Couldn't take it any longer - lapped my E6400

Got this retail chip last week and put my own paste on it and mounted the stock cooler. I was shocked to find that it only made contact at the edges of the IHS. I tried an old zalman 7000Cu that I know is flat and it was better but still not great. Turns out both the IHS and the stock HS were concave. Pretty f..ing shoddy QC if you ask me.

Under water at 3.5ghz/1.41v right now w/ both cores priming, core temp was hitting 72c so I decided f. it and pulled the chip to lap it. Turns out the IHS was REALLY BAAAD - using 150 grit paper at first, the entire edge of the IHS showed copper, but there was barely a scratch on the other 80% of the IHS in the slightly CRITICAL center portion. Anyhow, got it mostly flat and now temps, under the exact same conditions and even a slightly higher ambient room temp as the warm southern cali sun heats the land, are maxed at 63c. EDIT - Temp has stabilized at 59c for a drop of 13c.

Definitely worth voiding the warranty in my book.

ps. sorry to plant seeds in your minds.

My chip was exactly like yours by the way it sounds. Amazing that intel would let that kind of qulaity by the wayside.

I had 8 K8 chips and they were all perfect.

Now I am starting to believe the high temperature readings that I thought were weird conroe bs before.

If the chip runs advertised speeds at default voltage within thermal tolerances and is stable with the stock heatsink - how exactly is Intel "letting quality by the wayside?" :rolleyes:

Its strange...

Most of the C2D's are perfectly flat, and then some of them are just horrendously un-flat (concave in these cases, being the worst kind of non-flatness even).

Maybye there was a single bad batch or something that they let slide?

-Stigma

If I was at Intel, I would like to know that the product going in the box was well made - including the Heatsink and the IHS. Granted mass production inherently means individual flaws get by.

Ok I take the shoddy QC comment back. I should be nicer since this chip may be the best I have ever owned. Thanks Intel you are the best.

I suppose they don't worry because using the Intel heatsink with it's applied paste it would work perfect @ stock speeds, after all the overclocking percentage is less than 1% of sales.
My 6600 is the best CPU I've ever owned well pleased with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freecableguy

If the chip runs advertised speeds at default voltage within thermal tolerances and is stable with the stock heatsink - how exactly is Intel "letting quality by the wayside?" :rolleyes:

---

quality is more than function.

when some people will spend upwards of $1000 for a X6800, one would think intel can spend the extra $.05 it takes to have a perfectly flat IHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freecableguy

If the chip runs advertised speeds at default voltage within thermal tolerances and is stable with the stock heatsink - how exactly is Intel "letting quality by the wayside?" :rolleyes:

---

I really wish I had a pic for you. I know they are in it for the money but it looked like Ralph Wiggum ran the production facility. It was awfull.

Chip was thermal trottle on stock volts... with the OC of course...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freecableguy

If the chip runs advertised speeds at default voltage within thermal tolerances and is stable with the stock heatsink - how exactly is Intel "letting quality by the wayside?" :rolleyes:

---

Yea, you have to remember guys, you're OC'ing so you're running things out of spec. You kinda have to expect to run into issues like this as Intel/AMD/etc. don't much about you so they don't target thier products for your application.

Now if you were having these issues at stock clocks/volts with the Intel spec HSF then yea, you'd have something to complain about.

yea mine was all messed up a lapped it today and it droped temps like from 65-45 @ load @ 1.7 volts :)

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/7...0145sx9.th.jpg

Checked to see how the contact was and was very pleased with the results.

Even if i was to run a chip at stock, i'd wan't it to come with a flat IHS :rolleyes:
Overclocking has nothing to do with it. Some people build HTPC and wan't stock chip that runs cool, not having to deal with a 15°C overheat due to the manufacturer not being able to get a simple thing like a flat IHS done :fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

Even if i was to run a chip at stock, i'd wan't it to come with a flat IHS :rolleyes:

---

What you want doesn't matter, what matters is that it runs in spec @ stock clocks/volts, which it does so quit making mountains out of molehills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

Overclocking has nothing to do with it. Some people build HTPC and wan't stock chip that runs cool, not having to deal with a 15°C overheat due to the manufacturer not being able to get a simple thing like a flat IHS done :fact:

---

OP is overclocking and overvolting which is the only reason he is having temp issues at all, I bet even with that concave IHS his chip would run just fine in a quiet HTPC environment @ stock settings, so this argument is null and void.

Isnt that too much paste really, should be see through thin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 775911

Isnt that too much paste really, should be see through thin?

---

Normally yes, but if you've got a concave IHS you've got to spread it on thick to fill it in, otherwise you'll get air pockets.

I thought he had lapped the IHS in the pic, its showing as copper..

Its slightly out of focus so maybe its just right

Can't tell for sure in that pic. While the edges show copper the center may still be fairly concave. It may also be that he hadn't finished spreading it around yet as it appears he just pressed the chip down on the HSF instead of mounting the chip/HSF on the mobo first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freecableguy

If the chip runs advertised speeds at default voltage within thermal tolerances and is stable with the stock heatsink - how exactly is Intel "letting quality by the wayside?" :rolleyes:

---

I see exactly what you are saying. But its not just about thermal tolerances. If Intel paid whatever company to manufacture the IHS's to a certain precision and a hand-full aren't meeting those requirements then I'd be a little upset if I was Intel. If the concave IHS are within the specifications that Intel had then sure, who cares. If it's just a hand-full though then I doubt its what Intel wanted. Getting a set yield on silicon is one thing but making sure a plate of copper is manufactured precisely should be a cake walk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

What you want doesn't matter, what matters is that it runs in spec @ stock clocks/volts, which it does so quit making mountains out of molehills.


