Wow...that's awesome!
Printable View
Wow...that's awesome!
You mean intel? Why would he send it to microsoft?Quote:
Originally Posted by moiraesfate
Need results.!
intel engineers have been working on direct die cooling for some time, but they're not doing water, they're doing tec. they know how hot this cpu is. direct water is gonna be ummmmm we'll see the results...Quote:
Originally Posted by moiraesfate
Sorry for the delays guys, I set up a temp loop to leak test the block and discovered a microscopic leak between the block and IHS. I don't know how it happened since I wasn't exactly skimpy with the epoxy. Anyways, it may have been for the best since I managed to remove the block fairly easily. The epoxy I used wasn't so great afterall.
I took this opportunity to pump some silicone into the IHS and hopefully seal the wafer from the water chamber. Maybe not necessary but it can't hurt. After that dried I cleaned up the mating surfaces and stuck it together with JB Weld this time. Gotta let that cure for 24 hours before another leak test.
There's a 3/8" OD Swiftech plastic hose barb screwed to the underside of the inlet inside the block. You can sorta see it through the exit hole it in the last pic I posted. I trimmed the barb so it terminates about 1/4" away from the core. Trust me, the core will get scrubbed hard by the incoming water. I have a D5 with Detroit top powering the loop for plenty of pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by prava
In a tradition WC setup, you have 4 layers of material the heat has to transfer through to reach the water (core>>solder>>IHS>>TIM>>waterblock>>water) Here it will be straight from the core to the water. I see no possible way that this won't be a HUGE improvement.
Surface area. That die is damn small and has no crenelations, fins, pits, grooves, anything to increase surface area. Although you are removing all those possible sources of inefficiency in thermal transfer, which should count for a pretty significant temp decrease, it's oversimplifying things to say that there is no possible way this could not work.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallwind
I see what you are getting at. In a normal cooling setup, the heat is transferred to a larger area before being absorbed by the water. I looked it up and water has a thermal conductivity of 0.6, copper is 400. So copper is definitely better at transferring heat than water. But all that is meaningless when you have to use a TIM that has a thermal conductivity 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity Maybe the ideal solution would be to solder the core directly to the waterblock? :shrug: I don't know, maybe someone with a background in thermodynamics can pop in here and explain the science behind it.
It's not meaningless. The TIM, if applied properly, is only filling in the microscopically small pits and grooves on the surface of the waterblock and IHS - over 80%+ of the area, you should be getting direct metal-on-metal contact.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallwind
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallwind
In a normal water cooled setup you would be transferring heat from die to solder to IHS to TIM to copper to water to copper (or aluminum) and finally to air.
You removed the first 4 from the equation, I think this is one of the best experiments I have ever seen! With the flow you are planning for this I think it will work well and am looking forward to seeing it's conclusion.
The surface area matters and is one negative, but still I am very interested to see what you get....too many variables to predict.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallwind
The best way to get good temps would be if intel designed an IHS that was a water block complete with milled water channels that was attached via solder tim to die. Or, if someone could get ahold of solder tim and attach one directly to die...but intel has years of refining the attachment process.
Normal water cooling = die (with very local hot spots at conductance of ~120 W/M*K) >> STIM (87 W/M*K) >> copper IHS (which increases surface area many times as the ideal thickness of it spreads the hot spots in addition to increase size at cond. of 400 W/M*K) then TIM (2-4 W/M*K) then copper with milled channel to increase surface area to water (.58 W/M*K) then to rad
You will be die with local hot spots...very small surface area, smaller than the die as hot spots will be cooled directly by water with thermal cond of .58 W/M*K.
Too many variables to guess, but one of the 2 things I am interested in seeing tried.
The other you said, which I would expect to be the most effective would be...die (120 W/M*K) >> solder tim (87 W/M*K) >> IHS water block (400 W/M*K which bottom part both spreads the hot spots from die increasing the surface area many more times than just increase in size, and is milled on inside to increase the surface area for transfer of heat to water (.58).
Oops, sorry. Yeah, it should be Intel. I was at work when I wrote that and doing a bunch of other things too lol.
If you didnt lap your cpu and then instead cut channels in the surface, wouldnt that work?
What is important is the thermal dynamic pump. As long as heat is being transfered quickly enough and out of the system to the surrounding air. Eliminating steps does not always equate to a better performance in the thermal pump process. It is an interesting experiment nonetheless. I am anxiously awaiting the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellcamino
Yes, but then you would have to attach/weld a bottomless waterblock to the IHS, so the IHS forms the bottom, assuming the channels could be cut deep enough to be effective, not to mention be pretty difficult, but would be interesting if someone would do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
need to see these results. I'll buy one of these babies off you for my Xeon, it's dies get hot. May have to alter it to work properly with dual dies tho...
Make sure to switch that pump on first and get water flowing before kicking the PC power on. With an IHS and waterblock a second or so delay of the pump turning on isn't an issue, but with nothing but water I'd think you'd need the water moving right away.
Isnt that what this is about? Else I have misunderstood something, I see water touching the IHS, did I see wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by rge
Ok, got my popcorn and waiting to see the results..:D
That same damn small die is just as small when in contact with a copper water block. There is no way to increase the die size post manufacture. Adding material to the top of the die will only make it transfer heat less efficiently.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
The only positive thing the block lends to the equation is a greater thermal mass than an equivalent volume of water. Flow and pressure will be the limiting factors in the capabilities of hot-side heat exchange in this direct die design.
Not quite - the IHS has a hole in it with a retrofitted nozzle shooting water DIRECTLY ONTO THE CPU DIE :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
Though the former does sound like a very economical, smart wayto do things, if you could make a grooving system or something similar from the IHS, or maybe make a new IHS that is thicker with a swiftech-style pin matrix.
Except that it has worked - there is a thread floating around here that I saw a few days ago where someone in fact had already done this - his temps, if my memory serves me correctly, were mid-30s full load, over 4GHz. It just comes down to how much water is moving over the die - Over time, the surface area of water that is exposed to the die over, say, a minute, is astronomically higher than the surface area of the TIM/solder/IHS, which has a much higher thermal conductivity, but a static surface area.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulsCollective
Tbh I dont think just spraying water onto the die is going to get good temps tbh :/ channels will be needed, but I might be wrong, but I think it would be better to make channels in the IHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_
The arguing over the validity of this idea in this thread cracks me up, I just hope the OP doesn't decide not to share their results due to the arguing from people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about! To the nay sayers: go come up with something innovative.
If direct die cooling was a bad idea than no one would ever remove the IHS to cool it, all that achieves is the removal of a couple layers of material to transfer heat through.
Yes you get rid of some, but you get less area to transfer the heat, and a flat plate is not good at transferring heat compared to a rilled plate, but as I said might be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellcamino
If water's thermal conductance was 80 W/M*K then I would completely agree. But water has thermal conductance of .6 or 130x less than solder tim and 667x less than copper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
The IHS increases the surface area from size of hot spots on die which are a fraction of even the die size and spreads the heat along entire size of the IHS using high thermal conductance of 130-667x greater than water. Then with the dramatically increased surface area with more copper and milled channels you suffer the piss poor transfer rate of heat from metal to water...once you have enough surface area to do so.
That is very different than having a very small surface area trying to transfer same heat using .6 W/M*K conductance.
The same is true for air. Air sucks as coolant, very low thermal conductance. To make up for this need massive surface area. So air blocks need tons of thin fins to have enough surface area to use air as coolant. If adding more material only hinders cooling, try removing the fins on true and just blow air on base of copper block.
To use water as a coolant, logically it would seem better to first dramatically increase surface area using high thermal conductance 100's of times more efficient than water before getting to piss poor water....need massive surface area to make up for piss poor heat conductance.
Nevertheless it will be interesting to see what happens.