Tell me what you think: Indigo Xtreme and EVGA ACX [aka SuperClock] CPU cooler

[BonzaiDuck]

There's currently a discussion tangent to this post in the "CPUs & OC'ing" forum addressing the pros and cons of NT-H1 versus CLU and ICD TIM pastes. Someone had also PM'd me about some matter of a TIM and a cooler like the EVGA ACX.

Seeking more ways to have fun, with other imperatives to cracking open the side-panel, I'm looking again at CLU and IX. The cooler has direct-touch pipes and base shown clearly in an upside-down view of the Newegg photo gallery here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835288004

So the base showing small ribs between the copper heatpipes is made of aluminum. Original Liquid Pro and Liquid Ultra both corrode aluminum.

Indigo Xtreme does not, and is good with either copper, nickel, aluminum or Al in combination with either Cu or Ni. But Indigo Xtreme's installation guide discourages the use of certain coolers likely made with a direct-touch feature:

http://www.indigo-xtreme.com/page-dba.pdf

The guide doesn't vary much from the original IX, addressing the new product Indigo Xtreme XS. Note specifically the wording:

Unsupported Heat Sink Types:
. . . or surfaces with channels between mounting base and heat pipes are incompatible with Indigo XS.


The language of the manual attempts in whole to be syntactically precise and clear in meaning. Here, they specifically talk about visually-apparent channels between the pipes themselves and the base, and plainly show black crevices.

I don't see any "channels" on the EVGA cooler. Do YOU see any channels? I think the meaning of the installation guide is clear, given the general attempt at clarity despite some few flaws I discovered in verb conjugation, diction, usage or syntax. I think they're deliberately avoiding exclusion of direct-touch units without "channels."

Why would it matter, though, if there weren't unbroken contact between the cooler base and IHS? They note that there is left some part of the metal-pad which acts as a sort of retainer or dam for the reflow part. If the base is bigger than the IHS, would not such a feature function properly -- if not overlapped by any crevices, gaps or "channels?"

 

[Micrornd]

Why would it matter, though, if there weren't unbroken contact between the cooler base and IHS? They note that there is left some part of the metal-pad which acts as a sort of retainer or dam for the reflow part. If the base is bigger than the IHS, would not such a feature function properly -- if not overlapped by any crevices, gaps or "channels?"

I have used/use both the Indigo products and highly recommend them.
I think your confusion stems from never having used the product and not fully understanding how it works.

(For the nitpickers- The following explanation is to help "visualize" how Extreme and XS function and not entirely point by point accurate on a scientific basis )

Both Indigo products have a low "melting" point.
They are designed to melt at temps higher than would be normally encountered, hence the need to use no fans or pumps during the "reflow" stage.
When the product "melts" it is "pulled" by the hot surfaces of the IHS and the HS into the gap between the two, hence the reason to maintain the no-fan or no-pump scenario for a long enough time to "spread" completely through the entire contact patch between the IHS and HS.
(I'm pretty sure you know all the above)

The reason 2 part HS's are contra-indicated is that the Indigo product can also "wick" into any gap, slot, groove, space, etc. in the HS and "possibly" use enough material so as to not have enough to completely fill the "gap" in the contact patch.

Adding extra material to compensate for this is not practical as the amount is carefully measured to ensure complete coverage, yet not too much, so as to not allow "ooze-out", "migration", "overspread", or whatever term is popular this week
The material is expensive, but more importantly, conductive.
This is also the reason the Indigo products are tailored to socket size (actually IHS size) to prevent the above problems occurring.
Each socket/IHS group takes a slightly different amount of material to stay in the "safe" range.

The XS product is actually "worse" (for lack of a better term) in this regard, as it "wicks" better and reflows to a marginally thinner layer than the Extreme product, so it appears slightly less material is provided per socket/IHS.
But since the formulation has been adjusted in the XS product, compared to the Extreme product, the XS product does show a measurable improvement in heat transfer to the HS and lower CPU temps are the result.

BTW-
Both products are quite easy to use and produce excellent results IF you read the instructions beforehand AND follow them.

The first time I used Extreme it was new on the market and it was shortly after it had been reviewed by many websites and there were numerous complaints by users about how it didn't install properly, so I was naturally apprehensive and ordered 2 kits.

