Nice! Eagerly awaiting your testing results:up:
Printable View
Nice! Eagerly awaiting your testing results:up:
No. Not my test bench CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by rafrag
when will you have some before/after mod data?
I'll probably make it a bit smaller than 24˛. Too big and WB touchs IHS edges so it's not good, but too small and you loose too much contact area even if pressure contact is increased (to get a thinner TIM2 essentially). Balance is not easy, but final difference won't be enormous too (heavy load needed). Don't put too much thermal paste and that's all, problem is the necessary pressure to minimize its thickness, what bow achieves easily because contact area is very reduced when analyzing contact paths. A flat-flat situation remains the easier solution for everyone in comparison of milling again the baseplate.
0.75 mm is not really necessary because max IHS flatness defect is ~0.10 mm based on my measurements on several CPU (Intel says 0.05 mm max, but never achieved :D). That's why I put 0.1-0.3 mm maxi to make the base step, that's enough to avoid the IHS ridge along the perimeter. If you have a very thin base like MP-05 for instance (1 mm), you can't make a 0.75 mm step because you'll fragilise the whole WB and it will be bend easily under pressure. The Storm stiffness isn't really impacted by the 0.75 mm because base is thick.
Central IHS area is generally quite flat (a bit convex on dual dies), IHS edges are (always) the major problem. Let's say that a ~4 mm square ring is bad on IHS, that gives us a ~22˛ area. You can see the "copper ring" when you lap the IHS, it's the bad part to eliminate in priority, all the rest is pretty good and flat if you continue to lap it because copper appears everywhere in a same time very quickly. The Swiftech bow only gives a ~0.1-0.15 mm convex height difference at the contact and it's sufficient to make a difference, even with a non lapped IHS.
Well we have the before... I do have a busy week this week, but monday I might be able to get 3 runs of the storm done... If it doesnt do as I hoped, I'm gonna make the center patch smaller and retest. There must be an optimal size... obviously the smaller we go the more PSI of pressure we create over the die(s) but go too small and you may end up with parts of a quad core that are literally uncooled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bail_w
Does anyone know the measurements of a quad without the IHS? I'm talking the area that the 2 dies occupy.
Yeah, I'm thinking 22mm to 20mm sq would be where its at. IIRC Cathar thought 22mm (and he is usually right LOL). rosco are you doing some experimenting with this as well? This whole thing begs the question as to how or why the 'Mfgrs' have not tinkered with this idea...??Quote:
Originally Posted by rosco
Edit: nvm.
Here it is (from one topic on this forum). It's for Kentsfield IIRC but it's not important, it's almost the same each time when dealing with 2 dies. A ~23x14 mm area here just above dies (without taking account of the heat spreading).Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
No time to make experiments with that trick for the moment, but obviously it's better than nothing if you don't want to lap your IHS and keep your warranty :)
all i found is:
Die Size (combined) 2 x 143 mm2 or 286 mm2 total die area
it sems 24mm squared is slightly big(23 looks correct??)....22mm squared would be too at edge of too smallQuote:
Originally Posted by rosco
axiously waiting results. I wish I was able to help some how. This stuff is exciting to me.
--pak
For sure, you won't be able to measure any difference between a 22 and a 23 mm² contact :)
looks like the bow without the bow... :up:
No doubt. Damn. I need to go back to the machinist now and do 22mm sq. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by rosco
I can get you the quad's dimensions, Just need a picture of a naked quad and a spare IHS (Got the IHS and found a picture on google) and I can do some dimension scaling.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
I'll get back to you later tonight. ;)
See post # 33 by rosco... 23mm x 14mm for a quad's AREA. 22mm sq for the patch should be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbo03
then why do it..sorry for my ignoranceQuote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
is it becasue the smaller area will fit on the IHS better and provide better transfer
Meh, now I'm wondering if a 14sq mm patch would just not OWN on a single die CPU... that would be massive PSI. Block Mfgrs would not like to make 2 bases though...
Neal, the SMALLER the patch, the more PSI we can apply to the core(s). The more pressure the better. Make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by nealh
I can see the point of all this easily enough but am a tad concerned about
*introducing 4 corners as pressure points to the IHS surface.
*whether pressure is evenly distributed or becomes less towards the center.
*a pocket of TIM becomes trapped (if point *2 is true). This seemed to be the benefit of bowing to me.
Are we merely reversing the IHS square outer frame and putting it on our block instead? Although, admittedly much closer to the dies themselves.
Can't wait for some results.
:clap: niksub1 and rosco for waking us all up again.:up:
LOL, metric system is not one of ur strong points is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
OK..but you want to make sure you cover the cores completely, right to cool the entire core evenly, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
will 23 vs 22 make any difference in reality?
Good thinking and work!
I was always curious as to why the stock Intel air cooler for the QX series CPU has a circular base, yet the one size fits all waterblocks had square ones.
...and as to why some air coolers (CNPS7500) which has a circular base, works better than the stock square base coolers on earlier CPUs.
well done :)
Matched page 32 of this specsheet with some naked quad photos, Got 22.8 x 13.3; I hadn't seen rosco's post until now :p: :
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...s/31559205.pdf
I noticed in there, That the IHS is 2.03mm Thick, to a tolerance of .05.
So, My thinking is, Would your block design work better if the IHS was lapped down by 1mm? 1.5mm?