I'll try to keep this short. I am currently running an E4300 @3.2 on stock volts. I know the chip can go higher but wasn't comfortable pushing it with my XP-90 as temps were 48C idle and 65+ load (at stock volts). After reading a bunch of reviews, I decided to purchase an Ultra-120. I figured it would drop temps by 10 degrees or so, thus enabling me to push the chip further. The bottom line is that my temps are almost exactly the same with the Ultra-120. I have lapped the HSF, lapped the CPU, repositioned the HSF, and re-seated multiple times, all to no avail. I have to Yate Loon fans attached to the Ultra-120 in a push-pull configuration. At this point, I'm considering selling the Ultra-120 as I see no benefit to using it. Am I missing something here?
-
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.
Ultra-120 no better than my XP-90
- Thread starter aaronking
- Start date
RallyMaster
Diamond Member
Depends on the fan mounted on each cooler. If you had a stronger fan mounted on the XP-90 compared to an Ultra-120 with a lower speed Yate Loon, there may be times when the XP-90 gets more airflow for the surface area. At least that's the only reasonable explanation I can give it.
It sounds like you should focus on modifications to the case's cooling.
XP-120 should be capable of dissipating more heat but only if the case's cooling can "take it away".
If the airflow in the case is not sufficent then I could see how temps might not differ much between XP-90 and XP-120.
My C2D's Vcore has been increased to 1.45V and I've never ever seen load temps in the 60's.
XP-120 should be capable of dissipating more heat but only if the case's cooling can "take it away".
If the airflow in the case is not sufficent then I could see how temps might not differ much between XP-90 and XP-120.
My C2D's Vcore has been increased to 1.45V and I've never ever seen load temps in the 60's.
tylerdustin2008
Diamond Member
He has a Ultra-120 not an Xp-120........
The air flow in the case isn't great, but even with the case open, I believe the temps were about the same with both coolers. I will have to double check though as don't recall exactly what it was with the XP-90. I believe the idle temps with the Ultra-120 with case open are around 36C. Room temp is around 60F/15C.
An open case is NOT a method of improving cooling for a poor airflow case. In fact it'll probably make things worse. Once you fill a space with hot air it becomes more difficult for the chimney effect to catch on, and that effect doesn't work well when the escape path is out the side instead of straight up.
Improve your airflow.
Improve your airflow.
I think Daverino is onto something.
Of the people who post to this forum, I bet 99% are 'lapping' their coolers by hand. The problem with this is that is very hard, impossible even, to get the surface properly flat. Unless the cooler's base is initially *way* off flat, the chances are that you'll just make the situation worse.
A quick way to check flatness is to place the edge of a steel rule on the base.
Secondly, I suspect people get carried away, and try to make the surface too smooth (i.e. shiny). This is counter-productive, as people have noted elsewhere in the forums. The slight grooving from the original milling of the base is nothing to worry about.
aaronking -- are you guilty of either of these?
Another thing to consider is the mounting of the cooler. An Ultra-120 is so heavy that unless a lot of normal force is applied, pressing it onto the CPU, it may start to lift up on one side. See if putting your case flat (so cooler is directly above CPU) to see if that makes any difference.
Of the people who post to this forum, I bet 99% are 'lapping' their coolers by hand. The problem with this is that is very hard, impossible even, to get the surface properly flat. Unless the cooler's base is initially *way* off flat, the chances are that you'll just make the situation worse.
A quick way to check flatness is to place the edge of a steel rule on the base.
Secondly, I suspect people get carried away, and try to make the surface too smooth (i.e. shiny). This is counter-productive, as people have noted elsewhere in the forums. The slight grooving from the original milling of the base is nothing to worry about.
aaronking -- are you guilty of either of these?
Another thing to consider is the mounting of the cooler. An Ultra-120 is so heavy that unless a lot of normal force is applied, pressing it onto the CPU, it may start to lift up on one side. See if putting your case flat (so cooler is directly above CPU) to see if that makes any difference.
mercanucaribe
Banned
Why do people lap their heatsinks?? What's wrong with the stock surface?
TIM/thermal paste is a weak link in thermal transfer, if it's not applied right it can cause a degradation in heatsink performance. A good way to improve the likelihood of good TIM install is to ensure the 2 mating surfaces are flat.
If you lap the heatsink and the CPU you ensure flatness, some people take this to an extreme and go for not only flatness, but smoothness sometimes all the way to a mirror shine. A mirror shine can be counterproductive however. As has been proven in research by IBM fine surface irregularities can actually boost the performance of a good thermal paste. Uniform surface irregularities can improve it even further which is what IBM patented.
What's wrong with the stock surface of current heatsinks and CPUs is that the manufacturers realize that for their design goals they don't need to expend more energy on making a perfect mating surface. The few who "need" it will take care of it themselves and that keeps costs down for normal consumers since the expense is not on the manufacturing side. Most C2D chip caps are concave, it's just what happens when you stamp a sheet of metal into that shape. As for heatsinks it's also an artifact of the manufacturing process. The Ultra 120 base is commonly convex (which is a good thing considering the CPU shape) due to the mating of the heat pipes.
If you lap the heatsink and the CPU you ensure flatness, some people take this to an extreme and go for not only flatness, but smoothness sometimes all the way to a mirror shine. A mirror shine can be counterproductive however. As has been proven in research by IBM fine surface irregularities can actually boost the performance of a good thermal paste. Uniform surface irregularities can improve it even further which is what IBM patented.
What's wrong with the stock surface of current heatsinks and CPUs is that the manufacturers realize that for their design goals they don't need to expend more energy on making a perfect mating surface. The few who "need" it will take care of it themselves and that keeps costs down for normal consumers since the expense is not on the manufacturing side. Most C2D chip caps are concave, it's just what happens when you stamp a sheet of metal into that shape. As for heatsinks it's also an artifact of the manufacturing process. The Ultra 120 base is commonly convex (which is a good thing considering the CPU shape) due to the mating of the heat pipes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
