it" or "improving upon it" is a big leap in my opinion.

Another problem is basic understanding of thermal behaviors. If the chip is hot, that doesn't mean reviewers would observe a match in hotness in the heatsink. After all, the core of the idea here is that the chip temps could be a problem with transmitting heat from the chip to the heatsink. If its a problem with the thermal path through the IHS, a reviewer would find the heatsink isn't as warm as it should be, they wouldn't find the heatsink to be hotter (if it were measurable).

I don't mean to come off as "difficult" or "contrarian". Just sharing some thoughts and personal perspectives.

[El Gappo]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

Another problem is basic understanding of thermal behaviors. If the chip is hot, that doesn't mean reviewers would observe a match in hotness in the heatsink. After all, the core of the idea here is that the chip temps could be a problem with transmitting heat from the chip to the heatsink. If its a problem with the thermal path through the IHS, a reviewer would find the heatsink isn't as warm as it should be, they wouldn't find the heatsink to be hotter (if it were measurable).

I wasn't seeing this.. Small delta between core temp and pot temp/ evap temp as well as my phase unit getting a real good kicking at 5ghz. These chips are kicking out a lot of heat whichever way you look at it.

[K404]

Originally Posted by I.M.O.G.

K404: I agree with your thinking generally. However, my concern is kinda demonstrated best with an example. Do you trust ANY of the thermal paste roundup testing done in "reviews" anywhere? In my opinion, no one should. The testing was faulty in every case, though I respect the effort and think it should be commended - ultimately the results are misleading when people interpret them however. Thermal tests involving the quality of the interface are very difficult - no good way to evaluate/analyze/report bond line thickness, total wetted area, corresponding wetted area, forget about actually cleaning out residue on a microscopic level so every sample is tainted after you initially tint the surface, etc, etc. These are issues which make respected industry laboratory testing inconsistent and incomparable from one lab's result to the next.

A lot of unknowns and important factors that people don't have the ability to account for... Thermal conductivity of the TIM is only one of many factors that result in actual performance and resulting temperatures.

User testing by modifying the IHS and seeing results is interesting, and I'm paying attention to what people are seeing... But I have a hard time putting much faith in the actual outcomes, good or bad, due to the number of problems inherent to testing it. If anything, my article was an attempt at another possible explanation of what we're seeing with Intel's IB chips as we've seen them. Making the jump to testing it, "fixing it" or "improving upon it" is a big leap in my opinion.

Another problem is basic understanding of thermal behaviors. If the chip is hot, that doesn't mean reviewers would observe a match in hotness in the heatsink. After all, the core of the idea here is that the chip temps could be a problem with transmitting heat from the chip to the heatsink. If its a problem with the thermal path through the IHS, a reviewer would find the heatsink isn't as warm as it should be, they wouldn't find the heatsink to be hotter (if it were measurable).

I don't mean to come off as "difficult" or "contrarian". Just sharing some thoughts and personal perspectives.

I don't interpret you as difficult

It's even scienticifally correct to add in all the minute problems to make a comparison truely "proper" with complete control over all the variables.

My personal take is that if some has *reasonable* attention to detail and conducts all their testing following the same methodology, even if the results are skewed/non-perfect, they will all be skewed by the same amount, so the testing can still tell us something useful.

The other thing about a normal user doing the testing is that it reflects a real user in the real world.

Give us all the "physics defines rules from work of this quality" numbers in the world, if a real-world user cannot replicate it, is the work accurate or relevant?

Same as Asus/Gigabyte/eVGA/whoever showing OMFGWTFBBQ PR numbers. Doesn't mean jack to Joe Average, chances are, we won't see the same MHz. SO.... are the PR numbers representitive of the real world?

[sin0822]

Originally Posted by El Gappo

I wasn't seeing this.. Small delta between core temp and pot temp/ evap temp as well as my phase unit getting a real good kicking at 5ghz. These chips are kicking out a lot of heat whichever way you look at it.

I see a large delta under LN2 like you see the spike too, but the temp is easy to control like you don't have to keep pouring LN2 like you would for SBe.

[K404]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1249419/p...ed-without-ihs

Well, that doesn't tell us much. Bad mount?

[Vinster]

Originally Posted by K404

http://www.overclock.net/t/1249419/p...ed-without-ihs

Well, that doesn't tell us much. Bad mount?

First post was good, I think the cooler may be to blame, when going directly on the IC shouldn't you use a Direct contact heat pipe cooler? he wasn't..

The rest of the thread was a little silly... too many AMD fanboys and people thinking IB was going to be a huge upgrade to SB...

Also that was an ES, not a retail, so it might just be a sample thing.. I have yet found a photo of a retail chip with IHS off. have any of you?

Vin

[K404]

I personally wouldn't because of the channels in-between the heatpipes. Depending on the number of pipes the cooler has, you either have two of them in partial contact with the die, with a gap in the middle OR.... just one pipe along the length of the die. (or should the heatpipes meet the die at right angles??... in that case, 3 might make contact, with gaps in between) I've always been of the opinion that direct contact heatpipes NEED an IHS in order to work well

BUT

if i'm wrong on that, please link me to a comparison that shows it