-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Finally!!! An Accurate Heatsink Comparison!
- Thread starter Mikewarrior2
- Start date
Mikewarrior2
Diamond Member
I dont' know if htey're doing a slot 1 test. i was not involved in that article.
Whether or not Tillman actually does this is to be seen. From his posts, i highly doubt it.
Mike
Whether or not Tillman actually does this is to be seen. From his posts, i highly doubt it.
Mike
Nerdwannabe
Senior member
The test itself is actually quite fair and accurate, except they can no longer use looks like a 2 square inch heat pad as the heat source.
Performance of heatsinks will be lower when the contact area between the heat source and heatsink gets smaller.
The 0.24c/w you see from the one of the heatsink will not give you 0.24c/w performance on a flip chip or socket A processors.
Also, copper based heatsink WILL show its strength when the contact area is small. Getting a 46W out of 2x2" area is much easier than out of 1x1" area. Conventional aluminum can no longer transfer heat away faster enough from the 1x1" area, thus the performance will get even worse.
Performance of heatsinks will be lower when the contact area between the heat source and heatsink gets smaller.
The 0.24c/w you see from the one of the heatsink will not give you 0.24c/w performance on a flip chip or socket A processors.
Also, copper based heatsink WILL show its strength when the contact area is small. Getting a 46W out of 2x2" area is much easier than out of 1x1" area. Conventional aluminum can no longer transfer heat away faster enough from the 1x1" area, thus the performance will get even worse.
Laughingman
Member
Actually What the large to small contact area reveals on these tests and other tests not shown is is that the better sinks - Alhpha 6035, Hedgehog, fop -32 and millennium were unaffected to any signifcant degree.
Whereas the lesser heat sinks like the Agilent ca Had substantial Degredations in performance.
The millennium beat the copper sink with an equivalent fan and fan speed. of 4600 RPM
Agilent CA on a gigabyte board 51C thermocouple. or .45C/W
Via hardware monitor read 43C
Thermaltake super orb on a gigabyte board 42.8C thermocouple or .33C/W
Via hardware monitor read 51C
Benchtest.33C/W
Like the flip flop on the Via numbers?
Regards😀
Whereas the lesser heat sinks like the Agilent ca Had substantial Degredations in performance.
The millennium beat the copper sink with an equivalent fan and fan speed. of 4600 RPM
Agilent CA on a gigabyte board 51C thermocouple. or .45C/W
Via hardware monitor read 43C
Thermaltake super orb on a gigabyte board 42.8C thermocouple or .33C/W
Via hardware monitor read 51C
Benchtest.33C/W
Like the flip flop on the Via numbers?
Regards😀
RagingGuardian
Golden Member
What's the "millenium" heatsink that was reviewed. This is the only heatsink I've never heard of.
Laughingman
Member
Overclockers.com article was About heat sink testing. The millennium Sink was one of the group. Overclockers.com will do a formal Review in the next week or so Here is the link Millennium Thermal Solutions