OP is overclocking and overvolting which is the only reason he is having temp issues at all, I bet even with that concave IHS his chip would run just fine in a quiet HTPC environment @ stock settings, so this argument is null and void.

---

What you think (and speculate) doesn't matter more than what i wan't and it absolutely doesn't make my argument null and void. Fact is Intel is selling some chips with uber crappy IHS and i saw a bunch of XS fellas that got pissed when they got theirs.
Does your argument about running in spec at stock make the crappy IHS any better? No, so i'd say this one is null and void ;)

what if everybody start to rma cpu with concave IHS, i'd bet they start taking more care to that.

this is like buying a car and having a crancked chassis.

well the car still runs but i bet stability on the road wont be the same.

edit: i'm really thinking of lapping mine but there goes the warranty out the window. :confused:

Does anyone in here have an idea of how much can be gained from lapping the heatsink if it is already relatively flat? I've remounted my heatsink a few times and from looking at the thermal paste it is getting spread out to the edges of the ihs so it must be pretty flat already.

Most of yall are probably thinking do it and find out. I probably will end up doing it because I'm not too worried about a warranty on a 200 dollar processor just trying to figure out if it is worth my time and energy. I also don't want to get into doing it expecting too much.

Has anyone ever sent a CPU in for warranty service with Intel or AMD? I know I haven't and I have been overlocking chips since my Pentium 60 arrived 12 years ago. So I am not really concerned about that, the only downside is that if I want to sell this thing next week, it will be worth less than an un-lapped chip.

It's funny how this has attracted comments like;

Quote:

---

What you want doesn't matter, what matters is that it runs in spec @ stock clocks/volts, which it does so quit making mountains out of molehills.

---

Meanwhile this thread is at XtremeSystems where 99% of us give a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about an issue like this.

Didn't even bother to see if someone said this but to the statement that intel shouldn't care because "it runs at stock speed with the stock cooler fine". Well mine sure didn't. I mean yes it did run but you could tell it was running sluggish. I think that qualifies as a QC issue. After lapping it a bit the problems are gone. Also heat is not a good thing for your computer and eventually will have a negative effect on performance and life span. So yes I do think it is important that they get something as simple as a flat IHS correct even for the people who aren't overclocking. And don't give me the "it's not a big enough difference for them to care" because when I buy something I want to get what was advertised. I don't want a defective piece of hardware. If anything it's mroe important for those none OC'ers who won't lap there CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adamant415

Does anyone in here have an idea of how much can be gained from lapping the heatsink if it is already relatively flat? I've remounted my heatsink a few times and from looking at the thermal paste it is getting spread out to the edges of the ihs so it must be pretty flat already.

---

As you though, probably not to much, mine was concave, took quite a bit of sanding before I even touched the center of mine.

I have an odd issue now though, the core temp readings are lower than the CPU temps by about 5C, used to be the CPU temp was much lower than the temps Core temp give.

Not sure what that is all about

I was just looking at a few lapping guides before I put sandpaper to the bottom of my Ninja-Plus and found this...

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W1zzard

Do I want a mirror finish?

If you start lapping your surface beyond the 600 grit range your gaps in the heatsink will be very small. Thus you MUST apply a very very small amount of thermal paste for proper thermal transfer. In most cases where you have a mirror finish your final result will be like this:

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/9575/lapping3nd5.gif

There's no contact between the two metals because of excess thermal paste. The heat transfer of this is worse than with a surface that is only 600 grit because of the boundary layer of TIM between heatsink and CPU.

---

So to the guys that have gone for the mirror finish, have you remembered to reduce the amount of AS5 etc you use after lapping?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

What you think (and speculate) doesn't matter more than what i wan't and it absolutely doesn't make my argument null and void. Fact is Intel is selling some chips with uber crappy IHS and i saw a bunch of XS fellas that got pissed when they got theirs.

---

The problem with this arguement is your definition of "crappy IHS" and it is YOUR definition which makes it irrelevent, so no its not a "fact" at all that the IHS is crappy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

Does your argument about running in spec at stock make the crappy IHS any better? No, so i'd say this one is null and void ;)

---

Straw man argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lesterp

Meanwhile this thread is at XtremeSystems where 99% of us give a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about an issue like this.

---

Doesn't matter, you're running thier product out of spec if you OC so you have to expect to run into issues like this, as I said before Intel/AMD/etc. do not cater to overclockers.

If you don't want to hear it from me you can always email Intel and get an official stance on how they view these IHS "issues", make sure to mention that you're OC'ing while you're at it too, wouldn't want to lie now would you?

Just curious, but what methods of measurement are all you amateur machinists using to make the determination that your C2D IHS's are "concave" when a HS is attached with the minimum clamping pressure specified by Intel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

The problem with this arguement is your definition of "crappy IHS" and it is YOUR definition which makes it irrelevent, so no its not a "fact" at all that the IHS is crappy.


Straw man argument.

---

Well, the purpose of the IHS is to transfer the heat from the core to the HSF, for that it must be FLAT, which is very easy to achieve nowadays, so if only the edges of the IHS make contact with the HSF for like 30% of the IHS surface then crappy seems totaly adequate.

