Lapped my i7-3770K and there was zero improvement in operating temperatures!?

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
I've been busy running my 3770k through a gauntlet of tests - stock cooler, NH-D14, H100, different TIMs (stock, MX4, NT-H1) - all while gradually working my way towards delidding this thing.

Naturally one step in that progression was to lap the CPU's IHS to see how much performance was being left on the table by the stock IHS warp (or possible lack thereof).

First, here is the sequence of pics taken during the various stages of lapping. To determine if the IHS was initially convex (crowned in the middle) or concave (like a bowl), I used a sharpie permanent marker to make an X across the surface of the IHS:

i7-3770KIHSpre-lappingwithXmark.jpg


Then I did just a few strokes on 220 grit before inspecting it, knowing that the portions of the original "X" would only be removed from the high spots on the IHS:

i7-3770KIHSinitial220gritlapping.jpg


^ very clear indication that the IHS is/was concave (like a bowl, the center was low and not touched by the sand paper yet, the edges were high and have already been sanded down a bit, enough to begin to remove the permanent pen markings)

A bit more sanding with 220 grit yielded the following "copper ring" expected for a concave IHS:

i7-3770KIHSinitial220gritlappingCuexposed.jpg


We want all the nickel removed, nickel has a lower thermal transfer rate than copper, so I finished sanding off all the nickel with 220 grit:

i7-3770KIHSpost220grit.jpg


Then sanded with 400 grit:

i7-3770KIHSpost400grit.jpg


And so on through the various grits up to 3000 grit:

i7-3770KIHSpost800grit.jpg


i7-3770KIHSpost1000grit.jpg


i7-3770KIHSpost2000grit.jpg


i7-3770KIHSpost3000grit.jpg



(due to a 10 image limit per post, the remainder of this OP will be continued in the next post)
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
(...continued from the OP above)

Installed the CPU, added the standard grain-of-rice amount of NT-H1 and then mounted my lapped H100:

i7-3770KIHSpost-lappre-mountNT-H1.jpg


And the resulting temperatures? Pretty much identical, zero improvement, to those obtained with the same TIM and cooler (NT-H1 and H100) with the CPU before it was lapped:

i7-3770Kprevspostlappingtemperaturecomparison.png


:eek: o_O :confused: The results are literally unchanged from lapping the 3770k!

I couldn't believe it...in fact I refused to believe it. So I pulled the H100, cleaned up the IHS and water block, reapplied NT-H1 and remounted...only to find the temperatures were the same.

So I remounted again, and again, and then again, and yet again once more...in the end I remounted my block no less than 7 times, even varied the amount of TIM just to ensure I wasn't using too much or too little, and I'll be damned if the peak operating temps didn't stay the same each and every time!

I've never experienced this before, probably have lapped well in excess of 10 CPU's and coolers and have never seen a case where the temperatures did not improve one iota when the CPU's IHS was lapped :\

So this leaves me with the final step in testing...time to delid this sucker!
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Ha ha!

Looking forward to lapped+Change of TIM will do. :p

Amazing finish btw.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I'm guessing the IHS wasn't that bad to begin with and your TIM would fill the void well enough.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
I had the same issue with my e2180 that I lapped and my Ultra-120 cooler. No temps improvement. Was totally not worth the effort.
 

nervx

Member
Jul 17, 2004
43
0
0
i didnt know people still did this. i remember reading years ago that lapping usually doesnt improve temps
 

AsusGuy

Senior member
Dec 9, 2004
228
0
71
I think the main issue with Ivy Bridge's high temps is the thermal paste Intel used between the die and IHS. A few friends and I have removed the IHS on Ivy and re-applied new high-end thermal paste and that makes a significant difference in performance. I know people who have also used liquid metal ultra thermal compound and decreased the temps by up to 20c (this is after de-lidding the chip). If you want better temps on air/water you need to de-lid this chip or your thermal limit will always be improper heat transfer from the die due to poor thermal paste. I believe Sandy Bridge uses a fluxless solder between the die and IHS and that may be a large part of why Ivy runs so much hotter. My temps in linpack (IBT) are hitting around 80c at max with 1.25v @ 4.6Ghz. I can put up bench results tonight when I get home.
 

Diogenes2

Platinum Member
Jul 26, 2001
2,151
0
0
I think the main issue, is people who think reducing the temps beyond what a good HSF installation will get you, will result in any worthwhile performance gain.

IB runs hotter than SB, and works just fine..
 

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
I guess this means that the bottleneck of the heat transfer lies with the thermal interface between the heat spreader and the CPU die rather than heat spreader to the heatsink.

Maybe intel was a little too ambitious with designing ivy bridge as physically small as possible, but in return creating a very hot chip due to the lack of area for thermal dissipation.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
I guess this means that the bottleneck of the heat transfer lies with the thermal interface between the heat spreader and the CPU die rather than heat spreader to the heatsink.

Maybe intel was a little too ambitious with designing ivy bridge as physically small as possible, but in return creating a very hot chip due to the lack of area for thermal dissipation.

they know exactly what they are doing. If they wanted it cooler they would have used solder, and we'd all be running 20C cooler. It was so cool, they realized we would overclock too far and never need to upgrade since they've shifted into "marginal improvements in performance until AMD can catch up). IMHO.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
i didnt know people still did this. i remember reading years ago that lapping usually doesnt improve temps

With my 2600k I saw ~3°C improvement in operating temperatures after I lapped the CPU. (see original post here)

H100OCingresults.png


It all depends on your objectives and goals when it comes to operating temperature and its effect on power-consumption and noise levels.

