richierich1212
Platinum Member
- Jul 5, 2002
- 2,740
- 357
- 126
Thanks!Here's one that IDC did on lapping his H100. link
If his numbers prove a positive interaction between temperature reduction and voltage required over something like a 94C -> 74C range, then you have to wonder what another 10C to 15C might give in that regard. One of the enthusiast-forum posts I cited, a Liquid-Pro application gave 69C, although I forget at the moment what his over-clock speed setting and voltage had been. I'm also guessing there are better water-cooling choices than the Corsair H100, only for providing a few more degrees reduction.What kind of voltage did you need for 4.8 GHz? 4.7 GHz at 1.256v seems pretty reasonable, and that's a little beyond what most Sandy Bridge cores will hit on reasonable voltage. Above 4.5 GHz, my i5-2500K needs pretty major voltage jumps to remain stable. 4.4 GHz will run stable at 1.3v (~1.36v before Vdroop), but 4.5 GHz requires ~1.34v after Vdroop. Above that, I have to jump to >1.4v, which I'm not comfortable with.
You may be showing us that Ivy Bridge scales slightly better than Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge usually makes it to 4.4-4.6 GHz relatively easily, but 4.7-4.8 GHz usually require high voltage. 4.9-5.0 GHz is probably attainable on a large portion of Sandy Bridge cores, but the voltage required is far out of the "safe" range. If Ivy Bridge manages 4.7-4.9 GHz pretty consistently, then no complaints of Intel's 22nm process being a failure are valid.
I'm also interested in this part of the testing. Did you post results yet or are you holding out on them? Wondering if it's a combo of the TIM being not so good and possibly the bonding agent for the heatspreader increasing the gap too much.So I pulled off the H100 and unmounted the IHS to move on with the next test - using the Intel CPU TIM from under the IHS as a TIM on top of the IHS of my 2600k for a comparison with other TIMs. (i.e. the "is that CPU TIM crappy stuff, or good stuff?" test)
This doesn't make thermal density any less relevant. Even after he's done all of this, his CPU is running hotter than my 4.4 GHz 2500K on a Hyper 212+ with all my case fans on low. While LinPacking, my CPU never breaks 70C.Amazing.
Just amazing!
So much for all the people posting saying that IB higher temps were due to the smaller node concentrating the heat and not allowing it to dissipate effectively. Morons.
Next up, direct core cooling and then one of the liquid metal TIMs. Cannot wait.
Awesome work IDC!!!
But he's not running at 4.4. The crucial speed or the one of most interest so far is 4.7. My cores go to almost 74C at 4.6 (i7-2600K) under full load with NH-D14 and diamond paste. They're well over 80C at 4.7. And IDC isn't even testing "best" TIM yet, while those untested options promise further improvements of 5C or more -- my guess.This doesn't make thermal density any less relevant. Even after he's done all of this, his CPU is running hotter than my 4.4 GHz 2500K on a Hyper 212+ with all my case fans on low. While LinPacking, my CPU never breaks 70C.
That's with a cheap air cooler and Arctic Silver 5 I bought in 2005 to put on an Athlon 64.
So understanding physics makes someone a moron in your books, lol.So much for all the people posting saying that IB higher temps were due to the smaller node concentrating the heat and not allowing it to dissipate effectively. Morons.
They're "usin' what they're usin'" just to keep the thermals low enough for intended, stock speeds and voltages.If a good aftermarket TIM under the IHS would make such a huge difference in temps, would that mean that Intel is using the cheap stuff? :hmm:
It makes sense if they already hold the high ground with performance & efficiency, while IB is an incremental upgrade. They will sell plenty no matter what.We don't know whether Intel considered diamond paste, whether there is some "risk" of using micronized diamond (not too likely), whether they looked at the other exotic "metal" TIMs. IF it adds to their costs, choosing a less costly solution is their prerogative, and makes business sense. It makes business sense if the majority of processors you sell are going to OEM makers.
Remember while removing the adhesive. He also lowered the height of the IHS. So it got closer to the die and gives a better effect.If a good aftermarket TIM under the IHS would make such a huge difference in temps, would that mean that Intel is using the cheap stuff? :hmm:
well i read some post in this forum and there was a person asking the same question okey the area in smaller but also the comsumption so that balance more or less each other. and they accused him nope you do not know what you say.Amazing.
Just amazing!
So much for all the people posting saying that IB higher temps were due to the smaller node concentrating the heat and not allowing it to dissipate effectively. Morons.
Next up, direct core cooling and then one of the liquid metal TIMs. Cannot wait.
Awesome work IDC!!!
thermal density increased close to 10% temped skyrocket even moreBut he's not running at 4.4. The crucial speed or the one of most interest so far is 4.7. My cores go to almost 74C at 4.6 (i7-2600K) under full load with NH-D14 and diamond paste. They're well over 80C at 4.7. And IDC isn't even testing "best" TIM yet, while those untested options promise further improvements of 5C or more -- my guess.