Some of you guys are forgetting something when you have a true IHS and true HS surface any thermal compound you place on it will push its way out through the sides. A perfect contact between IHS and HS surface requires little TC. That's not to mean only apply little TC, you have to actually apply TS first and let the compressio between IHS/HS surface do the work for your.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

Just curious, but what methods of measurement are all you amateur machinists using to make the determination that your C2D IHS's are "concave" when a HS is attached with the minimum clamping pressure specified by Intel?

---

Use the search function, there are threads allready regarding the Concave IHS with means to control how bad it can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

Use the search function, there are threads allready regarding the Concave IHS with means to control how bad it can be.

---

Why waste my time? The best way to mitigate this alleged IHS concavity is to apply a HS with sufficient clamping pressure. That's how Intel designed it to work and it works fine for me.

I used to waste my time lapping sinks and IHSs but the benefits have always been minimal. IIRC the best improvements I ever saw were 2C by lapping and 4C by removing the IHS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

Well, the purpose of the IHS is to transfer the heat from the core to the HSF,

---

Actually its keep the core from getting crushed, remember all the issues people had with socket 370 and socket 462 chips?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

for that it must be FLAT,

---

It only need be flat enough to ensure the temp. be kept within specificed range, it doesn't have to be perfectly flat at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

which is very easy to achieve nowadays,

---

Easy and cheap are 2 different things, perhaps it saves Intel a significant amount of money to loosen the IHS tolerances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

so if only the edges of the IHS make contact with the HSF for like 30% of the IHS surface and the temp is within Intel's specified limit for that chip then that is totaly adequate.

---

Fixed that for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

Why waste my time? The best way to mitigate this alleged IHS concavity is to apply a HS with sufficient clamping pressure. That's how Intel designed it to work and it works fine for me.

---

Yea this seems to be the solution to this "issue". I noticed my E6300 has raised edges on its IHS when I was installing it but made sure to tighten the HSF down (I have a Tt BigTyphoon) thoroughly and I've never had any temp issues at all, even when OC'd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

Yea this seems to be the solution to this "issue". I noticed my E6300 has raised edges on its IHS when I was installing it but made sure to tighten the HSF down (I have a Tt BigTyphoon) thoroughly and I've never had any temp issues at all, even when OC'd.

---

This "issue" is a classic example of people making a mountain out of a mole hill. Start with a grain of truth, add some ignorance, rumors and very poorly controlled test results and stir until mixture acheives myth consistency...

I bought into this same "concave IHS" myth when I got my 1.6A a few years back. I began by carefully lapping both my HS base and IHS. My CPU load temp was lowered by 1-2C. Next I removed the IHS and my load temp was lowered by another 2C. Net gain was 3-4C lower load temp and 0% overclocking improvement. Same thing with my 1.8A. I didn't waste my time on my 2.6C or my 3.0C and I won't be wasting time lapping my 6400 either.

Seems to me Intel may have done this on purpose, the cpu will work at stock on the stock cooler and they dont really want people running a 6300 at 6800 speeds, that messes their whole price plan up

An IHS which only makes proper contact on the edges helps to keep people in their place (though its effect is not so dramatic really.. ) and if people bypass this, they lose their warranty immediately.
They wont care about us minority of overclockers but they hardly want overclocking done enmass by system builders which would bring their profits down..

If they can make a cpu this complex I think they can make a straight peice of metal, obviously they did not want to particularly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 775911

Seems to me Intel may have done this on purpose, the cpu will work at stock on the stock cooler and they dont really want people running a 6300 at 6800 speeds, that messes their whole price plan up

An IHS which only makes proper contact on the edges helps to keep people in their place (though its effect is not so dramatic really.. ) and if people bypass this, they lose their warranty immediately.
They wont care about us minority of overclockers but they hardly want overclocking done enmass by system builders which would bring their profits down..

If they can make a cpu this complex I think they can make a straight peice of metal, obviously they did not want to particularly

---

Oh come on now, we've got enough BS in this topic as is, do you really have to start pushing consipiracy theories? If Intel wanted to stop OC'ing they would and using loose tolerances on the IHS is probably not the way they would go about doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 775911

Seems to me Intel may have done this on purpose, the cpu will work at stock on the stock cooler and they dont really want people running a 6300 at 6800 speeds, that messes their whole price plan up

An IHS which only makes proper contact on the edges helps to keep people in their place (though its effect is not so dramatic really.. ) and if people bypass this, they lose their warranty immediately.
They wont care about us minority of overclockers but they hardly want overclocking done enmass by system builders which would bring their profits down..

If they can make a cpu this complex I think they can make a straight peice of metal, obviously they did not want to particularly

---

Agreed. Also, the stock heatsink supplied with the processors is circular, small, and does not reach the edges of the IHS, which is where the problem is. I think they did this intentionally to encourage those who use "custom" heatsinks to have to lap the IHS, thus voiding the warranty and saving them a bit of money on people RMAing the chips because of excessive overclocking or whatnot.

Quote:

---

his "issue" is a classic example of people making a mountain out of a mole hill. Start with a grain of truth, add some ignorance, rumors and very poorly controlled test results and stir until mixture acheives myth consistency...

I bought into this same "concave IHS" myth when I got my 1.6A a few years back. I began by carefully lapping both my HS base and IHS. My CPU load temp was lowered by 1-2C. Next I removed the IHS and my load temp was lowered by another 2C. Net gain was 3-4C lower load temp and 0% overclocking improvement. Same thing with my 1.8A. I didn't waste my time on my 2.6C or my 3.0C and I won't be wasting time lapping my 6400 either.