In my case (with my 2600k) I did not want dust-buster noise levels, and a 3°C improvement in temperatures meant my noise levels dropped by nearly 3dB (quite noticeable by ear)...roughly the same improvement that was had in swapping out my NH-D14 for an H100.

i7-2600KTempswithH100NT-H1.png


(original post here)

If 3°C means little to an individual then that person probably isn't going to look to spend $70-$100 on a high-end air-cooler anyways, or shell out $10 and go to all the effort of unmounting/cleaning/remounting their HSF just to gain that much of an improvement in temps.

But for those people who do want to get those temps down - be it for lowered operating noise or for better OC'ing headroom - every degree makes a difference and lapping has historically always provided some level of improvement.

That is until I met this CPU. Zero improvement. I take this to mean the current limiting factor in heat transfer for my chip is whatever is going on under the IHS. I bought it with plans to delid it, looks like I will be getting to those tests sooner than originally anticipated :D
 
Last edited:

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
they know exactly what they are doing. If they wanted it cooler they would have used solder, and we'd all be running 20C cooler. It was so cool, they realized we would overclock too far and never need to upgrade since they've shifted into "marginal improvements in performance until AMD can catch up). IMHO.

I never said they didn't ;)
 

Avalon

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2001
7,571
178
106
Yeah IDC, de-lid it!

I know a few others along with myself did upon IVB launch. I just did the de-lid, replace the TIM, and re-lid method and dropped 8C. Others de-lidded, sanded the IHS glue off to lower the gap from lid to die, then replaced the TIM, and dropped 10C+.
 
Last edited:

Plimogz

Senior member
Oct 3, 2009
678
0
71
Woot! I love these threads of yours, IDC! so many data and pretty pictures. Subbed! and thanks.

I can't wait to see the results with IHS removed.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,178
1,776
126
I've never experienced this before, probably have lapped well in excess of 10 CPU's and coolers and have never seen a case where the temperatures did not improve one iota when the CPU's IHS was lapped . . .

Well, I'd never fudged my results. I produced some data here in 2007 about this, or maybe it was 2008. N x 1000 = sample-size was big enough. After it was over, I THOUGHT the data indicated "up to" 5C degrees per surface lapped of the two surfaces, and part of the improvement was elimination of the nickel-plating.

Even the nickel-plating demonstrates what IDontCare has revealed here: Nickel has a higher thermal resistance and lower conductivity than Copper, even if the layer is a tiny fraction of a millimeter.

Someone else here over the last few years had posted an explanation of something related to thermal paste and surface shape (flat or convex) illustrating a concept of a "heat dam" -- wait a minute, I remember now -- it was someone from IC Diamond or Overclockers.net (personnel-affiliated), not necessarily Joe Citarella, but maybe . . .

Your lapping on one set of surfaces won't improve anything, if the limiting thermal resistance is on another surface closer to the source of the heat.

See, I'm starting to entertain some silly thoughts. Hours ago, I thought I'd increase the clock speed on my Sandy, because I shouldn't have to worry about it for an extra 3 or 4 millivolts extra. I'm also thinking I might buy an Ivy Bridge just so I could do this de-lidding with particular choices of a TIM, and so I could over-clock it. I say "Just so I could do it . . . "

Originally Posted by soccerballtux
they know exactly what they are doing. If they wanted it cooler they would have used solder, and we'd all be running 20C cooler. It was so cool, they realized we would overclock too far and never need to upgrade since they've shifted into "marginal improvements in performance until AMD can catch up). IMHO.

It makes sense. They'd been doing this the same way for years, then choose to change a low-tech factor related to heat-transfer. Intel shouldn't be making "mistakes" like that after all these decades. They may think to make significant OC'ing prohibitive to mainstreamers, and troublesome to enthusiasts. It eliminates RMAs from the first group, and makes them impossible for the second. You "won't get away" . . . with an RMA. . . for tampering with your heatspreader.

No less true, and only more so, if they can make the unsuspecting shell out for an upgrade sooner . . .
 
Last edited:

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,298
23
81
Someone else here over the last few years had posted an explanation of something related to thermal paste and surface shape (flat or convex) illustrating a concept of a "heat dam" -- wait a minute, I remember now -- it was someone from IC Diamond or Overclockers.net (personnel-affiliated), not necessarily Joe Citarella, but maybe . . .

Your lapping on one set of surfaces won't improve anything, if the limiting thermal resistance is on another surface closer to the source of the heat.

Exactly the same thing I've been thinking since the IB launch.

When the Yorkfield chips launched, converting the original Kentsfield chips from 65nm to 45nm, power consumption dropped. And they ran cooler because both series used the same solder between the cores and the IHS.

As verified in this article on xbitlabs from the time: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2quad-q9400_14.html where they said this:

The main problem during Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocking is not the search for optimal mainboard BIOS settings, but proper processor cooling. For example, with a powerful Scythe Mugen cooler we managed to get this CPU to work stably at 3.6GHz. The processor Vcore in this case was raised to 1.425V.

You can see from the screenshot that FSB frequency was increased only to 400MHz, so any contemporary mainboard can do this. However, the CPU temperature increased to 90°C in burn mode. So, Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocking is only possible with an efficient cooler.

Above that they had just overclocked Q9300/Q9400 to about the same point but there was no mention of problem with heat on those chips.

And I know from personal experience, going from an e6400 to an e8400 that the 45nm chips were notably cooler. So why the increase going from SB to IB when the wattage actually dropped? Simple - heat dam as described above. Doesn't really matter how efficient your cooling is if the heat cannot pass through the TIM/IHS to reach your HSF.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
with IB i have a feeling you will need to delid and add better paste and possibly sand down the IHS a bit to make the gap between die and IHS smaller to see the temp changes you would normally get by just lapping. Intel really screwed the guys who like to OC to the bitter edge with IB.