Keep in mind that -- yes, there's been a die-shrink to 22nm process, but the TDP has also come down from 95W to 77W. So thermal density is "important," but it is one of several factors.
So? If they released the K Ivy Bridgers with this process -- they can improve it in the next round, even with the higher thermal density and TDP lower than Ivy. Same or faster speeds with lower voltage.thermal density increased close to 10% temped skyrocket even more
No they don't, the size decrease was a lot higher than the power consution savings.well i read some post in this forum and there was a person asking the same question okey the area in smaller but also the comsumption so that balance more or less each other. and they accused him nope you do not know what you say.
No it isn't beyond any doubt,you just took your small amount of knowledge on a subject and decided you understood it, you were wrong. Also you seem to lack the basic understanding of the difference between heat and temperature, go read a book. As for your ranting about this being a conspiracy by intel to prevent IB being OC'd too high you need to realise that intel already explained why they changed the TIM and I have yet to see one person who understands the issue prove that they were lying.i think it is beyond any doubt any longer ivy is hotter cause intel squeezed a peny or intel wanted the people not able to overclock ivy that much.
I think notcase closed
Loland some apologies much be given to some people attacked so furiously in these forums
At 4.7 GHz, I have to push my voltages to the point I hit around 78 C. My CPU certainly isn't blowing up, but the voltages required are higher than I'd like. This is on a Hyper 212+, however. An H100 would run significantly cooler.But he's not running at 4.4. The crucial speed or the one of most interest so far is 4.7. My cores go to almost 74C at 4.6 (i7-2600K) under full load with NH-D14 and diamond paste. They're well over 80C at 4.7. And IDC isn't even testing "best" TIM yet, while those untested options promise further improvements of 5C or more -- my guess.
Keep in mind that -- yes, there's been a die-shrink to 22nm process, but the TDP has also come down from 95W to 77W. So thermal density is "important," but it is one of several factors.
I wouldn't call the speculations about "conspiracy:" It's a duopoly, and the two major producers can game against each other. But Intel probably has minor interest in what the over-clocking segment does, except for "gathering intelligence" about their processors.At 4.7 GHz, I have to push my voltages to the point I hit around 78 C. My CPU certainly isn't blowing up, but the voltages required are higher than I'd like. This is on a Hyper 212+, however. An H100 would run significantly cooler.
All IDC has done is show that poor thermal compound is an issue on his unit. There have been reports of some Ivy Bridge CPUs responding relatively poorly to a change in TIM. This definitely shows what a poor paste job can do, but it doesn't make thermal density any less of an issue.
That said, this is a perfect example of what could potentially happen when you go beyond what the manufacturer intends. A 20 C drop in temperature and bypassing previous thermal limitations on your CPU - definitely nice.
Also, to all conspiracy theorists: Ivy Bridge is subject to increased thermal density. It isn't a conspiracy. The lack of consistency in temperature drops from applying new TIM to the IHS further disproves this ridiculous conspiracy. If anything, all you're showing is that Intel's manufacturing process isn't great, not that they're conspiring behind your back.
I took lots of measurements with a micrometer to address this question and concern, working up a post on that right now. Should be up this evening before it gets too late. Haven't processed all the numbers yet so I have no quick answer for you right now, sorryWhen you put the IHS back on your chip, was there any gap at all between the lid and the PCB? I'm concerned that the IHS might rock and crush a corner or edge because there isn't black goop filling that space and preventing it from rocking.
What was the stable load voltage (anything that survived a prelim IBT or LinX test) @ 4.9 with the i7-2600K? Wasn't the successive voltage increase for i7-2600K between 4.7 and 4.9 Ghz rising steeply?
At 4.9GHz, using the same mobo, H100, etc etc, my 2600k requires 1.444V for LinX stability, the tangible benefit appears to be the near 45W reduction in power-consumption when OC'ed to those extremes.The i7-2600K apparently overclocks to 4.9Ghz with approximate load voltage in the 1.44 to 1.46V range. In any event, it is above 1.41V.
So if IDC OC'd an i7-3770K chip at 4.9 with about 1.37+V, it doesn't seem like much of an advantage. . . .
LOL, I do have a fuzzy/blurry photo of me in the fab, the following was a pic I took of me and Brian (a friend/co-worker of mine) of our reflection in the side of a wet cleans tool that was shrouded in mirror-polished stainless steel (I'm the dude on the left as you see the photo):from these photos we can clearly make out that IDC runs his own fab facility in his basement. He is currently manufacturing 14nm chips and is developing a 10nm in his spare time for his own personal use using EUV lithography (also developed in his spare time)
![]()
in this photo we can see him working on a prototype OLED Ipad4 display. We see he is of asian descent, clearly only the finest genetic material is part of IDC's genome.
I think the answer to this is self-evident if you'll consider the following - if you filled those grooves with TIM, what would be the best TIM to use?to play devils advocate, having /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ as in with an unlapped surface vs __________ with lapped would increase the surface area, allowing for greater thermal dissipation....if you could get the thermal compound into those grooves...no?
Pretty sure it did hit the die actually, if you watch this short video clip the noise you hear when the blade slips and then comes to an abrupt stop is the blade stopping because it ran into the corner of the silicon die.This is quite amazing. Thanks for all the hard work!
What I don't understand is how that razor blade didn't hit the die, which I assume is not flush with the PCB, when cutting the stock TIM.
BTW, do you have a third hand? No other explanation for how you got those pics!
I've got more to put up yet, the documentation efforts are a bit tedious, not going to play that down here, but I enjoy it so its not bothersome or anything like that. What really takes the time though is condensing all the documentation data and test data into digestible nuggets of pic-goodness. A picture is worth a thousand words, I'm a visual learner myself, so I value getting the right photo or the graph just right so others can more easily absorb whatever this thread has to offer :thumbsup:Sticky. But you must finish this.
I'm surprised you got so much done while getting so much documented, videoed and photographed.
Do you have any indication that perhaps the Intel TIM is really AS5?
I do and I will. I have AS5, Ceramique, TX-2, MX-1, MX-4, NT-H1, and Indigo Xtreme. Not too mention my assortments of unconventional TIMs :sneaky:I also tried a carbon based pastes, mx4 and NT-H1. Both of these gave inferior results compared to AS5. You have any to try?
No reason, I intend to make an attempt at it, I had a positive experience in doing that with my GTX460 when I delidded it last year. The trick then is the same as it would be here, dealing with adjusting the HSF standoffs from the socket to account for the thickness of the IHS.Is there a reason you haven't tried direct die contact? I guess it isn't irrational to worry about cracking the die, but we've all mounted a Coppermine or K7 back in the day. I don't see why it would be any more dangerous now.
Yeah I would say both are in play - the question we'll never be able to answer is whether this situation is created by Intel for purposes of product longevity or simply for purposes of cost-reduction.I'm also interested in this part of the testing. Did you post results yet or are you holding out on them? Wondering if it's a combo of the TIM being not so good and possibly the bonding agent for the heatspreader increasing the gap too much.
Interesting results so far![]()
4.8GHz requires 1.325V and results in a peak operating temp of 81°CWhat kind of voltage did you need for 4.8 GHz? 4.7 GHz at 1.256v seems pretty reasonable, and that's a little beyond what most Sandy Bridge cores will hit on reasonable voltage. Above 4.5 GHz, my i5-2500K needs pretty major voltage jumps to remain stable. 4.4 GHz will run stable at 1.3v (~1.36v before Vdroop), but 4.5 GHz requires ~1.34v after Vdroop. Above that, I have to jump to >1.4v, which I'm not comfortable with.
You may be showing us that Ivy Bridge scales slightly better than Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge usually makes it to 4.4-4.6 GHz relatively easily, but 4.7-4.8 GHz usually require high voltage. 4.9-5.0 GHz is probably attainable on a large portion of Sandy Bridge cores, but the voltage required is far out of the "safe" range. If Ivy Bridge manages 4.7-4.9 GHz pretty consistently, then no complaints of Intel's 22nm process being a failure are valid.
1.44-something was what I gathered by looking at some old OC forum posts. And I'd think that 1.376V is excessive for the Ivy Bridge, just as we might incline for the 1.44V number on Sandy. That may (or may not) leave open the question about how it scales between 4.6 and 4.8Ghz. Or -- how a better choice of TIM and an additional drop in temperature might further mean the same overclock setting at lower voltage, or higher at the same voltage. This may be splitting hairs and certainly might not provide a reason to dump a Sandy for an Ivy. It might be good to find out. Or . . . I might be curious to find out . . .. . .
At 4.9GHz, using the same mobo, H100, etc etc, my 2600k requires 1.444V for LinX stability, the tangible benefit appears to be the near 45W reduction in power-consumption when OC'ed to those extremes.
![]()
But I don't want to overstate the relevance of the power savings...at the ~$0.10/kWHr rate that I pay here in PA, if I ran my 3770k at 4.9GHz 24hrs a day, every day for an entire year then I'd be looking at saving around $37 for the entire year versus having used my 2600k in the exact same capacity.
I'll take it because I've already bought the chip, but $40/yr is not a decision-making datum point, but it is about the only "plus" to be had in the pro-IB column versus the pro-SB column when it comes to high-end computing performance at high clocks and high operating voltages. (IB wins hands-down when it comes to the other end of the power-usage spectrum, mobile platforms will definitely benefit from IB)
. . .
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
S | Question CPU package power consumption is connected to nVidia GPU P-states which caused CPU to throttle during load | CPUs and Overclocking | 10 |