I installed the first kit, saw the results temp-wise (very measurable improvement) and then removed the pump to see the contact patch and was amazed by not only the thinness, but also the uniformity and no "squeeze-out".
There was really nothing difficult about the install, as long as you followed the directions

Unfortunately I have not been successful in getting them to produce kits for video cards, as there is not enough demand and video cards seem to have constantly changing dies sizes, meaning a large number of different kits would be required for a very small portion of the market (and probably a net loss on each kit, rather than any profit.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I have used/use both the Indigo products and highly recommend them.
I think your confusion stems from never having used the product and not fully understanding how it works.

Certainly my confusion follows as you explain. Yet, I did have a good guess about the gap problem and re-flow, as you explain so well. The more I looked at photos of surfaces after heat-induced application, the more I could appreciate that the product had to be a matter of precise measurement, or that you could lose some of it in any gaps.

Did you look at the upside-down view of my cooler in the link? I can lap the base of the ACX cooler even more to assure perfect flatness. But I just don't see the gaps that would enable loss of any IX, unless the gapless part of the base is smaller than the area needed by IX for contact with the IHS. I would also rather doubt that any difference in thermal expansion of the two metals would produce any problem.

I suppose I'll just have to order some metal pads and give it a try. Let me know if you have any reservations about it. I didn't pick the cooler because it had a direct-touch design, but only because it performed considerably better than a D14 -- which I proved in my own test against the assertions of a published review comparison.

The same concern would come up in a discussion of the Hyper 212+ or EVO, I think. But I haven't looked at an EVO's cooler base recently, nor informed myself of the metal(s) used. IX offers a considerable improvement for the little Hyper 212 models.

And now I'm looking at the Egg gallery for the 212. There is no aluminum spline between any of the Cu heatpipes: they're all just mashed together side-by-side. The gaps of any consequence aren't shown in high contrast, but there would definitely be a problem even after a game of chicken to lap extensively and risk breaching one or more of the pipes.

Would there be a gap problem to apply CLU to a 212 EVO? Whatever metal the base, I think one could do it without touching more than the pipes themselves.

 

[Jovec]

I had troubling reflowing (original) Indigo Extreme on my 2600k with a NH-D14. Fans off, towel-wrapped fins, full torture test with P95, etc. When I finally removed it a year or two later, only about 40% of the CPU was covered. I think IDC encountered similar issues with IX and very-large heatsinks (hard to heat them enough to reflow) .

Before using it again, I'd do some pre-testing to ensure temps get high enough with some minor over-volting, although with Haswell AVX it should be easier to really push temps. I'd also consider preheating the HS fins with hair dryer.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I had troubling reflowing (original) Indigo Extreme on my 2600k with a NH-D14. Fans off, towel-wrapped fins, full torture test with P95, etc. When I finally removed it a year or two later, only about 40% of the CPU was covered. I think IDC encountered similar issues with IX and very-large heatsinks (hard to heat them enough to reflow) .

Before using it again, I'd do some pre-testing to ensure temps get high enough with some minor over-volting, although with Haswell AVX it should be easier to really push temps. I'd also consider preheating the HS fins with hair dryer.

With the D14, I can imagine a problem. I was thinking I could just unplug all the fans, leave one connected to the CPU but withdrawn from the heatpipe tower.

And so I'd wonder what would happen with my ACX cooler, which provides 6C better cooling than the D14. YEt -- with no air going through the fins -- you'd think the base would heat up properly. That's why I never tried it before -- it is a lot of extra trouble.

so I guess I could set the VCORE around 1.42 or 1.44V and then either try Prime95 and X my fingers, or toy with LinX and IntelBurnTest.

But if 80C is needed to flow the IX, the core sensors need to show more than 80C.

 

[Micrornd]

Did you look at the upside-down view of my cooler in the link? I can lap the base of the ACX cooler even more to assure perfect flatness. But I just don't see the gaps that would enable loss of any IX, unless the gapless part of the base is smaller than the area needed by IX for contact with the IHS. I would also rather doubt that any difference in thermal expansion of the two metals would produce any problem.
..............................
And now I'm looking at the Egg gallery for the 212. There is no aluminum spline between any of the Cu heatpipes: they're all just mashed together side-by-side. The gaps of any consequence aren't shown in high contrast, but there would definitely be a problem even after a game of chicken to lap extensively and risk breaching one or more of the pipes.

