I saw rge's results (he mentioned a weird increase on two cores on XS--something that shouldn't happen with a block change) and I think I figured out why those two cores are oddly hot.
Unfortunately it hints that the XT is not compatible with lapped CPUs after all--it stems from the same basic issue that caused the Gigabyte issues, the block is big. 60x60mm is big and *I think* it breaks Intel's "no-fly zones."
Anyway, here's what I've found: first, Cores 2 and 4 are actually adjacent and are either the top two cores or the bottom two cores, I forget exactly. I don't know why it's done like that :screwy:
Second, when you lap a CPU, you make it shorter by a fraction of a millimeter, which may not seem like much, but it comes into play.
Third, the Torx screws on the socket assembly are not flush with the socket assembly--the top ones definitely stick out quite a bit and the bottom ones (once the socket is loaded with a CPU forcing the internal springs to compress) do a little bit as well.
Fourth, unlike the HK3.0, the Apogee XT overlaps both sets of socket screws and by a few mm.
Add that all up and I think the Apogee XT is not sitting right on his CPU (or really any lapped CPU) because it's sitting on one set of the socket assembly screws (not sure which, my guess is the top set, they protrude the most) and that's forcing the XT to be lifted off the (either the top or the bottom of) the IHS and resulting in increased temperatures on the corresponding pair of cores.
When he gets back from vacation, he can test this by either removing the socket assembly totally, or grinding down the four Torx screws on the socket assembly (or by grinding out grooves on the base of his XT, but that sounds like the hardest option of all). Or if he has a non-lapped CPU, he can do one or two really quick mounts of both the XT and the HK to see that the core temperature profiles are indeed similar (then go on to recompare if he wants to, he probably won't want to after a vacation, lol).
Here's what my core profiles were like with the two blocks.
XT = the Gigabyte-compatible base (I use a Gigabyte board for testing, so it was important)
HK3.0 = HK3.0
XTOld = original base SW sent--contact was horrible on the left side of the IHS because the 60x60 base was too big and resting on the adjacent bank of caps (even when pushed to the side as much as possible, they forced the base to lift off the IHS).
I've seen this same basic profile on every CPU block I've tested so far. Note that the numbers in the table above are the average of all 5 mounts, where-as the numbers in my charts are the average of the median 3 mounts (I drop the best and worst from my calculations), so they might differ by a few hundredths of a degree from what's on my charts.
Bookmarks