- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Current Athlon XP to get HEATSPREADER!
- Thread starter DivideBYZero
- Start date
Hmmm not good news for SLK-800 owners. I might have to hold onto my 8045 now. Great news for AS3 though lol...people will need 10x as much now.
Chiz
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
Seems to me that a heat spreader is less efficient than making direct contact with the core. It's ability to dissipate heat would be dependant on the core size itself, not whether or not you put a plate on it. Besides, by the looks of that mammoth heat spreader, everyone would be ripping it off to get access to the bridges anyway... IMHO heat spreader = useless junk that I'll end up paying more for and probably ripping off and throwing in the trash.
B/c the SLK-800's base is only about 1/3 the size of a traditional base plate. Its probably only 1/2 the size of the width of that heatspreader. Basically, you won't get full coverage of the heatspreader with the SLK-800's base. But yah, I would prefer no heatspreader. Its for careless people who might crush their cores during installation. HC Intel OCers remove the heatspreader anyways.
Chiz
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
damnit
ever since i saw a pic of the hammer with IHS i hoped they wouldnt do anything with pallys/tbreds....even bartons...
looks like we will have to pry off the IHS if you want to have at the bridges.....granted the bridges are even there lol
unless there are some pin connections mods that ppl come up with like the volt mod thing for p4's
I always thought heatspreaders were a good thing for transfering heat... I know it doesn't provide direct contact from CPU to HSF, but it does spread out the heat over a larger area. Which is better for cooling? With or Without?
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
What's the difference if the heat is spread out by the heat spreader or the base of the (edit) heatsink? The surface area of the core is still limited no matter what you throw on top of it whether it be a piece of metal they call a heat spreader, or the base of the heatsink.
It really depends on the heat transfer characteristics of the heat spreader and the quality of contact between thre core and the spreader. If the spreader were essentially an extension of the core, there would be no need for lapping and extravagant thermal paste, as seamless contact would be guaranteed. I think a properly mounted all-copper HSF with no spreader would be better for cooling, but won't know for sure til we learn more about this spreader.
Chiz
you'd be surprised how many cracked tbirds there were lol
sometimes on specific heatsinks there were really poorly designed clips and a cracked/crushed core was very common
nowadays the frequency of cracked cores has decreased quite a bit....but there is always the odd report of a cracked/crushed core
Well, The P4's don't seem to give out as much heat with their heat spreaders. If you have a real bond between the spreader and the core,
you will dissapate much more heat from the CPU.
foxkm
you will dissapate much more heat from the CPU.
foxkm
pillage2001
Lifer
- Sep 18, 2000
- 14,038
- 1
- 81
I still don't see why the heatspreader is such a huge improvement in heat dissipation. If you have proper contact in between the HSF and core, the heat transfer would be there. But why a heatspreader???
The guys at HardOCP indicate the picture is of the next generation ATI cpu, not an Athlon XP(Need translator for the picture page). They linked to same photos, but did not reference the website linked to above. Yummy, Clawhammer anyone? 
My friend and I cracked my 1600+, bad clip was the cause. I couldn't get it out, and when he did, he managed to take a knick out of my corner.
I'd just pull the heatspreader off like I did on my old K6-3.
ran alot cooler after that with just the core sitting right under the HS.
the old K6-3 looks SO much similar to the current Athlons underneath it's stupid spreader..
ran alot cooler after that with just the core sitting right under the HS.
the old K6-3 looks SO much similar to the current Athlons underneath it's stupid spreader..
For the true ocers who like to hard mod things removal will be likely...
For most of the newbies this will be great as it will greatly reduce cracked and chipped cores. retailers will love it as well as they can stop getting the rma's on the mistakes...
It has advantages that out weigh the disadvantages. Ocers like I said will get around this easily.
For most of the newbies this will be great as it will greatly reduce cracked and chipped cores. retailers will love it as well as they can stop getting the rma's on the mistakes...
It has advantages that out weigh the disadvantages. Ocers like I said will get around this easily.
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
we dont need no stinkin heatspreaders
Agreed.
Duvie has a point though.. it's likely only the true overclockers may find a way to remove it. For newbies however, this may make learning to overclock more of a hassle
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
Pros:
Cons:
- newbies will have an easier time avoiding cracking their CPUs, as mentioned
- if the heatsink were to come off, the heatspreader remains, slowing the thermal ramp rate of the core by virtue of its mass and helping the CPU and motherboard catch the thermal spike earlier
- with such a large contact area, the pump-out of thermal grease will become a negligible factor. AMD will be able to lend official credence to thermal grease, and we won't be stuck with one-use-only phase-change thermal pads as the only officially-approved (and impossible-to-buy) thermal interface material.
- it will fool some people into thinking "aha, now AMD's will run cooler like P4's do, lookit alllll that surface area," forgetting that the bottleneck (core-to-spreader contact patch) is still the same size (edit: this is a Pro because what they don't know is not going to hurt them in this matter... AMDs run hotter and that's The Way Things Are, so if this is as far as they look, then fine)
- it will allow AMD to drop their recommendation of a heatsink with a copper heatspreader for Thoroughbred-core Athlons, since the copper heatspreader is now built into the CPU. Think GC-69, baby!
- If we're really lucky, the added height of the heatspreader will make the CPU tall enough that installing the heatsink backwards works just as well as installing it in the right direction, by getting the heatsink base clear of the socket's cambox
Cons:
- Because it introduces two more layers into the thermal path, it should increase the thermal resistance, not decrease it (note that if the thermal interfaces on both sides of the heatspreader had a thermal resistance lower than copper, this wouldn't be true, but that's not going to happen)
- it covers up that font of adventure known as bridges
- it may be prone to abuse by people popping off the heatspreader, making a 1900+ into a 2400+ via bridge mods, and sealing the heatspreader on again with a re-marked speed
Soulkeeper
Diamond Member
- Nov 23, 2001
- 6,714
- 143
- 106
I don't like it
if they do make one it should be removable which I doubt will be the case
i would rip it off if I could
the heatspreader would also marginally increase the production cost of the cpu
if they do make one it should be removable which I doubt will be the case
i would rip it off if I could
the heatspreader would also marginally increase the production cost of the cpu
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter