Direct-die WCing! Cheap and easy.

[Movieman]

To quote Stew from four years ago...



Original thread: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=895401

Old information, yes... but still useful/informative. Either way, direct die cooling always makes for a fun little project.

I don't care, I'm running out of popcorn waiting for the results..

[hellcamino]

lmao, sigged!

[SoulsCollective]

That same damn small die is just as small when in contact with a copper water block. There is no way to increase the die size post manufacture. Adding material to the top of the die will only make it transfer heat less efficiently.

The only positive thing the block lends to the equation is a greater thermal mass than an equivalent volume of water. Flow and pressure will be the limiting factors in the capabilities of hot-side heat exchange in this direct die design.

Die size? No. Surface area? Yes. Reductio ad absurdum, the argument that "adding material to the top of the die will only make it transfer heat less efficiently" would mean that noone would use heatsinks.

Yes, you have some inefficiency coming from the TIM, but you also have a hundredfold increase in available surface area to dissipate that heat from to the coolant stream.

Except that it has worked - there is a thread floating around here that I saw a few days ago where someone in fact had already done this - his temps, if my memory serves me correctly, were mid-30s full load, over 4GHz.

I think you misread my post - noone here is saying this can't work It's just that it's an oversimplification to say that it can't not work - too many variables.

The arguing over the validity of this idea in this thread cracks me up, I just hope the OP doesn't decide not to share their results due to the arguing from people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about! To the nay sayers: go come up with something innovative.

If direct die cooling was a bad idea than no one would ever remove the IHS to cool it, all that achieves is the removal of a couple layers of material to transfer heat through.

I think you're badly misreading the comments here. Noone to date has made any negative comments. In lieu of results, we're theorising, which naturally means discussing the potential pros and cons of an idea.

I also think you're again missing the point - noone is arguing that removing the IHS won't increase thermal transfer efficiency. However, this is different to merely removing an IHS before reattaching your heatsink/waterblock- there you still have a larger surface area over which air/coolant will move. Here you have the removal of all inefficiencies from the equation, but a net decrease in surface area available over which to dissipate heat to the coolant.

For more on this, read the above quoted post from Cathar. He puts it better and knows more of the science than I have a confident grasp on.

My personal opinion is that we'll see a decrease in temps, but as I keep pointing out, there are too many variables to call this one right now.

[Movieman]

My personal opinion is that we'll see a decrease in temps, but as I keep pointing out, there are too many variables to call this one right now.

I think you hit it perfect with that statement.
Ciommon sense says one thing but we all have that little nagging suspicion that maybe we missed something in the equation..

[Bradan]

Yes you get rid of some, but you get less area to transfer the heat, and a flat plate is not good at transferring heat compared to a rilled plate, but as I said might be wrong.

Water being jetted onto the glass smooth die at 1-1.5gpm should work great, period. These temps will be crazy.

I see what you're saying though, but the way I see it is that the water only has to absorb the heat from direct contact with the core, and not to other water molecules. I don't see heat conduction from core to water being the problem.

[Duh]

very brave dude!

if it doesn't work, send the chip to intel for RMA. i wanna see their facial expressions

hahah

[Sliced Cheese]

I have an idea! Let's put some kind of heat spreader on the top, we'll call it an integrated heat sink. Then, we attach some sort of cooling device, maybe a kind of block, with water in it, yes, it has to work!

[Duh]

I don't care, I'm running out of popcorn waiting for the results..

you made me laugh . I like the post ( did not comment as the climax was a bit tough) in which you said you remained like a child who liked each time more hardware despite of his real age

[Movieman]

I have an idea! Let's put some kind of heat spreader on the top, we'll call it an integrated heat sink. Then, we attach some sort of cooling device, maybe a kind of block, with water in it, yes, it has to work!

I'm going to put your name up for XIP for that post!

[sabe]

Am I missing something here? I understand cheap, but where is the easy part coming from :P

[Hondacity]

I'm going to put your name up for XIP for that post!

hahahhaahha

[Freaky Freezer]

lol..The results are taking too long, this poor guy either set his room on fire, electrocuted himself or simply killed the CPU. Either way, we're all here for you and we still want some results!