---

Lapping the IHS does make a big difference. This is not "poorly controlled test results" or anything of the sort. Lapping reduced the load temps of this watercooled system by 14 degrees load. There wasn't any bad mounting, or anything like that. Thermal compound was applied evenly to the heatsink and securely mounted, then removed, and observed... 80% of the surface in the middle of the CPU was not making contact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

Oh come on now, we've got enough BS in this topic as is, do you really have to start pushing consipiracy theories? If Intel wanted to stop OC'ing they would and using loose tolerances on the IHS is probably not the way they would go about doing it.

---

We all know, Intel included, that these chips are very, very underclocked. Its like a overclockers wetdream, crazy high IPC and possible 4ghz on air, with mainstream software hardly pushing these cores at 2.4ghz nevermind higher.
So while I doubt Intel would go to the trouble, if they did I wouldn't blame them, better than clock limiting them I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freecableguy

If the chip runs advertised speeds at default voltage within thermal tolerances and is stable with the stock heatsink - how exactly is Intel "letting quality by the wayside?" :rolleyes:

---

Don`t forget a lot of people don`t use retail heatsink . It is a matter of robust design , quality is not just "work under specs " , i am not saying that they should support overclock but at least an IHS that supports other than the stock heatsink .

mine was backwards from yalls mine was i never got to the outside like still some
of the metal around it when i frst got cpu i put a razer ontop ad i could see the diff from the sides to the middle @@ thats how bad mine was but now its 100 % flat

Hey guys quick question. How much is everyone lapping there CPU? Till it shows copper over the whole surface? I've lapped mine for a while but am not getting to much copper to show. Should I keep going? I had to take it apart to do some work so I figured I'd go all out this time since last time I only did minor lapping to the CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

We all know, Intel included, that these chips are very, very underclocked.

---

Actually you and/or we do don't know that. Just because a chip OC's well doesn't mean its underclocked. If anything current C2D's remind me of the Celeron 300A's which overclocked like crazy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toledo

Don`t forget a lot of people don`t use retail heatsink . It is a matter of robust design , quality is not just "work under specs " , i am not saying that they should support overclock but at least an IHS that supports other than the stock heatsink .

---

AFAWK it does, its only all the OC'ers here that are running into heat issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

Actually you and/or we do don't know that. Just because a chip OC's well doesn't mean its underclocked. If anything current C2D's remind me of the Celeron 300A's which overclocked like crazy too.

---

Maybe underclocked was the wrong word, but Intel picked a very low thermal envelope, as these cpu's have deep pentium M roots. When you build to such a low watt range, but the chip can handle more you create head room.
Core 2 has a lot of head room, but Intel plans to stay within these self inflicted limits to stop AMD just releasing high voltage chips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

Maybe underclocked was the wrong word, but Intel picked a very low thermal envelope, as these cpu's have deep pentium M roots. When you build to such a low watt range, but the chip can handle more you create head room.
Core 2 has a lot of head room, but Intel plans to stay within these self inflicted limits to stop AMD just releasing high voltage chips.

---

A low TDP doesn't guarantee a good OC "head room". C2D OC's well because its a new arch. that is designed to scale in clockspeed over a period of several years and processes, much the same reason why the 300A OC'd so well which was why I held it up as an example. Watch what happens when the EOL Core arch. chips are released, I bet they'll OC about as well as the 1Ghz PIII did.

I really found it rather hard to believe, I was reading a thread like this at XS.

My feeling on this topic are very simple . If you build your own pc which should be better than the same hardware if you bought a FNwest pc . Lapping all heatsinks and the Cpu should be automatic. I can't even imagine doing things any other way. Its the same with I really don't need Pci x slots . Well using sata add in card to run 4 hardrives in Raid0 is better performance by a lot. It won't make any differance's in super pi. But in the real world . Gaming /video editing / ect. ect. ect. Its a high performance gain that is measurable signifently. A high performance PC has all the little time consuming tricks completed Lappping / wire management./ All the hardware added that takes a PC to its maxable performance level . Which would include Sound card/ Sata card./ Top of the line GPU. At least 4 harddrives running raid 0 and a tweaked OS. Watercooling as a base. Other wise their is nothing Extreme about your home built DELL!!!!!!

Dang double post!!!!!

I honestly just look at this as more of a discussion on how well Intel is making there chips...not that people should or should not need/should/could lap there CPU's. Simple that Intel really did a poor job here and should/could have done a better job but they decieded not to and that is just sad. Maybe not everyone is having tremendous issues with there CPU's but I can tell you that I sure did. When a CPU runs sluggish even at stock speeds thats unacceptable...and mine was getting better contact stock then most that I saw here. After smoothing out the edges a bit it ran much better...honestly more along the lines of what I expected to see at stock.

After a few hours now both my CPU and heatsink are flat as can be. I went through to the copper on the CPU...now it's time to see if it actually makes a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayG30

I honestly just look at this as more of a discussion on how well Intel is making there chips...not that people should or should not need/should/could lap there CPU's. Simple that Intel really did a poor job here and should/could have done a better job but they decieded not to and that is just sad. Maybe not everyone is having tremendous issues with there CPU's but I can tell you that I sure did. When a CPU runs sluggish even at stock speeds thats unacceptable...and mine was getting better contact stock then most that I saw here. After smoothing out the edges a bit it ran much better...honestly more along the lines of what I expected to see at stock.

After a few hours now both my CPU and heatsink are flat as can be. I went through to the copper on the CPU...now it's time to see if it actually makes a difference.

