Innovation Cooling's Diamond 7 TIM test results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

It's kinda like ever diminishing concentric circles of Chaos theory. I may be signing up for therapy myself soon. The minutia is getting to me

123bob if nothing else you are the most consistent guy I have ever seen. Looking over the farm 9 results you have 9 tests. At load averaging all cores with three different pastes except for the one AS5 which on a remount along with 7 other pastes tested within about 1/2 a degree from each other with the IHS lapped and unlapped. I know you noted the compression issue but first time I had a chance to look close at he numbers. pretty remarkable

---

LOL, well, my name is Bob. We Bobs have a reputation for being nothing if not consistent.....or is that stubborn maybe? :ROTF:

I WILL get this CPU to do something before I'm done. Of course, if I keep at it, I might get it to ambient at load because I broke the darn thing....:eek:

I figure it's probably time to move on to a few other machines to give you some more results...I'd like to see what my other six fuzion block machines show. I have better control of the mount with those.

Bob

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

It's kinda like ever diminishing concentric circles of Chaos theory. I may be signing up for therapy myself soon. The minutia is getting to me

123bob if nothing else you are the most consistent guy I have ever seen. Looking over the farm 9 results you have 9 tests. At load averaging all cores with three different pastes except for the one AS5 which on a remount along with 7 other pastes tested within about 1/2 a degree from each other with the IHS lapped and unlapped. I know you noted the compression issue but first time I had a chance to look close at he numbers. pretty remarkable

---

He always does very well in therapy also. When he leaves the office he can be heard muttering..."Need more Quads, need MORE Quads". :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

LOL, well, my name is Bob. We Bobs have a reputation for being nothing if not consistent.....or is that stubborn maybe? :ROTF:

I WILL get this CPU to do something before I'm done. Of course, if I keep at it, I might get it to ambient at load because I broke the darn thing....:eek:

I figure it's probably time to move on to a few other machines to give you some more results...I'd like to see what my other six fuzion block machines show. I have better control of the mount with those.

Bob

Bob

---

yes please move on I want to see what happens with the fuzion setups also. :D

Ok so here is where I am at with the E6600. I told in my other post that I was on stock air and changed it over to the 6002 mig shift water loop. Well I did some playing today and I will be doing some more playing here as soon as tasty gets in gear. :p:

3 Day cure time with D7
Load
Core 0: 29c
Core 1: 29c

Room temp was about 22c

I put Ceramique on the chip for and ran full power for 15 min.
Load
Core 0: 30
Core 1: 29

Room temp had went up some to 23c

now I changed it again to AS5
After about 5 min the temps were
Core 0: 30
Core 1: 29

It will stay on AS5 till I get a package from Tasty :)


Check out these pics from the 3 day cure of D7!!! I could win this pressure test looking at this. :rofl:

I sent out the first round of film for digital mapping - and I will email your results monday or tuesday only 9 went out this week.

I did talk to the rep about the part of the film that shows voids.- The white or unexposed portions "voids" are a go-no go type of situation on the pressure side and no indicator of defects. Voids could be .0001 or 10 miles deep as far as the film reading is concerned. Just something to be aware of.

Quote:

---

Check out these pics from the 3 day cure of D7!!! I could win this pressure test looking at this.

---

From 123bobs pics the small "beaded" paste pattern looks best for good contact and you may be running third place though a little thick on the edges.:shrug:

We will have to see how the prints come out.:)

Started doing some more research into the linearity of the internal DTS temp diodes in these CPUs. I have not waded through Intel's dissertations on the subject yet but did come across a couple of interesting links. I'll wade through Intel's stuff this weekend.

The other big program out there is Real Temp. I'm starting to run that with Core Temp to see how they compare.

Some 33 pages of stuff on it available in our own forum here. I have not read it fully but there appears to be some calibration options available with it.

Real Temp program available here.

Interesting article on the theory behind CoreTemp here.

I'm going to start an attempt at looking at the linearity of my readings using both of these programs. I'll be reporting both sets of temps for the new machines I'm about to crack into. As soon as I get some new film, I'll be cracking into these machines, all with fuzion blocks.

I should report that I DID have one interesting result on Farm-09 right after I did the second pressure test. I booted after re-appling paste after the second lapped pressure test. Coretemp was reporting temps about 3 degrees LOWER than before. That was idle and load..... I thought it would be a eureka moment, but I didn't trust the result. I re-booted the machine and the temps went right back to par with the prior results.....Very suspicious....I could not repeat it, but clearly some mechanism was involved. (And no, I was not eating too much paste at the time....:rofl:)

(Side note to Dr. SiG. I've actually been muttering "need some octo-cores, need some octo-cores...:clap: It might have sounded like "need more quad-cores", but I mutter very well.....:shrug: Don't know if that makes a difference in your therapy plans, just thought I should be honest with the good Doctor..:bows:..)

Regards,
Bob

EDIT: Another interesting link. Good for reading if you can't sleep....G'Night all!!

EDIT2: The documentation and theory of Real temp here, suggests that only the high end of the temp range is calibrated. This is interesting since what we are seeing seems to be compression at load. I'll have to give this some thought....

I read further into the reference made in the above doc and thought this extract was of note. The whole article is here.

"More than a few programs have been released over the last few years, each claiming to accurately report these DTS values in real-time. The truth is that none can be fully trusted as the Tjunction values utilized in these transformations may not always be correct. Moreover, Intel representatives have informed us that these as-of-yet unpublished Tjunction values may actually vary from model to model - sometimes even between different steppings - and that the temperature response curves may not be entirely accurate across the whole reporting range. Since all of today's monitoring programs have come to incorrectly assume that Tjunction values are a function of the processor family/stepping only, we have no choice but to call everything we thought we had come to know into question. Until Intel decides to publish these values on a per-model basis, the best these DTS readings can do for us is give a relative indication of each core's remaining thermal margin, whatever that may be."

My bold italics. I may be tilting at windmills to think I can get reasonable, linear data out of the internal diodes.....

This would say that for TIM testing, the lab setup is the way to go and the testing we do is really more about the mount efficiency and characteristics. The pressure film testing is a very good addition for this purpose. (Side note - Tasty, just for completeness, I would be curious to see what a film test of your lab setup would look like. Would it be a relatively solid patch in the contact area of the test rig? )

That said, I'll move on to the Fuzion machines when I get more film.

Here's some interesting shizz. I got to playing around with Real Temps "Test Sensors" button. What this appears to do is to take an idle machine, measure the DTS temp reading then apply full load and measure the DTS temps again. It then reports the difference as an indication of sensor movement. The purpose is to see if you have a stuck diode on a given core.

I think I can also interpret this to show the non-linearity of the diodes across a few machines. I also think the load presented to the CPU cores should be consistent at least to all the cores in that machine. My data is below followed by more thoughts on the potential meaning of it.

First, a screenie of my main rig's results. The pop up explains the author's intent on the results.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...estcropped.png


Now to tabulated data;

Farm-04: D7 Tested, 3.6 gig, X3350, Mass WC, Fuzion > 4,4,6,3
Farm-07: D7 Tested, 2.8 gig, Q6600 G0, Z-9700 > 9,7,9,10
Farm-09: D7 Tested, 1.6 gig (EIST on), Q6600 G0, TRUE > 6,7,7,8
Farm-11: Reference, 2.97 gig, Q6600 G0, Z-9700 > 10,9,11,8
El-Machino-2: Reference, 3.15 gig, QX6700 B3, Independent WC setup, Fuzion > 11,11,11,11

I have machines labeled as "Reference" these were not paste tested, yet. The rest were tested and reported on.

I realize that overclocks and cooling come into play here. The numbers have some variance within each machine, except for my oldest rig, which is my main rig. This is rock solid consistent. Does this mean that it was calibrated well and the others were not? I should think this directly shows non-linearity on the measurements, both within the machines, and with respect to each other.

Thoughts on the meaning of this are welcome. I'm not totally sure myself, but it looks interesting....Many other thoughts come to me. A few are, could the diodes be calibrated in a linear fashion in respect to a given chip? My main rig would suggest so. Could it be calibrated to an absolute measure of temperature? I don't know......:shrug:

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

This would say that for TIM testing, the lab setup is the way to go and the testing we do is really more about the mount efficiency and characteristics. The pressure film testing is a very good addition for this purpose. (Side note - Tasty, just for completeness, I would be curious to see what a film test of your lab setup would look like. Would it be a relatively solid patch in the contact area of the test rig? )

That said, I'll move on to the Fuzion machines when I get more film.

---

I totally agree, we are just testing our mounts and not the TIM. Without a controlled and constant pressure on the IHS we are just "taking a wack at it". And then because each chip can be so different in the IHS and the soldering there of that also invalidated the testing to a degree. just my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

I totally agree, we are just testing our mounts and not the TIM. Without a controlled and constant pressure on the IHS we are just "taking a wack at it". And then because each chip can be so different in the IHS and the soldering there of that also invalidated the testing to a degree. just my thoughts.

---

Pressure and contact are both inextricably linked to TIM performance as well as being able to measure any result. So for me, the manufacturer to be able to provide guidance to those that can not observe a result is pretty valuable. People are constantly trying to add refinement to their equipment, so it's a benefit if you know what directions to focus energies rather than wasting energy on those things that have minimal impact.

Any one test is anecdotal with the current state of the art, reviews of paste (and cooling hardware) are for lack of a better word "squishy". Most buyers of products know this intuitively and read several reviews and consult the forums to see other user results and mentally average on their own to get a picture of performance. The whacks at it are pretty effective in the broader scope of averaging and trouble shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

Pressure and contact are both inextricably linked to TIM performance as well as being able to measure any result. So for me, the manufacturer to be able to provide guidance to those that can not observe a result is pretty valuable. People are constantly trying to add refinement to their equipment, so it's a benefit if you know what directions to focus energies rather than wasting energy on those things that have minimal impact.

Any one test is anecdotal with the current state of the art, reviews of paste (and cooling hardware) are for lack of a better word "squishy". Most buyers of products know this intuitively and read several reviews and consult the forums to see other user results and mentally average on their own to get a picture of performance. The whacks at it are pretty effective in the broader scope of averaging and trouble shooting.

---

:rofl::up: Amen Tasty. I have bought CPU coolers on wonderful reviews only to find them not worth the powder to blow them you-know-where.

I think this entire experience has been very interesting. I know I've learned a lot. I just wish we could get Intel to properly calibrate parts and give us the missing specs. They would only help themselves out by doing so. I can't imagine it would be some kind of competitive disadvantage to do so. AMD already reverse engineers Intel stuff, and vice-versa.

I hope you have found this to be useful too. I've come to trust D7 after working with it. The mounts have all been very good, and consistent. I can't say that about other pastes I've used.

I'm now curious to see how my main rig performs on the D7 test. It has the consistent "sensor test" figures. It is also a dead flat lapped machine. I'm wondering how it will do pressure testing and with D7 temps.

Regards,
Bob

I

Quote:

---

'm now curious to see how my main rig performs on the D7 test. It has the consistent "sensor test" figures. It is also a dead flat lapped machine. I'm wondering how it will do pressure testing and with D7 temps.

---

I have been wading through all the documentation you supplied and then some.

The real temp stuff was interesting to me. One thing was room temp calibration. If you calibrate for room temp with a closed case seems to me you would 10-15C off from the start as the local "room" is now the case? and would be 30C + even on an open case recirculated air from a sink can raise the local ambient a few degrees unless you an extra fan removing the the exhaust air. So a calibration at ambient room with closed case is probably as good as no calibration at all.

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php

Quote:

---

That's great but I've found that when the DTS moves more than 35°C away from TjMax, the DTS data no longer changes at the exact same rate that the core temperature is changing at.

---

The chart he has would explain a lot as regards to a compression of results.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...Zw&hl=en&pli=1

This is the OCF. forum data.

What is interesting to me is that a wide delta spread at idle to load can converge to a zero result as well as a zero at idle can be zero at load. A 20 C increase in temps would normally be attributed to a 2C ICD7 and and a 4C to most the compounds tested with a 1-2 C reduction at idle.

This raises another question, Calibration @ idle there is the assumption that little or no power is being used. An adjustment of 6 or 7C implies even underclocked 30 or 40W is being used.

so with a good water system vs stock cooling that adjustment range that spread might be 2-3C water, 7-8 stock sink or more at 40 watts?. Just a guess on my part but in a box at idle I would guess the number is more like 40C? is that what is normally calibrated?

Some of the more exaggerated improvements are usually linked to a long term breakdown of the pre installed grease or sometimes a misfire on the original mount still some probably are neither so Ineed to put toghether a more complete sample

At the higher temps where the convergence on accuracy should be occurring at -35C of DTS I do not see it happening ?

I'll ask again the question that I've put forward before.

Has anyone tested to see if the improvement in load temps translates into a noticeably higher overclock?

DDTUNG:cool:

If someone says yes here, some shop will get an order for at last 10kg of icd7 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

I'll ask again the question that I've put forward before.

Has anyone tested to see if the improvement in load temps translates into a noticeably higher overclock?