Would there be a gap problem to apply CLU to a 212 EVO? Whatever metal the base, I think one could do it without touching more than the pipes themselves.

What you are looking at is one of the reasons (that I failed to, but should have mentioned earlier ) that the Indigo products have application problems with "direct-touch" HS's (not withstanding the "gap" problem already mentioned).

"Direct-touch" HS's just do not heat, or transfer heat from, their contact patches evenly.
By design the heat tubes absorb heat faster than the base material.

When the Indigo products reflow, temps rise sharply, then drop.
But with a "direct-touch" HS, that doesn't always mean that the whole HS base heated enough to allow the material to reflow across the entire HS base.

Since most folks are extremely wary and do not completely understand how well the thermal protection works in Intel CPUs, they immediately stop the heating/reflow when they see this drop, when they should allow it to continue quite a bit longer to allow the HS base to become heat saturated and reach a uniform temperature, thereby allowing the material to reflow across the entire HS base.

Think of the heat tubes (and base material also) as stepping stones to be crossed, each of a slightly different temperature, maybe hot enough, maybe not, unless they are heated long enough to reach a uniform temperature.

Of course the larger and more efficient the HS, the harder it will be to reach a uniform HS base temp.

NOTE - I am referring to Intel CPU's and their thermal protection only in the above statement.
I do not use, nor have any experience with AMD CPU's and have no idea if they can withstand the needed high temps for extended periods. :hmm:

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What you are looking at is one of the reasons (that I failed to, but should have mentioned earlier ) that the Indigo products have application problems with "direct-touch" HS's (not withstanding the "gap" problem already mentioned).

"Direct-touch" HS's just do not heat, or transfer heat from, their contact patches evenly.
By design the heat tubes absorb heat faster than the base material.

When the Indigo products reflow, temps rise sharply, then drop.
But with a "direct-touch" HS, that doesn't always mean that the whole HS base heated enough to allow the material to reflow across the entire HS base.

Since most folks are extremely wary and do not completely understand how well the thermal protection works in Intel CPUs, they immediately stop the heating/reflow when they see this drop, when they should allow it to continue quite a bit longer to allow the HS base to become heat saturated and reach a uniform temperature, thereby allowing the material to reflow across the entire HS base.

Think of the heat tubes (and base material also) as stepping stones to be crossed, each of a slightly different temperature, maybe hot enough, maybe not, unless they are heated long enough to reach a uniform temperature.

Of course the larger and more efficient the HS, the harder it will be to reach a uniform HS base temp.

NOTE - I am referring to Intel CPU's and their thermal protection only in the above statement.
I do not use, nor have any experience with AMD CPU's and have no idea if they can withstand the needed high temps for extended periods. :hmm:

Thanks. I completely overlooked that issue about heating the aluminum splines and uniformity. It only stands to reason.

Here, our thoughts might touch upon the topic which is a bane to forum-member ShintaiDK: "TCASE." I think we're discussing the actual core temperatures needed to get the IHS and HSF-base to ~80C and allow a uniform reflow. And so we would like to control processor temperature to let it run at 90 to 95C -- or whatever it takes to heat the IHS (at least) and the HSF-base to the reflow temperature.

 

[Micrornd]

Here, our thoughts might touch upon the topic which is a bane to forum-member ShintaiDK: "TCASE." I think we're discussing the actual core temperatures needed to get the IHS and HSF-base to ~80C and allow a uniform reflow. And so we would like to control processor temperature to let it run at 90 to 95C -- or whatever it takes to heat the IHS (at least) and the HSF-base to the reflow temperature.

Yes and no

While we are talking high temps, we are not talking overly high, but rather maintaining them long enough for the base of the HS to reach an acceptably high, but more importantly, acceptable high uniform temperature.
And this is more a function of time at high, but safe CPU temps, rather than using extremely high CPU temps.

Not maintaining the high temp long enough to allow the HS base to heat to a uniform temp is the biggest install problem with kind of TIM, as most users that change TIMs are conditioned to believe that high temps will ruin a CPU and they have no idea what is actually acceptable.

