• 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.

i7-3770k tested with IHS removed. Results?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Diogenes2 said:
Well, the " Performance Tuning Warranty " doesn't seem to support that idea ..

I just think there is too much panic about IB running hotter than SB..

If IB a@4.5 = SB @ 4.8, and temp is below throttle - I don't see what overclockers have to complain about..


Just because we were hoping for 5g at 1.3v, I don't see where Intel has mislead or mistreated anyone.. ( If you don't count AMD )
Click to expand...

By no means mistreated. It just that overclockers want what we've always wanted - higher clocks - especially if we can do it at a reasonable cost.

I hope IVB-E has a layout more conducive to higher overclocks.
 
Ajay said:
By no means mistreated. It just that overclockers want what we've always wanted - higher clocks - especially if we can do it at a reasonable cost.

I hope IVB-E has a layout more conducive to higher overclocks.
Click to expand...

This. I have a feeling i'll be going back to X79
 
Don Karnage said:
This. I have a feeling i'll be going back to X79
Click to expand...

Would be nice if X79 got a re-spin, then LGA2011 will tempt more of us who thought x58 was a great chipset. My upgrade time frame will be around the Haswell release, so I'll be able to compare HW and IVB-E and decide which will carry me as long as x58/Nehalem did.
 
Last edited:
The testing is flawed and the results are unfortunately useless. If you remove the IHS you absolutely need to apply more mounting pressure, but as you can see in the pic showing the CPU mounting mechanism he didn't. The springs that provide the mounting pressure only get compressed by a few Millimeters, if you take off the IHS and thus compress those springs probably less than half as much as you would normally, you of course get poor mounting pressure and thus poor results. We're so used to not having to worry about mounting pressure that most people don't know how important it is.

Also, as someone pointed out, screenshots have a very large margin of error since temps fluctuate all the time. Just look at the temps when you're running Prime, depending on when you make the screenshot results can vary by several degrees. You need to log temps for a at least a few minutes, import the log file into Excel and then calculate the average. Doesn't take long and greatly improves accuracy.
 
It seems doubtful to me the IHS is more than .020~.032 thick. With Intel heatsinks using push pins and possible variations in motherboards it seems unlikely this would be sufficent to make much difference.
 
dma0991 said:
I'm guessing the lack of mounting pressure caused by the fact that the manufacturer never intended the product to be used in this manner. Also the fact that the person who did the test didn't want to apply as much pressure as he would with the IHS on as he might risk damaging/cracking the die.
Click to expand...

you sir, are most likely correct and it was what i was thinking. i've played with many IHS-less chips and that is usually the biggest problem. finding a proper cooler/water block that will apply enough pressure to make up for the difference in height after that IHS is gone, which is roughly 3-4mm.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
The little voltage list from Intel showing 1.55v max for Ivy gave me a bit hope.
Click to expand...
While this information is pulled from the Nehalem datasheets, it is a better guide to what the max allowable voltages are:

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/design-guide/voltage-regulator-down-11-1-processor-power-delivery-guidelines.pdf said:

2.2.1 Loadline Definitions (REQUIRED)
To maintain processor reliability and performance, platform DC voltage regulation and
transient-droop noise levels must always be contained within the Vccmin and Vccmax
loadline boundaries (known as the loadline window). Loadline compliance must be
ensured across component manufacturing tolerances, thermal variation, and age
degradation. Loadline boundaries are defined by the following equations in conjunction
with the VCC regulator design parameter values defined in Table 2-2. In these
equations, VID, RLL, and TOB are known. Plotting VCC while varying ICC from 0 A to
Iccmax establishes the Vccmax and Vccmin loadlines. Vccmax establishes the
maximum DC loadline boundary. Vccmin establishes the minimum AC and DC voltage
boundary. Short transient bursts above the Vccmax loadline are permitted; this
condition is defined in Section 1.3.7.

Table 2-1. Loadline Equations
Loadline Equation
Equation 5: Vccmax Loadline VCC = VID – (RLL* ICC)
Equation 6: Vcctyp Loadline VCC = VID – TOB - (RLL* ICC)
Equation 7: Vccmin loadline VCC = VID – 2*TOB - (RLL* ICC)
Loadline recommendations are established to provide guidance for satisfying
processor loadline specifications, which are defined in processor datasheets. Loadline
requirements must be satisfied at all times and may require adjustment in the loadline
value. The processor loadlines are defined in the applicable processor datasheet.

voltage.png
Click to expand...
 
There are a few things at play. One is mounting pressure, which in this case looks to be off, so its a flawed test. Principally the problem is as much contact pressure as it is contact patch size. All modern coolers use a bow on the bottom of their heatsinks to compensate for the bowing of the motherboard and CPU under the pressure target. If you don't match the pressure the bow will be wrong.

Shouldn't take long to verify looking at the TIM pattern that the contact wasn't correct and of sufficient pressure.
 
AtenRa said:
I have never said that the TIM is not a factor. I have said that the smaller die size and the nonuniform map will make it worst if we remove the IHS.
Obviously if you change the TIM you will have different results 😉
Click to expand...

I don't get the position you are positing.

Inserting a metal shim between the CPU and the HSF is not going to improve thermal conductivity.

At best it won't hinder it, but that requires zero increase in the thermal resistance of the stack from the CPU:IHS interface, something that is not even theoretically possible.