DDTUNG:cool:

---

2-3 C less will not get your any higher overclock. So i must certain say not possible.

I've one machine where I have a temp drop of 10-15°C .
But that's mainly because of a bad HS mount and crappy TIM spread method:)
maybe 3-4°C gain thanks to the D7 compound , not enough for a higher overclock.

To be fair to the ID7 I can see how in some situations those 2-3 degrees would help achieve stability at a certain clock and voltage.

DDTUNG:cool:

As stated the Ambient, meaning "surrounding air" temp can be anything from the room air temp to the temp surrounding the CPU. When my free standing a/c was running the supply air temps effected the perceived ambient causing me to have to time the a/c units cycles before taking a temp reading. I was not saying this testing is all wasted just that since we can not control the variables precisely there can be a large room for error. A torture rack would make for a better test bed since there are no enclosures to trap air.

I know that diamonds transfer heat better than other compounds so the testing should have shown an improvement in every case but as with mine it did not so the other factors were preventing the TIM from excelling. The main advantage to this testing was to teach us about TIM application verses perceived techniques and to further validate how difficult it is to get a perfect mount each time. just my $.015

I would like to thank tasty for giving us this opportunity to explore these variables so we could try to fine tune our computer systems. I know the knowledge gained here will help all of us to achieve a better TIM/mount for each CPU.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

I'll ask again the question that I've put forward before.

Has anyone tested to see if the improvement in load temps translates into a noticeably higher overclock?

DDTUNG:cool:

---

The original review from AMDZone and some number tests from the giveaways had some marginal higher overclocks and better stability. The Overclocked test tends to muddy the water on the temperature results and it has not been a focus of our effort as is a little more subjective than raw temps alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

To be fair to the ID7 I can see how in some situations those 2-3 degrees would help achieve stability at a certain clock and voltage.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

Victor, I believe how you can get a higher overclock, simply because you can supply a little extra voltage if needed. However, for us crunchers, I don't think it'll make much of a difference, since we're never on the bleeding edge of stability.

Quote:

---

As stated the Ambient, meaning "surrounding air" temp can be anything from the room air temp to the temp surrounding the CPU. When my free standing a/c was running the supply air temps effected the perceived ambient causing me to have to time the a/c units cycles before taking a temp reading. I was not saying this testing is all wasted just that since we can not control the variables precisely there can be a large room for error. A torture rack would make for a better test bed since there are no enclosures to trap air.

---

well I am a little confused about how to do an accurate calibration. If it's an air sink case closed you would calibrate to the case ambient not the room Ambient temp. 10 C difference in the calibration number?

Water would seem more complicated, I have not had a chance to noodle it through completely but. Open case cpu would be some few degrees higher than the ambient room, higher than the motherboard temp so with a small delta you probably have some heat flow to the MB? marginal at best. Now case closed Ambient would be higher in the case but the MB Temp is now higher than the CPU because you have an exterior radiator to ambient room. Deltas have reversed so now you are drawing heat from the motherboard. So how large a delta? The larger the more influence on the calibration.

Quote:

---

Victor, I believe how you can get a higher overclock, simply because you can supply a little extra voltage if needed. However, for us crunchers, I don't think it'll make much of a difference, since we're never on the bleeding edge of stability.

---

There are 2 sides to this coin. One is the performance side which is pretty well established with approx 80% of the people seeing an improvement and with 50% seeing 3C or more over their previously installed grease. In my testing I have never seen a compound perform better than ICD7, that's not to say a couple do not come pretty close but we are at the bottom performance wise. For some 2C is a kind of "oh well" event and for others who are taking the holistic approach refining conditions throughout their system trying to get 10C lower it is another.

The other side here and the more critical point is what is the most important feature of any product besides it's performance?

It's quality. What if all CPU's steadily declined in performance a month after you bought them? or the shovel you just bought breaks the second time you use it? OEM compounds are quality type, not real exciting on the performance side but great over the long term.
Most of the 3C improvement are compared to installed pastes of less than 30 days. Most of the 4C to 14C improvements are on pastes that have been installed 30 days to one year. Less obvious because most have their eye on the absolute number, but not one of the competitive performance compounds hold up under stress. Over relatively short periods breakdown starts sometimes in only 4 weeks on highly stressed systems, less stressed maybe 12 weeks. ICD7 is bulk loaded Over 90% per Intel recommendation for stability, ICD7 is an OEM quality paste with high performance.

I realize the niggling focus on contact pressures and calibration is an irritation to some, it even annoys me but it is critical refinement to our trouble shooting for the 20% that do not and being able to do some guidance there long term saves people a lot of time remounting, re lapping and just generally beating their heads against a wall :brick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

I'll ask again the question that I've put forward before.

Has anyone tested to see if the improvement in load temps translates into a noticeably higher overclock?

DDTUNG:cool:

---

OK Victor, this one's for you....:toast: I'm done testing TIM on Farm-07 so, let's see what I can do with the clocks.

Original Mount, original Clock: Q6600 G0 - I had to back this machine down, gradually, on the clock over time since it would not stay stable at a higher level. I could not regain operation at a higher clock with any additional CPU voltage, or anything else I tried. I had thought the degradation in clock capability was due to the board or RAM getting worn out, but I now think it may have been a decaying mount. It was running stable at 2.79gig for several months and this is the point where I started TIM tests. This has a 9700 cooler and had Shin G751 paste on it originally. It runs on an eVGA 680i board.

Original Temps and clocks.
2.79 gig - CPUz volts @ load 1.344
Ambient 25.9
Coretemp idle 49,49,45,46
Coretemp load 66,65,61,63

New Clock, New Mount: All hardware the same. I had significant improvement in temps when I went to the D7. This was at the same clock. I re-clocked and now have it running with what so far is Boinc stable. It is now at 3.318 gig!! Remember the hardware is all the same as before. The only changes were paste and mount, FSB increase, and VCORE increase. That adds up to about a 19% increase in clock. :up::up: Now, is this all atributable to D7? No, I don't think so, but I'm sure it had a lot to do with having more temperature overhead to play with. Part of this could be my confidence that this mount won't fry my CPU, or better OC skills.
What I am confident in is that this mount won't change much over time. I have several weeks on some of these mounts and they are dead equal to the starting temps. What Tasty says is the big feature, that we seem to be missing somewhat, is that this paste is meant to last over time, AND be competitive with the other pastes in initial temp reduction.
For crunchers, time stability is very important. (at least until the RAM dies...:rofl:) We all know we are not PC racing here. We are out for long haul numbers. If we can have both, that's so much the better....

OK, enough blabbing.