As to Tcase, while it exists, I have yet to see any of the last 5 generations of Intel CPUs succumb to it.
Intel's built in thermal throttling works quite well.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yes and no

While we are talking high temps, we are not talking overly high, but rather maintaining them long enough for the base of the HS to reach an acceptably high, but more importantly, acceptable high uniform temperature.
And this is more a function of time at high, but safe CPU temps, rather than using extremely high CPU temps.

Not maintaining the high temp long enough to allow the HS base to heat to a uniform temp is the biggest install problem with kind of TIM, as most users that change TIMs are conditioned to believe that high temps will ruin a CPU and they have no idea what is actually acceptable.

As to Tcase, while it exists, I have yet to see any of the last 5 generations of Intel CPUs succumb to it.
Intel's built in thermal throttling works quite well.

I think you misunderstood me on the topic of TCASE. Of course, I'll have to look more closely at the IX instructions or guide.

But this is what I meant. If there is a certain temperature at which reflow occurs (regardless what CPU Tj sensors report), it would be the temperature corresponding to how TCASE would hypothetically be measured: top-dead-center at the exterior side of the processor cap.

If the instructions say reflow takes place when the Tj sensors report a certain temperature, that's something else. I'm suggesting that if the reflow point for the IX product is stated to be 80C, you'd have to show Tj sensor values higher than that -- sustained as you say over time.

Conversely, based on my recollections of forum discussions elsewhere, some folks are using those Laser thermometers to assure that the top of their heatsink is reaching X degrees. That, too, would be a departure from the sensor values reported -- if the processor were used to heat the assembly. But some folks are using hair-dryers, recommending heat-guns -- that sort of thing.

My thoughts, waiting to receive the IX "kit," mostly concern what I'm going to do temporarily to my system to get the temperature right while controlling it. It doesn't matter so much that the processor will either throttle or shut down at its Tj point, but that I'd like to maintain the same temperature for a chosen number of minutes without reaching Tj.

I'll just have to go through some experiments with successive fan removal -- or disconnection.

 

[Micrornd]

I think you misunderstood me on the topic of TCASE.

Possibly.
All I meant was that Tcase is not an issue in that it is not normally reached during the install of Indigo products.

Conversely, based on my recollections of forum discussions elsewhere, some folks are using those Laser thermometers to assure that the top of their heatsink is reaching X degrees. That, too, would be a departure from the sensor values reported -- if the processor were used to heat the assembly.

That is decidedly the wrong way IMO.
No one cares about the exterior of the HS, only the temp of the contact patch for reflow.
Lacking a thermalcouple embedded between the IHS and HS or pump, the CPU temp sensor is still the best for that, as it is closest to the contact patch, and while it may be slightly off due to it's distance from the contact patch, it is much, much closer than the top of the HS base.

But some folks are using hair-dryers, recommending heat-guns -- that sort of thing.

My thoughts, waiting to receive the IX "kit," mostly concern what I'm going to do temporarily to my system to get the temperature right while controlling it. It doesn't matter so much that the processor will either throttle or shut down at its Tj point, but that I'd like to maintain the same temperature for a chosen number of minutes without reaching Tj.

I'll just have to go through some experiments with successive fan removal -- or disconnection.

Wrapping the HS to prevent airflow through it is normally sufficient on the larger HS's, but adding external heat will also help prevent the HS from dissipating heat and allow the contact patch to heat faster.
Thermal throttling starts when reaching Tj ,and TT is capable of shutting down the CPU.

You want to also bear in mind that almost all MBs incorporate VRM temp throttling also, and this can begin before CPU TT if the MB is extremely hot, and the results are the same as CPU TT.
It takes a good monitoring app to tell the difference.

BTW - VRM TT is one of my pet peeves as most water coolers and aftermarket performance air coolers ignore or forget that almost all VRM cooling comes from air deflected over the VRMs by the OEM HS/fans.
When replacing the OEM HS this must be addressed or the VRMs can overheat and TT or worse.
Ya know there is a reason servers move massive amounts of air through their cases to keep all their components cooled.

Good luck with your install, I assume you'll post about it :whiste: