Wouldn't lapping the CPU kind of defeat the purpose?
--pak
Printable View
Wouldn't lapping the CPU kind of defeat the purpose?
--pak
yup
this is just what i thought you were going to do :D
but i don't think you will see a noticeable difference to bowed blocks :(
Not entirely, the purpose of His design (So I think! Correct me if I'm wrong) is to focus all of the pressure directly over the Die/Dies. Bowing achieved this, Lapped or not lapped, And his design eliminates the more solid and raised edge of the IHS from protruding in the path of the block.Quote:
Originally Posted by pak
What I meant, is by lapping a significant amount off of the IHS, There would be less metal between the block and the cores, And therefore, Less pressure would be dissipated laterally throughout the IHS.
A good example would be playing Jenga with fish sticks Versus wood blocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbo03
Go ahead and call me a dumb ass, but I am missing your point.
As far as taking a mm off the IHS, wouldn't that already improve temps for two reasons?
1. if your going to take 1 mm off, it might as well be nice and shiny.
2. Less metal=better heat transfer?
3. Your point which I am missing, probably cuz you mentioned fish sticks and I have no tartar sauce.
--pak
Please correct me if I am wrong but would not the bow cause the heaviest pressure at the apex of the bow and the areas radiating out from the bow have less contact pressure?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Which is why this should yield better results, the question is how much?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiGfever
--pak
I would be very surprised if this affects temps in a measurable way....
The only thing I can see coming from this is better consistency between mounts compared to bowing...
Hate to be a damp dishrag on everyones hopes but, I have to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linus@ncix
I'm also not very enthusiastic, However it is the first time a waterblock with a surface the size of the DIE is being mounted, So all bets are off.
Holding an IHS in my hand right now is making me think too much. :shakes:
Me too! Thank god, someone finally posted some pictures so I can understand this. I have sort of scratching my head all along trying to figure out this bowing business. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by hoax
I always thought the bow was to compensate for the concave bending of a mounted block....just like how long flatbed semi's have a bowed stucture that flattens under the weight.
Doesn't the concave bending still take place with this design? Granted, it won't negatively effect the mount as much since the edges are still within IHS limits, but it'll still be there.
I'd imagine a very shallow bow + small contact patch would be the best combo....
Took the words right out of my mouth :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
Looking forward to seeing some results Nik (can't wait actually), are you going to do any testing with the 24mm^2 base or are you sending them straight back to the machinist?
Here's what I'm thinking in pictures....
Here's what we've had for years, not so great...
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9679/normaldf7.jpg
Then the bow came, and it was pretty darn good (almost too good in this pic, oh well, these were done quickly):
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1870/bowedvd4.jpg
Now nikhsub's great idea to increase pressure by reducing contact area, but I imagine it will still have a concave tendency (as depicted):
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3346/nikhno1.jpg
Now just a slight bow with Nikhsub's reduced contact patch would be 100% ideal, IMO (but damn hard to machine I'd bet :():
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4...wednikhvm6.jpg
This assuming the bow is created because mounting pressure is along the top edges, and will happen to the entire base uniformly (or nearly). Nikh's idea to put the pressure back in the middle is awesome, but until we can mount with pressure down the middle, there will always be a bow (theory).
Actually the blocks are all FLAT, not concave or convex at all. I would imagine that this sort of base would work best with a lapped CPU.
My pictures are what happens when mounting pressure (on the edges) is applied....there should still be a concave nature to those three blocks (since mounting pressure is along the edges, and not in the center). Granted, the increased local pressure will negate a lot of it in the end (since it's a huge theoretical advantage on its own right), but it'd be interesting to see if you could have a slight bow added and compare.
My thought is that a bow with my mod or a bow with an unmodded base will yield the exact same thing... I don't see how it would be different?
A bow with an unmodded base still has a large (full-size) contact patch, no?
A bow on your base would not have to be as drastic for 'perfect' mounted-flatness.
EDIT: even doing the larger O-ring style bow would be less drastic considering the thinned part of the base would take more of the torque.
I follow you Vapor--but I do not think the blocks go convex when tightening...the edge force is too low to affect the massive crossection. Theory. The mount bends--not the block.
@Nikhsub1 Gutfeeling: the slight oversize you have now will be just as effective as a slight undersize.
Bow base might be affecting for dual core, but not so good for quad.
Four passes with a file on your fuzion and you could find out.
If they'd sell the bottom piece alone I'd try it.
I tend to Vapour's line of thought, as my earlier thoughts indicated.
We're forgetting the corner points. They may need radiusing.
reduced block/die area, and bowing some...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedda
Good thinking there... plus chamfering the corners slightly as well, so the corners don't dig into (bite) the IHS.
Maybe so..but most heer are fighting for 1-2C improvementQuote:
Originally Posted by Linus@ncix
Making a more consistent mount can seem to "yield huge temps improvements"... improper/porr mounts are a pain...if this seemly fixed it is a huge benefit IMHO
I think there will some benefit and the idea of a small bow with it seems real good...but how to create the "exact bowing amount" seems the biggest issue
Interesting ideas. I'm kinda thinking of radiusing the edges of my lapped IHS now so that the block mounting forces are no longer transmitted into the vertical surfaces of the IHS resulting in more of this pressure going into the other loading area...the CPU cores. I'm using Coolaboratory LM which has a rather low C/W in comparison to typical TIM, so TIM layer thickness on my setup isnt too much of a concern, but very interesting possibilities nonetheless if better thermal transmission can be accomplished with more pressure over the CPU cores with the goal of an ideal 0 C/W for the interface.
That said, I'm wondering about the posts I've read a couple months ago about Intel switching from a solder based TIM below the IHS to a paste based TIM. Anyone been popping IHS' off lately to see what the latest CPU manufacturing spec is shipping? Might be another can of worms to work around if the paste interface is being used below the IHS.