New Temps and clocks.
3.318 gig - CPUz volts @ load 1.368
Ambient 26.4
Coretemp idle 47,47,44,45
Coretemp load 68,68,65,67

At load with the higher volts and clocks, I have an increase of about 3 degrees. So far, it's stable and holding Boinc operations at that clock level. I'll take that.....

So, from this perspective, D7 absolutely rocks.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

There are 2 sides to this coin. One is the performance side which is pretty well established with approx 80% of the people seeing an improvement and with 50% seeing 3C or more over their previously installed grease. In my testing I have never seen a compound perform better than ICD7, that's not to say a couple do not come pretty close but we are at the bottom performance wise. For some 2C is a kind of "oh well" event and for others who are taking the holistic approach refining conditions throughout their system trying to get 10C lower it is another.

The other side here and the more critical point is what is the most important feature of any product besides it's performance?

It's quality. What if all CPU's steadily declined in performance a month after you bought them? or the shovel you just bought breaks the second time you use it? OEM compounds are quality type, not real exciting on the performance side but great over the long term.
Most of the 3C improvement are compared to installed pastes of less than 30 days. Most of the 4C to 14C improvements are on pastes that have been installed 30 days to one year. Less obvious because most have their eye on the absolute number, but not one of the competitive performance compounds hold up under stress. Over relatively short periods breakdown starts sometimes in only 4 weeks on highly stressed systems, less stressed maybe 12 weeks. ICD7 is bulk loaded Over 90% per Intel recommendation for stability, ICD7 is an OEM quality paste with high performance.

I realize the niggling focus on contact pressures and calibration is an irritation to some, it even annoys me but it is critical refinement to our trouble shooting for the 20% that do not and being able to do some guidance there long term saves people a lot of time remounting, re lapping and just generally beating their heads against a wall :brick:

---

You've made me a D7 fan. I do appreciate your approach to introducing this product. I realize that educating the general masses on the advantages is not easy, so you took a direct approach and had us try it. That is taking time , effort, and expense on your part. I was one of those who have to have solid scientific numbers to be convinced. Even though I did not have the most drastic results, I'm convinced you have a good product on your hands. :toast:

Now calibration...:eek:....I agree with your points above and must give it some more thought too. I may post up the questions in the Xtreme thread on the topic. (When I have intelligent questions to ask...:ROTF:) Maybe there is some mis-understanding of what is meant by ambient. My thought on it is that it's the room temp outside the box. Why I would calibrate to something that may or may not correlate to what's inside the box makes no sense to me either. I would think I would want correlation to the inside of the box.

Your points on WC setups are well taken too. Here I would think the water temp would be the calibration number you would want. I'll have to give it more thought. This is why I brought these links up above. Interesting but I'm not sure what it means to us.

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

well I am a little confused about how to do an accurate calibration. If it's an air sink case closed you would calibrate to the case ambient not the room Ambient temp. 10 C difference in the calibration number?

Water would seem more complicated, I have not had a chance to noodle it through completely but. Open case cpu would be some few degrees higher than the ambient room, higher than the motherboard temp so with a small delta you probably have some heat flow to the MB? marginal at best. Now case closed Ambient would be higher in the case but the MB Temp is now higher than the CPU because you have an exterior radiator to ambient room. Deltas have reversed so now you are drawing heat from the motherboard. So how large a delta? The larger the more influence on the calibration.

---

A torture rack in a constant temp conditioned space with a method to accurately adjust heat sink pressure would be optimum. The room and the components in the room should be brought down to temperature (what ever the test temp will be) and held for one hour before any testing is done to ensure the components are at true ambient. Let the system run for thirty minutes to reach equilibrium and then record the "Idle" and "Load" numbers. I would also remove any fans blowing around the CPU socket so the CPU sees only heatsink transfer. Here is an example of a fairly nice test rack. I believe that Sierra_Bound has one with an adjustable heat sink pressure adjustment.

http://www.petrastechshop.com/hssttdetest11.html

Since most people do not lap their CPU a stock Intel CPU will be best for testing. If all the variables are covered and a CPU such as a Q6600 is chosen (one that can overload most heatsinks) then an accurate before and after can be achieved. AS DDTUNG stated...If the heat load is not greater than the heatsinks capabilities then the test will be inaccurate.

Without such controlled variables the test will be close but no cigar. :up:

One more thermal result here.

CPU:Athlon 64 X2 5000+ BE
Cooler: Stock socket 940 Opteron HS
Ambient: 21.8
ASC Idle: 23, 23
ASC Load 27, 30

Ambient: 21.5
ICD7 Idle: 23, 23
ICD7 Load: 24,27

Excellent performance again. ICD7 is now definitely my paste of choice for everything but subzero and that's mostly because I have a 35g tube of ASC sitting here now.

I'll have both of my pressure tests out tomorrow. Thanks for this opportunity.
ICD7

A late result !
Finally replaced my old mount (about 6 weeks old) which was either Arctic Silver 5 or Antec Formula 5 (I'd originally thought this was AS5 until I got a tube of real AS5 and noted the consistency difference).
Processor is Q6600 at 3.4GHz, Vcore loaded about 1.28. Load temp reduction across all cores of 4-5 deg C. Neat stuff !
The old paste may have been a bit thick upon disassembly inspection, but that's a for sure performance improvement !

It was a crude attempt on my part to steer the discussion slightly away from an obviously very technical direction towards something a little more practical.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

It was a crude attempt on my part to steer the discussion slightly away from an obviously very technical direction towards something a little more practical.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

---

As 123 bob pointed this exercise is part beta testing and part marketing. We are dancing some angels on the heads of pins in some of the discussions but I like to think there is some method to the madness. We will find out if pressure or contact is more significant which is practical. I may learn something practical about Temp sensors etc.

I know what the paste does inside and out, backwards and upside down. I am chasing user experience here, Lab results cannot duplicate that and short of having a forum party in my lab :rofl: this is the next best thing. This is real world testing. I am picking a lot of info on a variety mounting hardware, pressure contact info on a on a cross section of systems. Through forum feedback we have refined paste application and am acquiring info on trouble shooting and the marketing message.

I could not get there from here without the effort of the forum members here which is greatly appreciated. You people have practical a knowledge, background experience I do not have and would be hard pressed to come by. Thanks again for your efforts and patience.

just got back from my senior project competition (in Tennessee) and still don't have a package of pressure film :( tasty, did you send me any? i've got some reading to catch up on around here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 64dragon

just got back from my senior project competition (in Tennessee) and still don't have a package of pressure film :( tasty, did you send me any? i've got some reading to catch up on around here

---

You were one of the two I ran short on in the first round- However I have new film and loaded up the envelopes this weekend and in the mail Monday. PA should be there in a couple of days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

It was a crude attempt on my part to steer the discussion slightly away from an obviously very technical direction towards something a little more practical.:)

DDTUNG:cool:

---

DDT,

Your question is a valid question to us here. In the time frame you were asking, it was a bit early. Now is the time, and now we have some results. If I can clock the farm up from this experience, so much the better.....I'm all for that. :up:

EDIT: Farm-07 has spent almost 24 hours at the new clock, no errors, and valid scores are coming in on the
WUs. If you had not asked the question, I may not have re-clocked it for a while. So, thanks for steering me back to it. :up: Now I'm going to see what happens on the other machines that I'm done TIM testing on. Of course, I'll report on it...

To all,

To the other owners of "QX" series processors, I would like to ask a couple of you to download Real Temp and run the Sensor test on it. Please report your results. I'd like to know if the QX series of CPUs is the only ones that are fully calibrated. Please report your results and stepping. Even if you are not doing this paste test. Thx.

EDIT: It should only take a couple of minutes to run. You put the machine at idle, stabilize the idle temp, then hit the button. I'm wondering if you get the same number on each core like I do on my main rig. (11,11,11,11 in my case)

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

You were one of the two I ran short on in the first round- However I have new film and loaded up the envelopes this weekend and in the mail Monday. PA should be there in a couple of days

---

thats fine, i've not had free time until now anyways. i cant wait to see my laped ihs and heatsink do

9,8,8,7 QX6700 B1 @ Stock.

-SS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShootStraight

9,8,8,7 QX6700 B1 @ Stock.

-SS

---

Thx SS. It may just be a fluke that my only QX shows the same number across the cores. I was hoping that at least the QX series might be calibrated. For the premium we pay for those, I would have expected it......

Regards,
Bob

It could also be that I didnt stabilize the temps too much prior to testing - maybe 15 secs or so, and this B1 could double as a cigarette lighter.

-SS

@Bob and SS,

Do you find Real Temp to be more accurate than Core Temp? My two Q6600's read cooler in Real Temp but my e6600 reads the same with both programs. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

@Bob and SS,

Do you find Real Temp to be more accurate than Core Temp? My two Q6600's read cooler in Real Temp but my e6600 reads the same with both programs. :shrug:

---

I don't really know. They use different TjMax values which changes the offset some. RealTemp reads lower than Coretemp. This was based on some testing the author did. Info is in the link I provided above. It could all be cleared up very quickly if Intel would just release the figures. They have not done so yet. I've been running the two programs side by side. They appear to give similar numbers when you consider the TjMax difference. I have come to understand that coretemp may be misreading VID. This is in the thread on our forum. CPUz agrees with Realtemp on this.
(There's a config change you can do in CPUz to make it read VID and not the actual. It's in the thread.)

I had hoped at least the QX series were fully calibrated. I'd like to see more results on that. If they are accurate, we may be able to accomplish some real work with the QXs and perhaps provide some better data. I own exactly one of them. It is the only chip I have that reads the sensor test equally among the cores. (My test group included Xeons, Q6600s, and a couple special chips....I would have expected at least those to be consistent, but they are not.)

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShootStraight

this B1 could double as a cigarette lighter.

-SS

---

I have a QX6700 B1 like that. It runs HOT!!!


A Q6700 (with a TRUE) and two Q6600's (one TRUE, one Zalman 9700) are averaging just about 3°C cooler with the Diamond 7 TIM than with AS5. The Diamond 7 has impressed me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

@Bob and SS,

Do you find Real Temp to be more accurate than Core Temp? My two Q6600's read cooler in Real Temp but my e6600 reads the same with both programs. :shrug:

---

While I'm no expert (I'm not even a novice) on temps, I'm not sure its giving any more accurate of a temp. My reading suggests that the cooler reading is more of an manipulation (interpolation) rather than actual difference in temp, and it only matters under the "idle" parameter.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/24...town-real-temp

If I'm wrong here, or been mislead I'm sure some sharp person in the know here will set this straight.

-SS

My 1st Quad, QX6700 B1 Extra Special, runs at a cool ~70C ........ under decent Water. ;) @1.45vcore 3.2Ghz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDTUNG

To be fair to the ID7 I can see how in some situations those 2-3 degrees would help achieve stability at a certain clock and voltage.

DDTUNG:cool:

---

This is true. 2-3C is the difference between random reboots every couple of hours/days to no reboots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

Victor, I believe how you can get a higher overclock, simply because you can supply a little extra voltage if needed. However, for us crunchers, I don't think it'll make much of a difference, since we're never on the bleeding edge of stability.

---

What? You should be on the bleeding edge of stability, given the thermal ups and downs of your house/room. 2-3C can break it.

Quote:

---

""Now calibration.......I agree with your points above and must give it some more thought too. I may post up the questions in the Xtreme thread on the topic. (When I have intelligent questions to ask...) Maybe there is some mis-understanding of what is meant by ambient. My thought on it is that it's the room temp outside the box. Why I would calibrate to something that may or may not correlate to what's inside the box makes no sense to me either. I would think I would want correlation to the inside of the box.""

---

Why not try it?

Ya know, I thought what we were after was a relative decrease in temperature from one setup to the next, but I do tend to over simplify things a tad. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D_A

Ya know, I thought what we were after was a relative decrease in temperature from one setup to the next, but I do tend to over simplify things a tad. ;)

---

:ROTF: That is the desired result. :up: But with everything temp related in computers, it never seems to stay that simple. There are so many variables at play that it makes it hard to get accuracy. I have found this thread to be more useful to me than most others I've seen.
The nice thing is that for those who do not wish to dive deep into this, they don't have to. For those who do, well come on in, the water's fine. (Even if we can't figure out how warm it is yet...:rofl:) If we find some "eureka" stuff, we can then share it with everyone, and it will be based on solid facts.
Do I really need to spend the amount of time on this that I'm doing? No, but I'm finding it interesting, I managed to increase the farm clocks, and it's keeping me playing with hardware while I wait for Nehalem to come out... This is cheaper than visiting Dr SiG every couple of days.....:D

Regards,
Bob

Quote:

---

New Temps and clocks.
3.318 gig - CPUz volts @ load 1.368
Ambient 26.4
Coretemp idle 47,47,44,45
Coretemp load 68,68,65,67

---

I was playing around with 123bob's numbers. using the Zalman sink. his delta number 19C and 150 watts I come up with a 12.7 C/W.

For the overclocked 6600 approx running 200W. so the temp rise over the ambient would be around 25.3 C.

For calibration approx. 22 C ambient + 6C idle adjustment = 28C CPU temp should be 53.3 C. Average core temp is 67C So you have a 14C delta on the on the absolute measurement. I would assume some adjustment higher on the ambient side closed case but it is a ball park calc. for your absolute temp number

emailed some pressure tests results today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

I was playing around with 123bob's numbers. using the Zalman sink. his delta number 19C and 150 watts I come up with a 12.7 C/W.

For the overclocked 6600 approx running 200W. so the temp rise over the ambient would be around 25.3 C.

For calibration approx. 22 C ambient + 6C idle adjustment = 28C CPU temp should be 53.3 C. Average core temp is 67C So you have a 14C delta on the on the absolute measurement. I would assume some adjustment higher on the ambient side closed case but it is a ball park calc. for your absolute temp number

---

I'll try some closed case temp tests shortly. One of the interesting things to try. I'm quite sure my case temps are higher. Of note is that I'm measuring ambient on this machine with a Radio Shack device taped to my front panel on the rack. This is not exactly what the inlet of farm-07 sees. It is however consistent to itself anyway. On Farm-09 all those ambient are reported using a small weather temp gauge at the inlet of the fan I have blowing across the board. This rig is on an open shelf so it's ambient is close to what the CPU and TRUE are really seeing.

I know we are looking more for delta ambients here, so I'm not sure if it matters much. This is to compare our coretemp/realtemp numbers to so we can adjust them.

Here are my test results. "Sample 2A" and "Sample 2B"

What happend to the first one? USP runvover it with a truck?:rofl::ROTF: I can send you more on that one looks like it was damaged in shipping?

SiGfever and others a Heads up please include the thermal before and after and also systemem, specs - cpu & heat sink as the analysis is hard to do without going through multiple posts and it would be easier to take it all in at a glance and compare to other results.

Also the full spectrum of prints would be nice to see where the pressure is happening on the IHS, whether it is biased to one side or the other more in middle or edges etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

What happend to the first one? USP runvover it with a truck?:rofl::ROTF: I can send you more on that one looks like it was damaged in shipping?

SiGfever and others a Heads up please include the thermal before and after and also systemem, specs - cpu & heat sink as the analysis is hard to do without going through multiple posts and it would be easier to take it all in at a glance and compare to other results.

Also the full spectrum of prints would be nice to see where the pressure is happening on the IHS, whether it is biased to one side or the other more in middle or edges etc

---

Sounds like a plan. I was apprehensive about shipping it without some sort of cover to protect them, now I know why. Sorry for not including the specs, I assumed you recorded them from out first posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

Sounds like a plan. I was apprehensive about shipping it without some sort of cover to protect them, now I know why. Sorry for not including the specs, I assumed you recorded them from out first posts.

---

It's hard to track 30 test subjects, 60 samples, and multiple posts. Some people post 2 or 3 sets of numbers from different systems. Kind of like picking the winning lottery number to put it together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

It's hard to track 30 test subjects, 60 samples, and multiple posts. Some people post 2 or 3 sets of numbers from different systems. Kind of like picking the winning lottery number to put it together.

---

:shakes: sounds like me! :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

:shakes: sounds like me! :shakes:

---

or me.......:eek::rolleyes:


...but winning the lotto would work....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 123bob

I'll try some closed case temp tests shortly. One of the interesting things to try. I'm quite sure my case temps are higher. Of note is that I'm measuring ambient on this machine with a Radio Shack device taped to my front panel on the rack. This is not exactly what the inlet of farm-07 sees. It is however consistent to itself anyway. On Farm-09 all those ambient are reported using a small weather temp gauge at the inlet of the fan I have blowing across the board. This rig is on an open shelf so it's ambient is close to what the CPU and TRUE are really seeing.

I know we are looking more for delta ambients here, so I'm not sure if it matters much. This is to compare our coretemp/realtemp numbers to so we can adjust them.

---

for a case temp I usually put the sensor at the inlet of the heat sink fan. recirculation and heat from motherboard components can sometimes drive temps up 5C at the sink and temps can vary from one side to the other which is why Intel recommends multiple ambient readings that are then averaged.

With water the temp it is usually a inlet water temp? I do not fool with water but that would be my guess.

As they come in I will be posting the contact/ pressure data


Tuksonrider - 3.3 C improvement contact pressure result OCF

Kingwin RVT-12025 (also known as a rebadged Xigmatek HDT-1283)

Intel Q6600 (B3) @ 2.4GHz, 3.0GHz, 3.2GHz)
Kingwin RVT-12025 Heatsink w/ 120mm fan (max rpm)
*Note: Using a Thermalright 775 Bolt-Thru Mounting Kit
eVGA 650i motherboard
eVGA 8800GT 512MB Video
Antec 900 case (closed)
AMBIENT ROOM TEMP: 21C
AMBIENT CASE TEMP: 24C

Bail_W 3.55C improvement
Q6600 G0 @ 3.9ghz with 1.6v
D-Tek Fuzion with backplate
Asus P5k Deluxe
Ambient temp 20C.

Hello there Mr. Tastee..
Just some more non scientific info for you on your TIM
Set up a dual harpertown yesterday.. X5482 Intel cpu's.
Listed as 120w and they damned well are.
All I had here was the so-so stock solid copper non heatpipe Intel HS's
temps into the 80+C range..
Two hours after install and with the addition of a 14" high speed fan blowing in I'm into the 40's-50's..
The HS sucked BUT your TIM is doing one hell of a job transferring the heat.:up:
Oh yea, bumped them up to 3510 last night and they still didn't overheat.

Q6600 G0 @ 3.9ghz with 1.6v
D-Tek Fuzion with backplate
Asus P5k Deluxe
Ambient temp 20C.

Sorry for my not-so-scientific first contribution, but here it is:

Had a crappy QX9770 that ran hot as hell, after many remounts and tries I concurred that it suffered from bad internal heat transfer (between cores and IHS). It got into the 80's running prime SmallFFT at 4Ghz and 1,36V with an Apogee GTX + backplate, ~35C water loop with very good flow and AS5 (5+ mounts, no improvements).
Obviously, it failed Prime after 30-60mins due to overheating. What I did was use a liquid metal pad, let the CPU idle and shut off the pump. As the temp went up to 100C and thermal throttling started, the pad melted and I restarted the pump. After that, I had temps of 72-73C on all cores at the exact same settings and that crappy CPU was finally stable. So I got an 8C improvement over AS5 from that pad (have had similar experiences earlier, always with crappy Quads).

So if you don't feel like lapping, consider a liquid metal pad (they can be removed rather easily, unlike the liquid metal TIM)

SiGfever 2.65 loss in performance XSF

Dtek FuZion WB (MX-2 TIM, large BB size dolop) (mounted 3/18/8, 15.5mm from top of knurled nut to top of the mounting plate) w/Backplate.
D5 Vario @5
should have said 3 120mm fans on my MCR320QP rad.
T-Line
7/16"id x 5/8"od MasterKleer

Specs:
Q6600 G0 vid = 1.2375
Abit IP35 Pro v1.1 bios = 14
Corsair 2 x 1Gb 6400c4 (5,5,5,15...1.9v)

Settings:
vcore listed: 1.4275v
vcore real: 1.35v
Buss Speed: 396
vMCH: 1.29
vICH: 1.09
Multi: 9
Core Speed: 3564
CPU VTT: 1.23
ICHIO: 1.55
CpuGtlref 0/2: 68%
CpuGtlref 1/3: 68%
PCI-E Clock: 101

:rolleyes:

I edited my original specs, should have said 3 120mm fans on my MCR320QP rad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

:rolleyes:

I edited my original specs, should have said 3 120mm fans on my MCR320QP rad.

---

Noted

Once my new "R2D2" free standing a/c unit arrives (tomorrow) I plan on testing the TIM one more time against MX-2. I will be using the "Limiters" with the waterblock springs so each mount will be equal pressure.

I will also be using Real Temp instead of Core Temp since it looks at the proper TJunction for our Q6600.

Well the a/c arrived today, broken. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

Well the a/c arrived today, broken. :mad:

---

thats no fun :down:

Sample 26A Yellowhello HLF 2C Improvement

Note: to edit/Add specs later

Here you go Intel spec on flatness for you lappers

http://download.intel.com/design/pro...s/31685201.pdf

page 32. flat .05mm -parallel .203

I did the pressure test on my main rig today. I also have a late result from my friends Athlon X2 machine; download the pdf.
The pdf is a straight export from a template I made for my friend to make testing easier, but I have translated most of it. Obviously the CPU temp sensor reads too low, but as it's off by the same amount every time, I could calculate average temp drop from previous TIM to ICD7.

A question to you tastyman, I could send my pressure test now, or wait until I am able to do the test on the second machine too. I could ship both pressure tests by the end of next week. Would it be better for you to have one result faster, or two results later?

Sample 5A Nebulous Post 249 OCF

Current vcore: 1.28v @ 4.0GHz Water cooled with a Storm.

Temps are:

In Hardware Monitor:
Idle: Core0= 42c? Core1= 36c
Load: Core0= 49c Core1= 49c

In RealTemp:
Idle: Core0= 32c? Core1= 25c
Load: Core0= 43c Core1= 43c


Note edit final data later

Looks like he moved too much for that one to be accurate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

Looks like he moved too much for that one to be accurate!

---

Looks like the mail man danced on it. Prolly end up throwing that one out :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

Looks like the mail man danced on it. Prolly end up throwing that one out :(

---

nah looks like he had some trouble while mounting the HS on. kind of looks like he was almost clamped and it slid some.

I got a nice package from you today but I didn't have time to work with it yet. I am hoping to work on it some tomorrow.

Here's a behind the scenes on my testing. :D

Looks like the proverbial "fat Cat"

Good afternoon Mr. Tastee.
A little info for you.
Assembled a dual Harpertown rig 2 days ago.
2-X5482 cpus)3200/12mb/1600 and 120w volcanoes.
All I had available to use was the stock Intel non heatpipe HS.
Solid copper, app 2lbs each and nowhere as effective as the TRUE's that we use on the single socket boards.
I have the machine up and running at 3500/12mb/1750 at 100% load.
Your TIM is handling this heat load excellently.
My guess is those cpu's at this speed are in the 145-150w range and temps with a fan blowing in on those crappy HS are in the low 60's..
Again, not scientific but real world and it just plain works.:up:

Not to go off topic, like that could happen in this section. :D

But Mr. Tasty, how would you like to crunch for a dedicated and committed (or should that be...needs to be committed) team? :)

Jeez, Sig ... you took yer time.:ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D_A

Jeez, Sig ... you took yer time.:ROTF:

---

I didn't want to scare him off before we got some cred. :D

Sorry Andrew I didn't have time yesterday to do the testing I will get it done this week some time and get it out!! I Will also post here when it is sent.

Sorry

just got my package, thank you tasty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

Not to go off topic, like that could happen in this section. :D

But Mr. Tasty, how would you like to crunch for a dedicated and committed (or should that be...needs to be committed) team? :)

---

This is the 4th invitation. You guys running some kind of cult thing :rofl::ROTF:here? I am not sure I would join any club that would have me as a member:ROTF:
Maybe in about 6 months. I am a little busy and have several projects going on right now.-Thanks for the offer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

This is the 4th invitation. You guys running some kind of cult thing :rofl::ROTF:here? I am not sure I would join any club that would have me as a member:ROTF:
Maybe in about 6 months. I am a little busy and have several projects going on right now.-Thanks for the offer

---

Hey, they let me join so you know that the scale is not set very high. :ROTF::ROTF: Cult of the Crunchers...has a nice ring to it. :up:

I have switched to "Real Temp" program for all my temp readings as the TJunction is more accurate.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179044

v2.55 works well with Vista.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1078

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiGfever

I have switched to "Real Temp" program for all my temp readings as the TJunction is more accurate.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179044

v2.55 works well with Vista.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1078

---

Quote:

---

Graysky: Maybe I should rename the Idle calibration feature because for a lot of users with low load temps, the Idle calibration feature will effect your load temps as well. That is not a mistake on my part. The reason for this is that according to my graph in the documentation, the DTS is only linear with changes in core temperature within approximately 35C of TjMax. At your load temps, you are outside the range where the DTS is 100% accurate so you still need a slight calibration factor. I have a couple of minor fixes to do and I also plan to add temperatures to the Tray icon this week to keep the fans happy. After that I will do some more extensive testing to see if the idle calibration feature needs any adjustments. I know it is very close as is if you select the right factor but I also know it is never going to be perfect because I can't test every processor. It will definitely help get your temperatures closer to the truth.http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=946

---

The program author if I am reading this right says if you have a TjMax of 95C and you subtract 35C anything under 60C falls into a non linear range which varies between processors? So what remains is the Intel tolerance on the linearity under 60C. I have noted indicators that suggests this could be as high as 5C. This is probably close enough for fan speed control for Intel's purposes, but not really for an accurate TIM or or even heat sink comparison.

For what it is, if the guy can get the non linearity reading down to couple of degrees would be pretty good :clap:- But I would bet that with my averaging where some read high and some read low I am still closer to the actual number :)

used up my pressure films last night but can't seem to get a good pic. haven't uploaded them to see if they're better on the pc but i doubt it.
i was very surprised at the results. seems i have a pressure issue with my TR ultima 90, i already had 1 washer on each screw but showed very little pressure. moded in a 2nd washer and got much better results. i'll have to start thinkin of a way to replace the current mounting method or if i can replace the screws with threaded shaft(or cut the head off a screw) and use some kinda nuts to tighten down on the springs :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 64dragon

used up my pressure films last night but can't seem to get a good pic. haven't uploaded them to see if they're better on the pc but i doubt it.
i was very surprised at the results. seems i have a pressure issue with my TR ultima 90, i already had 1 washer on each screw but showed very little pressure. moded in a 2nd washer and got much better results. i'll have to start thinkin of a way to replace the current mounting method or if i can replace the screws with threaded shaft(or cut the head off a screw) and use some kinda nuts to tighten down on the springs :shrug:

---

Depends on the contact, if you are evenly distributed and the pressure/force load is spread out the impression may be lighter but the contact may be better.

64Dragon
I think you should just upload them to us that way we are not guessing what is going on. :)

fine fine, i'll post pics before you guys pull out the pitchfork's and torches.

for those of you that didn't do this yet, don't hold the 2 films together in your hand/in between fingers. i ruined one of the films that way :(

heres what i found when i pulled the heatsink off
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/DSCF3210.jpg

cpu side
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/DSCF3218.jpg

once i cleaned the paste off there was a ring left on the heatsink and cpu, heres the one on the heatsink. no matter what i did nothing got it off
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/DSCF3221.jpg

first pressure film, i left the case horizontal, it looks marginally better in person, camera didn't want to focus on it
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/DSCF3226.jpg

second film, this time i turned the case up how it would normaly be. i have no idea why is so dark, i took 5 or 6 and they were all dark too
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/DSCF3231.jpg

third film, modded the cross piece that holds the heatsink down adding a washer to it so its applying more pressure
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...e/DSCF3237.jpg

That is interesting! What was your temps before the first preasure test?

i forgot to get idle temps right before but WCG load was core 1: 40 and core 2: 34
i guess i found my explination why the core temps are so different, i don't have even coverage and pressure. forgot to mention, the cut corner relates to the gold corner on my cpu. also, for the 3rd test i rotated my heatsink 180 and that seemed to help even out things

64dragon

Why not send me back the first and last test samples then we could compare the temps before and with improved contact. The third one looks pretty good.

Poll - what do you guys think of the Raw contact film as a diagnostic tool for contact/pressure issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

Poll - what do you guys think of the Raw contact film as a diagnostic tool for contact/pressure issues?

---

for pressure, yes. contact, not so good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bail_w

for pressure, yes. contact, not so good.

---

Interesting, I thought your raw film was the best contact wise, it at least showed a full contact pattern.

We will see when the final results come out but that may be a more important factor than pressure and obviously some combination of the two but contact would seem to carry more weight than pressure.

I find that the pressure testing to be interesting because I have noticed that people with bad contact seem to have better temps because the past fills in fully but the people that have good contact seem to get ok temps because they have a much better contact.
I think all of it goes together and is just as important.

i think its fairly good at both, once you get the analysis done on the film you get a good idea of what kinda pressure your applying. i thought i had good pressure but after seeing that first film it was apparent that i didn't. the film also gives a fair idea of how your contact is because if it isn't red after then there is no contact there on a direct contact to contact scenario, this is why we use thermal paste though, because its extremely hard to get both bases completely flat. also, if both surfaces were completely flat the metals should theoretically fuse together.

Quote:

---

i think its fairly good at both, once you get the analysis done on the film you get a good idea of what kinda pressure your applying. i thought i had good pressure but after seeing that first film it was apparent that i didn't. the film also gives a fair idea of how your contact is because if it isn't red after then there is no contact there on a direct contact to contact scenario, this is why we use thermal paste though, because its extremely hard to get both bases completely flat. also, if both surfaces were completely flat the metals should theoretically fuse together.

---

Probably one of the most asked questions on the cooling forums is " I just installed X sink and my temps are still High, higher etc." and usually the first response after "did you use thermal paste?" the 2nd is "Your contact is probably bad, try remounting your sink"

I guess from most from the beta testing about 90% fall into the "good enough" or "I am getting somewhat the result expected" Though some number is/are not satisfied, they lap, buy secondary hardware, penny shim jury rigs.

So for the more rabid users the raw film does perhaps provide a general snapshot of whats going on? Enough maybe to troubleshoot a non obvious problem, light pressure, mounting pressure bias, flatness?

I am thinking of maybe blister packing a few tubes out of each lot with some film so prior to using the paste so people could optimize their mount. 3 tests per pak. probably add a couple dollars to the cost. I was wondering whether it was worth it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tastymannatees

Probably one of the most asked questions on the cooling forums is " I just installed X sink and my temps are still High, higher etc." and usually the first response after "did you use thermal paste?" the 2nd is "Your contact is probably bad, try remounting your sink"

I guess from most from the beta testing about 90% fall into the "good enough" or "I am getting somewhat the result expected" Though some number is/are not satisfied, they lap, buy secondary hardware, penny shim jury rigs.

So for the more rabid users the raw film does perhaps provide a general snapshot of whats going on? Enough maybe to troubleshoot a non obvious problem, light pressure, mounting pressure bias, flatness?

I am thinking of maybe blister packing a few tubes out of each lot with some film so prior to using the paste so people could optimize their mount. 3 tests per pak. probably add a couple dollars to the cost. I was wondering whether it was worth it?

---

I would offer it as an option so the user can choose to test their mount or just buy your paste. This way your TIM will be price competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleowl

I find that the pressure testing to be interesting because I have noticed that people with bad contact seem to have better temps because the past fills in fully but the people that have good contact seem to get ok temps because they have a much better contact.
I think all of it goes together and is just as important.

---

exactly. for example, the new heatpipe direct touch air cooling heatsinks. thats why i said the raw contact film is good for pressure but not so good for contact testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bail_w

exactly. for example, the new heatpipe direct touch air cooling heatsinks. thats why i said the raw contact film is good for pressure but not so good for contact testing.

---

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=560

Here is a contact issue I believe, he saw higher results, yet overall pressure was pretty good.

I would like to see more results to establish a more concrete pattern before definitively saying it's this or that but contact seems to be more of a factor

In my case the pressure seems to be very high but contact is very poor, only on the edges, not even in the center. The film is good, but the only action you could take after finding the problem is lapping, and not everyone wants to lap his CPU. Anyway such blister packs might be a good idea.