• 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.

Ivy Bridge's heat problem is indeed caused by Intel's TIM choice

I wonder how many people are going to start taking the caps off and switching out the TIM...

More than a few, I'm sure.
 
Damn. Down 11C at stock speeds, and a full 20C overclocked to 4.6ghz? Is that really possible? What does the top entry say? I'd assume it says something like "stock." I hope they used the same cooler for all three tests, or this would be very misleading.

Quick, somebody else tear apart their shiny new CPU! 😀
 
Would it be possible to somehow 'balance' a big heatsink in contact with the de-lidded silicon? Kind of like how a GPU heatsink sits on top of the GPUs silicon without using a metal heat spreader in between the silicon and heatsink?

Like the head-on commercial, apply directly to the forehead silicon.
 
KingFatty said:
Would it be possible to somehow 'balance' a big heatsink in contact with the de-lidded silicon? Kind of like how a GPU heatsink sits on top of the GPUs silicon without using a metal heat spreader in between the silicon and heatsink?

Like the head-on commercial, apply directly to the forehead silicon.
Click to expand...

You could always use the approach taken by AMD on the old XP line of processors...4 rubber dots on each corner of the PCB to help stabilize the heat sink.
 
I was wondering if something like Liquid Pro would produce better results - now I have my answer. I'm waiting for IVB-E, the core layout will hopefully drop the temps, and I would hope Intel will use their patented TIM on a premium chip.
 
The problem with going block to bare die (without replacing IHS) is 1) the bare die without IHS is very flimsy, I shorted/fried a cpu/board running one in past. 2) You have to remove the socket, and also file/grind down area around the socket, otherwise fail to get adequate pressure. 3) even if you manage to do it, I wouldnt run 24/7, because again the bare die will be so flimsy will tend to bend, cause inadequate contact, short and fry.

Better to just use very low resistance tim and put IHS back on...wonder if could use indigo extreme between die and IHS.
 
You could remove it yes, many of us have been saying doing so would be better.

You would need to do the following though.

1. Leave the lowest areas of the IHS that the socket retaining mechanism tensions against.

2. Adjust your heatsink mounting height to account for this (and perhaps you'd need a different shape, I haven't looked to see if the chip would then be recessed in to the retaining clip.

If you don't do both of these, you're going to have a bad time.
 
Nice, Intel can go back to solder with Haswell and claim amazing breakthrough in temperature reduction 🙂
 
rge2 said:
The problem with going block to bare die (without replacing IHS) is 1) the bare die without IHS is very flimsy, I shorted/fried a cpu/board running one in past. 2) You have to remove the socket, and also file/grind down area around the socket, otherwise fail to get adequate pressure. 3) even if you manage to do it, I wouldnt run 24/7, because again the bare die will be so flimsy will tend to bend, cause inadequate contact, short and fry.

Better to just use very low resistance tim and put IHS back on...wonder if could use indigo extreme between die and IHS.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top