So I must be missing something in your position, because on the face of it it seems to be incorrect for fundamental heat transfer reasons.
 
Ok lets see,

If we use the Intel Heat-Sink (the one in the BOX) and we remove the IHS we will have worst results than with the IHS on. The IHS helps spreading the heat from the small die to a bigger area.
Second problem is the nonuniform map of the heat in the smaller die size. The IHS helps because it spreads the heat evenly in the entire IHS surface. We get a uniform map from a nonuniform map. That helps because we need a smaller heat-sink to cool a uniform map 😉

If we change the heat-sink used and we go to a different design (Bigger base area, heat-pipes etc), we could have lower temperatures without the IHS but we increase the cost by having a bigger more expensive cooler.

If you change the TIM between the CPU die and the IHS with a better one and you still use the Intel BOXed heat-sink you will witness a drop in temps as well.
 
AtenRa said:
Ok lets see,

If we use the Intel Heat-Sink (the one in the BOX) and we remove the IHS we will have worst results than with the IHS on. The IHS helps spreading the heat from the small die to a bigger area.
Second problem is the nonuniform map of the heat in the smaller die size. The IHS helps because it spreads the heat evenly in the entire IHS surface. We get a uniform map from a nonuniform map. That helps because we need a smaller heat-sink to cool a uniform map 😉

If we change the heat-sink used and we go to a different design (Bigger base area, heat-pipes etc), we could have lower temperatures without the IHS but we increase the cost by having a bigger more expensive cooler.

If you change the TIM between the CPU die and the IHS with a better one and you still use the Intel BOXed heat-sink you will witness a drop in temps as well.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, you are making these assertions within a set of conditions defined as:

die area of CPU < area of IHS > area of HSF
&&
die area of CPU > area of HSF

As soon as the latter condition above is no longer true (die area of CPU < area of HSF), then the former condition is moot, and the IHS actually hinders thermal conductivity.

Do I have that right?
 
At some point the COMP will shutdown 80c is very high and not recommended by Intel

Intel say 60's to low 70's load is fine for Ivy.

You need to get that temp down,, your on water right ? Make sure the room is cool, open window open door,, and open the side case door so it can blend with your 28c room....... 🙂 the water will be cooler and temps less.
 
AtenRa said:
Ok lets see,

If we use the Intel Heat-Sink (the one in the BOX) and we remove the IHS we will have worst results than with the IHS on. The IHS helps spreading the heat from the small die to a bigger area.
Second problem is the nonuniform map of the heat in the smaller die size. The IHS helps because it spreads the heat evenly in the entire IHS surface. We get a uniform map from a nonuniform map. That helps because we need a smaller heat-sink to cool a uniform map 😉

If we change the heat-sink used and we go to a different design (Bigger base area, heat-pipes etc), we could have lower temperatures without the IHS but we increase the cost by having a bigger more expensive cooler.

If you change the TIM between the CPU die and the IHS with a better one and you still use the Intel BOXed heat-sink you will witness a drop in temps as well.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. "Heat spreader" is a euphemism, it's a glorified die protector.

There are some heatsinks that have exposed heatpipes on the bottom that probably would not work on an exposed die, but otherwise a "heat spreader" will only raise temperatures no matter how you spin it.
 
Idontcare said:
Ah, I see, you are making these assertions within a set of conditions defined as:

die area of CPU < area of IHS > area of HSF
&&
die area of CPU > area of HSF

As soon as the latter condition above is no longer true (die area of CPU < area of HSF), then the former condition is moot, and the IHS actually hinders thermal conductivity.

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

The IHS will not hinder the work of the HSF if the HSF is designed for a Chip with an IHS.

In order to have better performance without the IHS you will need to design the HSF for that purpose. The HSF base area needs to be not only bigger but thin enough in order to have a uniform map in the base of your heat-sink now(you dont have the IHS). So the base of your HFS must be able to transfer and distribute the heat evenly to the entire HSF base.

You can have a HSF design that is very efficient with the IHS on but the same HSF will be less efficient with the IHS off. One example is this HSF design.

Cooler_Master_Hyper_212_Plus_Heat-Pipe_Base.jpg


The above design will be very efficient with the IHS on. The heat-pipes are in direct contact with the entire IHS surface area. If you install the same HSF to the same CPU with out the IHS, most of the Heat-pipes will not be in contact with the die and you will get worst results that with the IHS.

It is all about the design of the HSF, some of today's HSF that have large surface bases may work well with a IHS-less CPU. But keep in mind that 99% of the HSF today are designed to work on IHS CPUs.
 
Yuriman said:
There are some heatsinks that have exposed heatpipes on the bottom that probably would not work on an exposed die, but otherwise a "heat spreader" will only raise temperatures no matter how you spin it.
Click to expand...

It's made of copper, which at worst, would effect the temperatures by like 1 degree. It's what goes in between the die and heat spreader that makes all the difference in the world. If you use bad TIM, like Intel has, then yes the heat spreader serves as nothing more than a glorified die protector.

If we could all just solder our dies to our heat sinks, then that would be the ideal. But that's far from reality.
 
Last edited:
@AtenRa

Hold on. Do you actually think that the IHS is made with any better thermal conductivity than a heatsink? As far as I know both are copper and both have exactly the same contact area with the die.

As for the contact with the heatpipes orientation DOES matter and here's a review with some info at the bottom:

http://www.overclockers.com/thermalright-venomous/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top