---

OMFG! You're trying to tell us that your cpu ran "sluggish" at stock speed because you think that the IHS wasn't flat enough? I wish you guys would just stick with AMD...

yeah, that statement was a bit over the top, sluggish by contact, and better after contact at stock, Methinks his imagination has gotten the better of him.

And the AMD comment Fred, be nice, I am back from AMD, but I just buy what is the better performer at the time of upgrade, I have zero brand loyalty, just want the best I can afford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linflas

yeah, that statement was a bit over the top, sluggish by contact, and better after contact at stock, Methinks his imagination has gotten the better of him.

And the AMD comment Fred, be nice, I am back from AMD, but I just buy what is the better performer at the time of upgrade, I have zero brand loyalty, just want the best I can afford.

---

I apologize for my "Lestat" moment but I guess, like Lestat, I too am losing patience with all the n00bs who can't properly apply thermal compound and/or attach their heatsinks on the first try and then claim to have reduced their cpu temp by over 10C just by lapping their IHS. I've been around this long enough to know how incredibly improbable that is.

Maybe some C2D IHS are actually bad enough to show more than a trivial benefit from lapping but I'm seeing people making ridiculous claims ranging from "Intel won't spend $.05 to put a flat IHS on a $1000 cpu" to conspiracy theories that Intel is intentionally making the IHS uneven to hinder overclocking and/or to force overclockers to lap the IHS and void their warranty.

I guess I'll go watch some TV now. I've apparently exceeded my RDA of st00pidity...

I got a 3-5C drop when I lapped mine, I try to use very little AS5 when making contact with the blocks, lapping made a difference for me, just my experience with it.

I have an apogee water block which has a fairly large copper base, so the edges being raised made a difference, tried using the "slap on AS5 method" it also gave me a 2-3C shift in the wrong direction, that is why I chose to lap.

There are a few bad ones out their, but I think it is mostly just wishing these damn C2D's were a bit cooler when you have voltage running through them. They make quick work of moderate water cooling, and high end air, so phase seems to be about the only way to keep these little SOB's cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

I apologize for my "Lestat" moment but I guess, like Lestat, I too am losing patience with all the n00bs who can't properly apply thermal compound and/or attach their heatsinks on the first try and then claim to have reduced their cpu temp by over 10C just by lapping their IHS...

---

:rofl: now that gave me a good laugh :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

OMFG! You're trying to tell us that your cpu ran "sluggish" at stock speed because you think that the IHS wasn't flat enough? I wish you guys would just stick with AMD...

---

You know your comment really was not needed. Why don't you take your smart a*s comments somewhere else.

I KNOW the computer was running sluggish. I have a few E6400 systems here and it's not like I couldn't compare numbers and results to another system. The Temps were rediculously high for even stock speeds with stock HSF. The computer did run sluggish. Comparing it to a old AMD64 it actually felt slower. It would constantly "hang" if you will when trying to open programs and such. After doing "minor" lapping of the CPU and running it again onthe stock HSF the temps were considerable better and the "sluggish" speeds went away.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to talk down to me as if I was just some uneducated little kid. If you don't like what I have to say then please keep your smart a*s comments to yourself. I've been in the computers industry for MANY years. I'm not new to this or intel.

I think you have a lot of growing up to do if thats how you talk or treat people...even if it is just over the internet.

you must realize that dell also sells CPUs to OEMs liek dell and HP who do not use intels stock cooling. I doubt any of the consiracy theories are valid. I think Intel just f'ed up. The end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

I apologize for my "Lestat" moment but I guess, like Lestat, I too am losing patience with all the n00bs who can't properly apply thermal compound and/or attach their heatsinks on the first try and then claim to have reduced their cpu temp by over 10C just by lapping their IHS. I've been around this long enough to know how incredibly improbable that is.

Maybe some C2D IHS are actually bad enough to show more than a trivial benefit from lapping but I'm seeing people making ridiculous claims ranging from "Intel won't spend $.05 to put a flat IHS on a $1000 cpu" to conspiracy theories that Intel is intentionally making the IHS uneven to hinder overclocking and/or to force overclockers to lap the IHS and void their warranty.

I guess I'll go watch some TV now. I've apparently exceeded my RDA of st00pidity...

---

Also I would like to know what makes you not a noob (since thats the cool word you kiddies use today). And don't tell me because you know people on the internet forums or you've been around for a long time or whatever. I want to know what credentials make you special. What do you do for a living? Education? etc? Really curious about this.

Also let me point out that I did not say that there was any conspiracy theory. Sounds almost like you think I or someone is a AMD lover. Which for you knowledge I am not.

All I am pointing out is that I had a bad experience here with one of my CPU's. I probably should have RMA'ed it. The temperatures were just very very bad. And yes I DO know how to attach a HSF and apply thermal paste. I'm so tired of people acting like that is brain surgery or something. If you honestly can't do that you're a retard. But you don't have to just take my word for it. There was a link (can't remember if it's in this thread or not) where it clearly shows one of the WORST contact areas most here have probably ever seen. Also it was clear that he did apply the paste and HSF correctly as there was paste all along where the edges of the IHS were but completely clean in the center. No one here is beating up on Intel or saying the is a conspiracy. All I am simply stating is that I wish they would work on making them as flat as possible from the factory. Don't agree with me....thats fine...but don't belittle me or anyone else opinions just as we don't belittle yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayG30

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to talk down to me as if I was just some uneducated little kid. If you don't like what I have to say then please keep your smart a*s comments to yourself.

