Intel's Extreme 130W 45nm Penryn QX9650 CPUs stock heatsink

[mouthwash]

http://www.frostytech.com/permalink.cfm?NewsID=63131

i guess this maybe the reason behind Penryn 45nm's great overclocking potential to contain a 130w cpu. Look at comparison on the size or the current stock heatsink and this new one. And gotta to say it does look more aesthetic than old models.

 

[AmberClad]

LEDs...on a heatsink :|. If Intel loses that LED, I'd say it's pretty nice for a stock heatsink. Seems like it'd be comparable to a Zalman or Tt radial cooler.

 

[21stHermit]

What's on the bottom of the copper pad?

If you look at the bottom of the linked photo, you see the copper pad which contacts the IHS, on the copper pad are three silver areas, thermal grease?

 

[AmberClad]

Yep, it's the preapplied thermal grease.

 

[harpoon84]

The QX9650 doesn't consume anywhere NEAR 130W... under load it consumes approx 65W - 80W according to reviews... THAT is the reason, as well as 45nm, that it overclocks so well. Intel probably cherrypicked the best CPUs for reviews as well.

That said, the new stock HSF is a much better looker than the old ones. Not that I think a QX9650 buyer would actually use it, if you're gonna spend that much on a CPU you might as well get the best HSF available for it.

 

[myocardia]

Man, that's gonna increase Thermaltake's bottom line, I bet. At least that's my guess, as to who makes it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

ThermalTake? And not FoxConn?

I'm all for a better stock heatsink. As for the prices that Intel charges for the "Extreme" versions of their CPUs, they can afford to pay for a souped-up HSF assy.

 

[nyker96]

it looks pretty good but I rather save the cash and but something even nicer like Ultra 120 or Tuniq and just ask intel to sell it for a little less.

 

[mouthwash]

i was under the impression isnt those intel stock coolers were made by glacialtech?
i might be wrong

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: mouthwash
i was under the impression isnt those intel stock coolers were made by glacialtech?
i might be wrong

But then again, you might very well be right. I just guessed Thermaltake, because they already have experience making a heatsink that looks alot like that, and since it obviously isn't a Zalman, it must be a Thermaltake... Shoot, it might very well be made by AMD, for all I know, I was just taking a guess.

 

[Spikesoldier]

the question is will these make it to the (lower end of the spectrum) regular boxed versions

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: Spikesoldier
the question is will these make it to the (lower end of the spectrum) regular boxed versions

Dont count on it.

But thats the least one can expect to bundle with a $1000 CPU instead of the standard el-cheapo HSF.

 

[Rebel44]

With 1000 USD CPU they should use something like Ultima 90 + some nice 92mm fan.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: Spikesoldier
the question is will these make it to the (lower end of the spectrum) regular boxed versions

sort of. when people re-sell them. wonder what
the re-sale price will turn out to be.

kind of a test case in micro-economics.

i wonder if the LED's are on a different wire
than the fan itself ?

 

[AmberClad]

That's an interesting point. I would be willing to use that cooler (again, only if they get rid of the LED) instead of the Zalman radial HSF I currently have.

So, assuming hypothetically that Intel were to offer regular, non-EE Core 2 CPUs packaged with that cooler -- I think I'd be willing to pay slightly more for a boxed processor, say $10-$15 or so more. The Zalman I have cost around $25-$30, but it's all copper and it doesn't use the push-pins that many people hate. So that's the "yardstick" I'm using to base what the value of that new Intel cooler is to me.

 

[JimiP]

I don't find anything wrong with Intel's current stock heatsink. Works like a charm. It doesn't offer ungodly low temps but who cares? It's a stock HS.

Anyways, what's so bad about LED's? It looks pretty dim to me.