[XTRMDREAM]

In my thinking the die thats producing the heat is the same size whether it is surrounded by the IHS or water. All the heat orinates from the die the IHS just gives a larger surface area for a heatsink to be mounted, water is doing the same job as the old IHS and since water is a better conductor, you would expect to see better temps.

[Nightstar]

Die size? No. Surface area? Yes. Reductio ad absurdum, the argument that "adding material to the top of the die will only make it transfer heat less efficiently" would mean that noone would use heatsinks.

Except we're comparing closed water blocks to direct die, not air-cooled heatsinks. That's a strawman argument.

For more on this, read the above quoted post from Cathar. He puts it better and knows more of the science than I have a confident grasp on.

He's a wealth of information. I read that thread when it was new. In fact it is largely why I suggested a single jet nozzle(on the second page).

My personal opinion is that we'll see a decrease in temps, but as I keep pointing out, there are too many variables to call this one right now.

Mine too. I hope we get some results soon.

[eligray]

I'm running out of popcorn waiting for the results..

I would be too... Except I get 30-gallon bags of popcorn for free from working at the theater

[fallwind]

Patience dear friends!! I stated yesterday that I had to reseal the block and let it cure for 24 hours. It's being leak tested again as I type this. It's been going for several hours and so far so good. I'm going to install it here right away and see if it still works. I think that's my greatest fear right now, that the chip is dead. Poor results would be better than no results at this point. Here's a quick shot of my "leak test" loop...lol!

[Shlomo]

Well if the chips dead, that was only a couple hundred dollar lesson...right?

[SoulsCollective]

Except we're comparing closed water blocks to direct die, not air-cooled heatsinks. That's a strawman argument.

Heat transfer from fins to air follows exactly the same principles as heat transfer from pins inside a waterblock to coolant stream. It's not a strawman argument, surface area still applies - if you won't take my word for it, read the post by Cathar.

Patience dear friends!! I stated yesterday that I had to reseal the block and let it cure for 24 hours. It's being leak tested again as I type this. It's been going for several hours and so far so good. I'm going to install it here right away and see if it still works. I think that's my greatest fear right now, that the chip is dead. Poor results would be better than no results at this point. Here's a quick shot of my "leak test" loop...lol!

Waiting eagerly

[fallwind]

Well, the chip is not dead, but the results are not good. See post #2 for more info. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...84&postcount=2

[tool_462]

I'm not sure what I did wrong with my design. Another member has posted great success with his direct-die setup. I guess at this point I should just be happy the chip isn't dead. I think I'll just rip the IHS back off and run my Fusion on the bare die. Thanks for all the support and comments guys! Sorry to disappoint.

Not disappointing, awesome!

Either way its cool stuff. That "other user" I never actually saw real screenshots, not sure if he ever posted any?

Just need a lot more surface area, that die surface is very small area for the water to pick heat off of. Sweet that it worked though

[Ttocs]

Sorry that it didn't work. I guess the lesson here is that Cathar knows what he's talking about (as if anyone disputed that), and that we should listen to the more informed members here who have been here for a while, and have seen it all (almost) before.

[SoulsCollective]

That's what I was afraid of. Clearly, the surface area issue wasn't overcome by the removal of the thermal transfer inefficiencies.

Mad props for you for trying it - may I once again assert that you, my friend, are in possession of

[ecat]

I'm not sure what I did wrong with my design. Another member has posted great success with his direct-die setup. I guess at this point I should just be happy the chip isn't dead. I think I'll just rip the IHS back off and run my Fusion on the bare die. Thanks for all the support and comments guys! Sorry to disappoint.

Disappoint ?

In spite of the controversy you stuck to your guns, went through with the test and posted the results. Excellent work Be sure to update this thread with your Fuzion on die results




No cores were harmed in the making of this thread.

[Sadasius]

I know it sucks to put time and effort into something to not get back expected results out of it. But you really do have balls of steel. Do they clang when you run? Good job and thanks for the test.

[rge]

I third the above... not only did you have the balls to do a cool as hell experiment, but you also had the kohonies to post honest results afterwards despite being negative results

I would definitely also like to see posted results of direct die with your fuzion if you do that next. At least there you will have a "heat spreader" via copper bottom of the waterblock, plus milled channels with more surface area inside waterblock. Again be interesting to see trade off of solder heat transfer to IHS before paste/waterblock versus directly to paste/waterblock.