---

Of course you could avoid this by not making such ridiculous claims... :slap: Of course I don't have a horse in the race so "Lap Away"... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xlink

you must realize that dell also sells CPUs to OEMs liek dell and HP who do not use intels stock cooling. I doubt any of the consiracy theories are valid. I think Intel just f'ed up. The end.

---

And I'd bet that Dell and HP aren't lapping... :)

my step father just ordered an overpriced Dell with a c2d e6400 in it. I could tell you if nthey lap or not... in about a year or two...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayG30

You know your comment really was not needed. Why don't you take your smart a*s comments somewhere else.

I KNOW the computer was running sluggish. I have a few E6400 systems here and it's not like I couldn't compare numbers and results to another system. The Temps were rediculously high for even stock speeds with stock HSF. The computer did run sluggish. Comparing it to a old AMD64 it actually felt slower. It would constantly "hang" if you will when trying to open programs and such. After doing "minor" lapping of the CPU and running it again onthe stock HSF the temps were considerable better and the "sluggish" speeds went away.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to talk down to me as if I was just some uneducated little kid. If you don't like what I have to say then please keep your smart a*s comments to yourself. I've been in the computers industry for MANY years. I'm not new to this or intel.

I think you have a lot of growing up to do if thats how you talk or treat people...even if it is just over the internet.

---

Sorry to cause you such offense. I didn't know you were so thin-skinned.

Obviously you didn't have the heatsink properly installed the first time, the cpu was predictably overheating and throttling and you got the heastsink properly installed after lapping.

I'm sorry if it doesn't please you but it's going to take a lot more than your opinion to convince me that your IHS was so uneven that it caused a E6400 to hit 85C at stock speed and Vcore with a properly installed HSF and TIM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xlink

my step father just ordered an overpriced Dell with a c2d e6400 in it. I could tell you if nthey lap or not... in about a year or two...

---

Yeah you're probably right, it'll take 'em that long to dump all the "NetBurst" stuff out for Intel...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayG30

Also I would like to know what makes you not a noob (since thats the cool word you kiddies use today). And don't tell me because you know people on the internet forums or you've been around for a long time or whatever. I want to know what credentials make you special. What do you do for a living? Education? etc? Really curious about this.

Also let me point out that I did not say that there was any conspiracy theory. Sounds almost like you think I or someone is a AMD lover. Which for you knowledge I am not.

All I am pointing out is that I had a bad experience here with one of my CPU's. I probably should have RMA'ed it. The temperatures were just very very bad. And yes I DO know how to attach a HSF and apply thermal paste. I'm so tired of people acting like that is brain surgery or something. If you honestly can't do that you're a retard. But you don't have to just take my word for it. There was a link (can't remember if it's in this thread or not) where it clearly shows one of the WORST contact areas most here have probably ever seen. Also it was clear that he did apply the paste and HSF correctly as there was paste all along where the edges of the IHS were but completely clean in the center. No one here is beating up on Intel or saying the is a conspiracy. All I am simply stating is that I wish they would work on making them as flat as possible from the factory. Don't agree with me....thats fine...but don't belittle me or anyone else opinions just as we don't belittle yours.

---

Okay, I'm not going to write my autobiography here but I will tell you that computers are a hobby for me. I built my first PC in 1987 and I've been overclocking since my 486DX2-50 @66. I'm just a guy who builds and fixes PCs for himself, his friends and family and has been for almost 20 years. At 43, I'll take your "kiddie" comment as a compliment. :)

As for that photo that you claim shows "one of the worst" TI contact, I saw it and it appeared to me that it was taken after hand-placing the HS on the IHS without applying Intel's recommended 40lbf of heatsink tension (18-70lbf range) The thermal paste very clearly had not been subject to any compression-induced spread in that photo. Did you notice how blotchy and uneven it was? Try it yourself and I guarantee you won't see that result unless you fail to apply any pre-load to the HS.

Here's a good read: ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...x/31368501.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

Sorry to cause you such offense. I didn't know you were so thin-skinned.

Obviously you didn't have the heatsink properly installed the first time, the cpu was predictably overheating and throttling and you got the heastsink properly installed after lapping.

I'm sorry if it doesn't please you but it's going to take a lot more than your opinion to convince me that your IHS was so uneven that it caused a E6400 to hit 85C at stock speed and Vcore with a properly installed HSF and TIM.

---

Not thin-skinned, just don't appreciate people being rude to others. Isn't this world bad enough already where we don't need to resort to being offensive to each other over the internet.

Truthfully I have no reason to go on with this discussion. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone here. And honestly why would I care to? If you don't want to take my word for it then that is perfectly fine. I know what I saw happen in front of my eyes. Do you really think it is that hard to apply thermal grease? And to make such a dramatic difference you would have to really mess it up. Just so you know I didn't apply any thermal paste the first time. I took it right out of the box and applied a stock unit with the stock paste on the CPU. I did this because I wanted to see how it performed RIGHT out of the box for my own knowledge. Not to come on here and make a career out of explaining to people my findings (I do enough of that at work)...just simply for my own knowledge. If you honestly think I did not install the stock HSF correctly then fine. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to install one. There rather idiot proof. Push down till you hear a click...pretty easy. I distictly remember checking it multiple times to make sure each corner was clipped in. I even tried to pull up on each corner to see if it would dislodge but to no avail.

So I can honestly say to myself that I was satisfied with the installation of the unit...to me my satisfaction is all that matters.

After reading this thread, I checked out one of my 3 cd2s that I was about to put a new scythe infinity on. Used a razorblade with a light behind it, and it was definitely concave. If I planned on runnning at stock, I wouldn't care, but these things really do heat up when you push 'em, so I am definitely going to lap the edges down. Not making good contact in the center of the chip will make a significant difference and 10 degrees is not at all out of the question. We're not talking about lapping the machine marks out of an otherwise flat heat-sink, we taliking about a gap I would not trust to as5. If an aftermarket heatsink maker's product were obviously concave, they would not be in business very long. I'm sure intel would not do so on purpose, and probably works very hard not to do it all, but obviosly some have slipped through. My other two were pretty much flat and I didn't bother lapping either surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

As for that photo that you claim shows "one of the worst" TI contact, I saw it and it appeared to me that it was taken after hand-placing the HS on the IHS without applying Intel's recommended 40lbf of heatsink tension (18-70lbf range) The thermal paste very clearly had not been subject to any compression-induced spread in that photo. Did you notice how blotchy and uneven it was? Try it yourself and I guarantee you won't see that result unless you fail to apply any pre-load to the HS.

Here's a good read: ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...x/31368501.pdf

---

Thats a good point. I honestly didn't bother reading his post because I was to busy finishing up work. I just took a glance at the pictures and they looked horrific...worse then even mine. Since we was using a aftermarket HSF then that could very well be the case. Still though it doesn't explain the problem that I had. I'm sure the sotck HSF (when properly installed) supplies the correct amount of pressure.

You can't sit there though and say that there aren't going to be issues with flatness, contact,and such. I mean are you going to dismiss the fact the mine and a large group of others also had only half of the northbridge contacting on the P5B deluxe? The point I'm making is there are always going to be issues. Maybe I encountered one of these issues. I'm not here to speculate on how wide spread this issue is or will become or even if others are experiencing it. Jut my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayG30

Not thin-skinned, just don't appreciate people being rude to others. Isn't this world bad enough already where we don't need to resort to being offensive to each other over the internet.

Truthfully I have no reason to go on with this discussion. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone here. And honestly why would I care to? If you don't want to take my word for it then that is perfectly fine. I know what I saw happen in front of my eyes. Do you really think it is that hard to apply thermal grease? And to make such a dramatic difference you would have to really mess it up. Just so you know I didn't apply any thermal paste the first time. I took it right out of the box and applied a stock unit with the stock paste on the CPU. I did this because I wanted to see how it performed RIGHT out of the box for my own knowledge. Not to come on here and make a career out of explaining to people my findings (I do enough of that at work)...just simply for my own knowledge. If you honestly think I did not install the stock HSF correctly then fine. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to install one. There rather idiot proof. Push down till you hear a click...pretty easy. I distictly remember checking it multiple times to make sure each corner was clipped in. I even tried to pull up on each corner to see if it would dislodge but to no avail.

So I can honestly say to myself that I was satisfied with the installation of the unit...to me my satisfaction is all that matters.

---

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to install the stock Intel HSF but IMO it's not as idiot-proof as you suggest. Lots of smart people have had problems installing it correctly. It's a :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty design and not very difficult to screw up the installation.

Anyway, glad you got the problem fixed even if I don't necessarily agree on what the problem was. ;)

PS; if we can't be rude to each other on the www, where can we in today's touchy-feely PC world?

*delivers Fred a swift knee to the groin for the AMD user=n00b comment*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JayG30

You can't sit there though and say that there aren't going to be issues with flatness, contact,and such. I mean are you going to dismiss the fact the mine and a large group of others also had only half of the northbridge contacting on the P5B deluxe? The point I'm making is there are always going to be issues. Maybe I encountered one of these issues. I'm not here to speculate on how wide spread this issue is or will become or even if others are experiencing it.

---

There'll always be corner cases and defective units and if that is truly your case then you should indeed RMA, but alot of the people in this topic (and others) are presenting this as some sort of conspiracy and/or Intel screwing up all the C2D's when its not, its /them/ screwing up and/or OC'ing and then being shocked that they get high temps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesyn191

There'll always be corner cases and defective units and if that is truly your case then you should indeed RMA, but alot of the people in this topic (and others) are presenting this as some sort of conspiracy and/or Intel screwing up all the C2D's when its not, its /them/ screwing up and/or OC'ing and then being shocked that they get high temps.

---

If that is indeed peoples intentions (a.k.a making it sounds like a conspiracy) then I agree with both of you. I to do not see a conspiracy. I've delt with intel for a long time. I've had my problems here in there but the same can be said with any product I've owned or worked with. Over the years I've found Intel to serve me best. I have a deep respect for what they do.

Also no need to RMA the product. Spent about 5 hours just lapping the CPU and another hour or so on the heatsink and things are very good now. :) But watching how the copper exposed also reassured me that the CPU was anything but flat. The copper showed through along all 4 edges within the first 30-45 minutes of lapping. The rest didn't start showing up till several hours had past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

Okay, I'm not going to write my autobiography here but I will tell you that computers are a hobby for me. I built my first PC in 1987 and I've been overclocking since my 486DX2-50 @66. I'm just a guy who builds and fixes PCs for himself, his friends and family and has been for almost 20 years. At 43, I'll take your "kiddie" comment as a compliment. :)

As for that photo that you claim shows "one of the worst" TI contact, I saw it and it appeared to me that it was taken after hand-placing the HS on the IHS without applying Intel's recommended 40lbf of heatsink tension (18-70lbf range) The thermal paste very clearly had not been subject to any compression-induced spread in that photo. Did you notice how blotchy and uneven it was? Try it yourself and I guarantee you won't see that result unless you fail to apply any pre-load to the HS.

Here's a good read: ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...x/31368501.pdf

---

I agree with you on that. In order to properly test whether the CPU is concave one should mount it and tighten down the clamps. Lucky for me the apogee waterblock is very easy to remove and secure without having to remove the motherboard, which is what you'd probably have to do to get those push pins on the stock heatsink out.

People can say what they want, but mine was very concave, it just was. I don't care, and I'm not really complaining. Quite the contrary, I think it's clever what they are doing.

Whoaw, some people just can't admit a simple and proven thing like there are many procs that came with a bad IHS. If you don't think what they think, they'll call you noob, pretending you don't know jack about what you're talking about, using dumb arguments like "I too am losing patience with all the n00bs who can't properly apply thermal compound and/or attach their heatsinks on the first try and then claim to have reduced their cpu temp by over 10C just by lapping their IHS", so first the user is so nOOb (i used OO caps to look as cool as mentioned member) he can't install his HSF correct, he then laps the IHS and all of a sudden is no nOOb anymore and can mount it perfect which explains the great temp improvement, the lapping having nothing to do with it. What a load of BS.
Yeah, people with concave IHS that are not satisfied are just AMD nOObs :rolleyes:

I don't buy the conspiracy theory either, just stating the obvious, some of the IHS out there are uber crappy regarding flatness, which is IMPORTANT to a lot of people.

If you IHS is concaved does that warrent a return? Would the store you bought it from take it back?

Seeing as how the differance in temperature is greater than 10 degrees.

since i started the thread i might as well chime in. didn't forsee the turn this thread would take but it makes for fun reading. all flaming aside, i should have taken pictures of the stages of lapping which would have rendered the 'user error' arguments null and void.

i lapped using glass as the sub surface for the paper and wet sanded the chip. started with coarse (150 grit) paper and small circular sanding motion. wipe the chip down with alchohol and examine. the entire outside edge of the IHS showed a uniform amount of copper, the center 80%+/- had very slight abrasion marks, but codes etc were all still visible. now i am no engineer, but that is what is called concave.

i have overclocked every piece of hardware that will overclock since my first P60 12 years ago, i have cooled chips with tecs, built watercooling for my tbird before you could buy water cooling gear (had to solder a block together out of copper stock, go to a junk yard for a heater core and a pet shop for a pump), and on and on. aka probably don't qualify as a n00b.

in the end i have had a very drastic and pleasing reduction in load temps with this little E6400 beauty and can now run it at 3.6ghz @ 1.46vcore and keep load temps in the mid 60s. the intent of the thread was to point that out to others that certainly own chips with similar IHS. If you don't overclock then leave the chip alone. if you do and you want to maximize your cooling check your IHS and if it is badly concave, consider lapping. simple as that.

Think maybe you guys are wearing this one out...

Why not make it simple. If you believe or are concerned that your IHS isn't flat, exercise your options: Lap - Accept as is - RMA

Quality control discussions, conspiracy theories, and general attacks on each other haven't fixed a single problem here...

My 2cents, Regards- :) :)

had the same issue.
both the IHS and the schyte ninja was not flat, lol.

easier to flat the schyte though.
dropped 10 degrees so consider that good since there was little contact.
just gonna see when waterblock arrives if there is a need to lap the IHS.

I have just a few things to add before I leave this dead-horse subject.

1) My apologies to JayG30. I could have phrased my disagreement with you in a much less offensive way. I just got over the flu and was cranky last night. My bad.

2) Many of those arguing how "crappy" their IHS was and how lapping proves it was concave are overlooking a very important detail. When you lap your IHS it is not subject to a ~40lbf heatsink load, unless you're applying ~40lbf pressure to it (and likely warping your plate glass sanding base), and if it were, your IHS flatness would most likely be quite a bit better.

4) This is the same old argument that started with the first IHS-shod P4s and back then everyone complained that their IHS was concave. Well, it is until you apply the heatsink loading to it. That's how it's designed to work. Whether it works correctly everytime is another matter.

5) Apparently there must be some truly out-of-spec IHS out there but I think it's getting out of hand when the recommended solution to every perceived high cpu temp question lately seems to be to lap the IHS.

6) I'm glad that some of you are happy with the results you got from lapping but it's just a little hard for me to understand how so many can be getting ~10C temp reductions when I've owned or built at least a dozen Intel systems with IHS and not one of them required lapping or benefitted more than 2C from lapping and all but 2 of these were higher-power Netburst CPUs.

That's all folks...

This thread didnt have to turn into such a flamefest. If there are owners that feel that intel messed up and didnt intend on their ihs to be concave you can do as some suggested earlier, rma or even better if your so inclined lap away.

Its your product your free to do whatever with it. The only thing thats hard to believe is that everybody is getting 10C drops in temps across the board.:stick:

Some others have their theories on why the ihs on some conroes are intentionally concave and they are entitled to their opinoins. But the bottom line is concave or not, their are alot of people overclocking the hell out of these cpus and dont seem to be bothered in the least by the damn ihs.

I also think theres a population that doesnt understand that if you pump 1.5 plus volts into a conroe and cool it with a scythe ninja or thermaltake big water kit. Your temps are most likely going to suck:slapass:

Now lets all get in a big circle, hold hands and sing kubaya. :)