Ivy has less die surface area to dissipate heat, then you compound the problem with 3d transistors, the third dimension being on a vertical plane.
Ivy has less die surface area to dissipate heat, then you compound the problem with 3d transistors, the third dimension being on a vertical plane.
Sandy Bridge 2500k @ 4.5ghz 1.28v | MSI p67a-gd65 B3 Mobo | Samsung ddr3 8gb |
Swiftech apogee drive II | Coolgate 120| GTX660ti w/heat killer gpu x| Seasonic x650 PSU
QX9650 @ 4ghz | P5K-E/WIFI-AP Mobo | Hyperx ddr2 1066 4gb | EVGA GTX560ti 448 core FTW @ 900mhz | OCZ 700w Modular PSU |
DD MC-TDX CPU block | DD Maze5 GPU block | Black Ice Xtreme II 240 Rad | Laing D5 Pump
That would seem to make good sense.
I thought I read that this was supposed to relieve the the tightly packed circuits laid out across the individual planes. Removing the "right next together-ness" situation in which the pathways were cumulatively heating each and actually created higher temps. Wouldn't that be funny if this dropped the overall temp but was too inefficient in passing on heat from deep inside. Before: high temps that wicked away easily, now: lower temps that have a harder time leaving the chip = same temps.
Case: Lian Li A71F
Sys: 3930k, Sabertooth X79, G.Skill 2133Mhz 16Gb, (2x) GTX 680
(2x) WD Black 1.5Tb, (2x) Crucial M4 - RAID 0
Loop 1: Apogee HD, (2x) RX240, DDC3.2 w/EK v2 top, MCRES (R2)
Loop 2: EK Full Cover (x2), RX360, DDC3.2 w/EK v2 top, MCRES (R2)
https://decryptedtech.com/index.php?...ial&Itemid=138
Tested.
Same thing with pre-IHS days and when people popped the top. Difference is negligible. Best thing is still to lap your IHS.
If you have a cooling question or concern feel free to contact me.
Competition ranking;
2005; Netbyte, Karise/Denmark #1 @ PiFast
2008; AOCM II, Minfeld/Germany #2 @ 01SE/AM3/8M (w. Oliver)
2009; AMD-OC, Viborg/Denmark #2 @ max freq Gigabyte TweaKING, Paris/France #4 @ 32M/01SE (w. Vanovich)
2010: Gigabyte P55, Hamburg/Germany #6 @ wprime 1024/SPI 1M (w. THC) AOCM III, Minfeld/Germany #6 @ 01SE/AM3/1M/8M (w. NeoForce)
Spectating;
2010; GOOC 2010 Many thanks to Gigabyte!
CPU: - I7 4930K (EK Supremacy )
GPU: - 2x AMD HD7970 flashed GHZ bios ( EK Acetal Nickel Waterblock H2o)
Motherboard: Asus x79 Deluxe
RAM: G-skill Ares C9 2133mhz 16GB
Main Storage: Samsung 840EVO 500GB / 2x Crucial RealSSD C300 Raid0
Intel has already said via third party its thermal (power) density and die attach differences.
Intel in several slide presentations talks about increase power/thermal density with die shrinks (critical dimension decrease). Critical dimension does not equate to die size in sq mm2, power density is not uniformly spread across die. The majority of power in die is consumed over a small area, causing hot spots (where core temp sensors lie), and as the critical dimension decreases the small areas that consume high wattage, get smaller and if consuming same power then much hotter temps. I posted this slide few days ago (and one just like it few years ago). But shrinking CD going from 32 to 22nm, unless you decrease the power, you increase the local thermal density of hot spots. 150W consumed over small enough area = nuclear reactor temps. See slide below.
That being said, solder thermal resistance on one cpu was ~ 0.01C/W (irrelevant other than ratios). Cooling 150 watts, that would be 1.5C gradient across solder interface. There are paste die attaches (requiring baking at 150C to set/cure/reduce air pockets voids) that at best still measure several x higher resistance than solder, cost varies, resistance varies per package, and no one knows what intel is using. But baked on die pastes are better than user tim, I guess we arent using them since curing is at 150C, similar temps to intels solder tim. But if 5x more resistance, then would be 6C temp difference between solder and paste at 150W and less than 3C at stock settings (incorrectly assuming resistance same on ivy vs one measured, and assuming ratio similar). But without a starting point, left guessing, other than clearly will be some significant difference at 150W oced.
As to the individual that removed the IHS and replaced with user tim, would need to reproduce die attach resistance (bondline thickness/contact resistance/bulk thermal conductance) and contact pressure otherwise not any better than guessing. Tim1 interface much more important than tim2, as surface area many times smaller via size difference of die/ihs, and die much less uniform heat/still hot spots vs less so with ihs.
pd.jpg
-Project Sakura-
Intel i7 860 @ 4.0Ghz, Asus Maximus III Formula, 8GB G-Skill Ripjaws X F3 (@ 1600Mhz), 2x GTX 295 Quad SLI
2x 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 RAID 0, OCZ ZX 1000W, NZXT Phantom (Pink), Dell SX2210T Touch Screen, Windows 8.1 Pro
Koolance RP-401X2 1.1 (w/ Swiftech MCP35X), XSPC EX420, XSPC X-Flow 240, DT Sniper, EK-FC 295s (w/ RAM Blocks), Enzotech M3F Mosfet+NB/SB
Not news really, but Techreport explained the heat issue the easy way - just look at the overvolting needed for IB compared to SB at 4.9 GHz: 33.6% vs 11.4%.
I have no doubt that IB will benefit from a newer stepping, although I'm not sure it'll will show up, given that Haswell isn't far away.
Last edited by Mats; 04-29-2012 at 06:12 PM.
Competition ranking;
2005; Netbyte, Karise/Denmark #1 @ PiFast
2008; AOCM II, Minfeld/Germany #2 @ 01SE/AM3/8M (w. Oliver)
2009; AMD-OC, Viborg/Denmark #2 @ max freq Gigabyte TweaKING, Paris/France #4 @ 32M/01SE (w. Vanovich)
2010: Gigabyte P55, Hamburg/Germany #6 @ wprime 1024/SPI 1M (w. THC) AOCM III, Minfeld/Germany #6 @ 01SE/AM3/1M/8M (w. NeoForce)
Spectating;
2010; GOOC 2010 Many thanks to Gigabyte!
needs more vapor chamber, not heat pipe. vapor chambers keep getting better and better, and it is only a matter of time before they are appropriate for this application, if they arent already. high end video card chips put more heat into their vapor chambers than most cpu heatsinks will ever get...
The Cardboard Master Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64
Thinking outside the box for a minute, I bet removing or lapping your the IHS would void Intel's overclocking insurance...
Last edited by initialised; 04-30-2012 at 05:37 AM. Reason: clarity
Intel i7 920 C0 @ 3.67GHz
ASUS 6T Deluxe
Powercolor 7970 @ 1050/1475
12GB GSkill Ripjaws
Antec 850W TruePower Quattro
50" Full HD PDP
Red Cosmos 1000
Intel tells that its due to the heat density which is a result of die shrink:
http://www.maximum-tech.net/intel-ad...-shrink-12410/
Other staff claims that it is because we should rethink cooling, it isnt Intels fault, everyone else whom are redneck suckers.
Anyhow, a realistic combination is DIE shrink, with higher ratio of GPU:CPU, the surface area of CPU has decreased alot...
Intel could solve it by using half layer on the wafer, and double the surface area... But that would cost way too much, and if not entirely redesign the chip, it would hit performance (further distance in DIE)...
Just my thought.
Competition ranking;
2005; Netbyte, Karise/Denmark #1 @ PiFast
2008; AOCM II, Minfeld/Germany #2 @ 01SE/AM3/8M (w. Oliver)
2009; AMD-OC, Viborg/Denmark #2 @ max freq Gigabyte TweaKING, Paris/France #4 @ 32M/01SE (w. Vanovich)
2010: Gigabyte P55, Hamburg/Germany #6 @ wprime 1024/SPI 1M (w. THC) AOCM III, Minfeld/Germany #6 @ 01SE/AM3/1M/8M (w. NeoForce)
Spectating;
2010; GOOC 2010 Many thanks to Gigabyte!
2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case
would some IVY model without graphic core release soon like 2550K
Intel Core i5 6600K + ASRock Z170 OC Formula + Galax HOF 4000 (8GBx2) + Antec 1200W OC Version
EK SupremeHF + BlackIce GTX360 + Swiftech 655 + XSPC ResTop
Macbook Pro 15" Late 2011 (i7 2760QM + HD 6770M)
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014) , Huawei Nexus 6P
[history system]80286 80386 80486 Cyrix K5 Pentium133 Pentium II Duron1G Athlon1G E2180 E3300 E5300 E7200 E8200 E8400 E8500 E8600 Q9550 QX6800 X3-720BE i7-920 i3-530 i5-750 Semp140@x2 955BE X4-B55 Q6600 i5-2500K i7-2600K X4-B60 X6-1055T FX-8120 i7-4790K
Competition ranking;
2005; Netbyte, Karise/Denmark #1 @ PiFast
2008; AOCM II, Minfeld/Germany #2 @ 01SE/AM3/8M (w. Oliver)
2009; AMD-OC, Viborg/Denmark #2 @ max freq Gigabyte TweaKING, Paris/France #4 @ 32M/01SE (w. Vanovich)
2010: Gigabyte P55, Hamburg/Germany #6 @ wprime 1024/SPI 1M (w. THC) AOCM III, Minfeld/Germany #6 @ 01SE/AM3/1M/8M (w. NeoForce)
Spectating;
2010; GOOC 2010 Many thanks to Gigabyte!
http://vr-zone.com/articles/ivy-brid...ase/15844.html
They should have done the same with a 2700K as a comparison.
Last edited by Mats; 05-11-2012 at 04:26 AM.
The thanks button appears to be missing, but thanks Mats.
They couldn't do the same with a 2700K though; SNB is soldered.
[XC] gomeler - Public note: If you PM me to tell me that I am disrespectful at least have space in your PM box so I can tell you I don't care.
[XC] gomeler - I come to the news section to ban people, not read complaints.
I heart gomeler!
Yeah but you know, heat it up and remove it.
a stable 5GHz overclock on air at 1.55V
Last edited by Mats; 05-11-2012 at 04:39 AM.
Why is it that some people seem to see a huge difference in temps after delidding and others see almost none? ...but changing thermal paste nets 10-15c+?
O_o
Last edited by BeepBeep2; 05-11-2012 at 04:56 AM.
Smile
I have a 3770k coming next week. Really tempted to pop the top on her now. Gonna be water cooled so might even be able to go above 5ghz. Would tim like as5 and mx-4 work?
3770k
asrock z77 extreme6
G.SKILL Sniper F3-17000CL9Q-16GBSR
asus 5870
wd 1tb black
Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD
Bookmarks