Will future revision of sb come with flux less vs Tim paste.

[cmdrdredd]

If better TIM leads to ivy easily overclocking to 5GHz on air, then the market for SB-E is pretty much ruined. Very few people will want to sacrifice 10% performance for some extra memory bandwidth.

However, if ivy overclocking is limited such as it is, then SB-E performance is relatively flat, which is enough to justify purchase. Considering Intel is a company with a documented history of conspiring to do much worse than this, it is just pure folly and ignorance to rant about kennedy and conspiracy theories. You're talking about a company that has been fined billions for past conspiracies...

Just think of what happens if Intel releases an IVB-E and it turns out to have better TIM and overclocks like a bandit to 5.3GHz on air. How many people do you think will be coming on these forums worshipping Intel and ready to plunk down $200 extra to go with the more expensive platform? I bet quite a few will fall for this. Bottom line it is a simple decision that could generate an extra million or two in profits for intel.

You do realize that many people are not buying SB-E for quad channel memory. Actually, scratch that...I would say probably most people don't.

You must be new here...tinfoilhat conspiracies are rampant on this board.

Often used when ones favourites campany looses the performance crown...then the "normal" response on ATF is...well tinfoil posts.

Just look at the "Linus flipped of NVIDIA" thread.

Facts are getting more and more rare inhere...oddly that conincides with AMD's fall from the top

We already covered that. Nvidia doesn't give a damn about Linux or China stealing their technology so they aren't going to give away their driver code for free.

What makes you think the intel stuff won't degrade in performance? I bet it will.

I wanna know what info you have that nobody else has. We know nothing about the TIM Intel used/uses.

 

[cmdrdredd]

double post

 

[moonbogg]

It was a performance limiting decision. I know because I know. my logic is perfectly circular. Circles have no edges, cracks or gaps and therefore no room for error.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It was a performance limiting decision. I know because I know. my logic is perfectly circular. Circles have no edges, cracks or gaps and therefore no room for error.

Except when someone bursts your bubble (bubbles are circles lol)

 

[Idontcare]

54 posts in this thread...am I missing something or are there no links in this thread pointing to anything authoritative from Intel?

 

[ninaholic37]

This is the only "authoritative" statement I could find about Intel's use of thermal paste:

Verified: Intel DOES NOT use cheap thermal paste inside the 22nm Ivy Bridge desktop processors!

Anyone find anything better? :awe:

 

[moonbogg]

This is the only "authoritative" statement I could find about Intel's use of thermal paste:

Verified: Intel DOES NOT use cheap thermal paste inside the 22nm Ivy Bridge desktop processors!

Anyone find anything better? :awe:

Nope, that will do just fine. Maybe the Intel employee just knew that there was no good reason to use TIM in any CPU, so he basically said "of course we don't use TIM. That would reduce thermal performance and OC capabilities". Of course, this is exactly why Intel used TIM. It was a cheap hero act to save Sandy Bridge-E. The only thing that could have stood in the way of me and Sandy Bridge-E was a little glob of solder on a 3770K, and it doesn't exist, but the Sandy-E exists in my rig as a result.

 

[Idontcare]

This is the only "authoritative" statement I could find about Intel's use of thermal paste:

Verified: Intel DOES NOT use cheap thermal paste inside the 22nm Ivy Bridge desktop processors!

Anyone find anything better? :awe:

LOL

 

[Diogenes2]

.....The only thing that could have stood in the way of me and Sandy Bridge-E was a little glob of solder on a 3770K, and it doesn't exist, but the Sandy-E exists in my rig as a result.

I'm sure Intel will close up shop if they read this....