|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 14th May 2012 19:12 Post subject: Ivy Bridge hotter due to thermal paste. |
|
 |
Seems like Intel cheaped out a little bit with their thermal paste, which would explain why Ivy Bridge has such poor thermals at stock and OCed, compared to Sandy Bridge.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/14/intel-ivy-bridge-thermal-paste/
| Quote: |
For all the good stuff it brings, Ivy Bridge has also been running a little hotter than reviewers and overclockers might have liked -- and that's putting it mildly. A few weeks back, Overclockers discovered a possible culprit: regular thermal paste that sits between the CPU die and the outwardly-visible heatspreader plate. By contrast, Intel splashed out on fluxless solder in this position in its Sandy Bridge processors, which is known have much greater thermal conductivity. Now, Japanese site PC Watch has taken the next logical step, by replacing the stock thermal paste in a Core i7-3770K with a pricier aftermarket alternative to see what would happen. Just like that, stock clock temperatures dropped by 18 percent, while overclocked temperatures (4GHz at 1.2V) fell by 23 percent. Better thermals allowed the chip to sustain higher core voltages and core clock speeds and thereby deliver greater performance.
|
~edit~
Ouch... looks like this news is almost three weeks old >_<
http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures
Oh well, sorry guys 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34984
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon, 14th May 2012 21:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting, though since Intel aren't supplying a stock fan unit with their current processor lineup anymore I guess many will go for a third party alternative from the beginning (Maybe not top of the line stuff but still.) although come to think of it I guess many might go for Intel's separate fan model too, thermal paste can be pretty tricky too with different so called burn in periods or how to best apply it but it's not too difficult to learn and nowadays many custom cooling solutions come bundled with quite OK paste already.
(Usually shops here don't have that much variety but I like to check various tests and try and keep up to date, existing stuff like Arctic Silver still holds out pretty well but more chemical solutions and other substances have proven pretty effective, one test I read also used common mayonnaise which surprisingly competed with many mid-range products though like they said it's probably not something you should rely on for longer uses, hah.)
Still it's unfortunate that they cut costs where it might be important to try and keep quality and performance, you don't want poor fan and thermal material performance with a modern CPU which might have cost a fair amount of money.
(Again I'm a bit unsure what to say, at least the paste can be replaced but that takes a bit of care and ideally some specific solution to clean off the old paste nicely before adding the new one.)
EDIT: Oh right this goes for AMD and Nvidia hardware too, sometimes that paste and thermal pad material is very poorly applied and on occasion might not even have proper contact, this also goes for a number of third party models from what I remember but I believe things have improved quite a bit by now.
(AMD is using that vapor chamber cooling type system for example and Nvidia have come a long way since the early 400 series, current 600 model is apparently nearly silent while still offering good performance, probably has some really nice fan profiles set in bios too.)
Last edited by JBeckman on Mon, 14th May 2012 21:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 14th May 2012 21:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Naw JB, it's not the HSF thermal paste.. but the paste used between the chip and the integrated heat-spreader plate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34984
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 14th May 2012 21:24 Post subject: |
|
|
What surprises me is that Intel would skimp on the IHS thermal paste anyhow, it's the one part of the chip the vast majority of PC builders don't mess with (I've only ever taken off one IHS in my entire life) - so cheaping out on that grease, only to cause 18-25% thermal increase, is just... puzzling.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 14th May 2012 21:37 Post subject: |
|
|
I find it hard to beleive they changed the pre-applied grease on the included retail HSF; That even changing it would make for a 18 percent difference. I need to see a larger data pool. These guys could have just gotten a bum part from the get-go, or potentially screwed up the install on the pre-applied grease. If you fuck up putting the thing on (Some people don't understand the simple 4 push-pin concept) and try again the stuff won't be properly spread. The thermal grease they were/are using is the bottom barrel shit as it is. You can't get any worse. The only 'worse' option would be thermal tape or nothing at all.
Oh, nevermind.
Yeah, seems to be a bit retarded doing that. I'd rather pay the extra $1 instead of that grease shit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 14th May 2012 21:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Official intel response is: "We are using a different package thermal technology on 3rd Generation Intel Core desktop processors (Ivy Bridge). Coupled with the higher thermal density of the 22nm process shrink, users may observe higher operating temperatures when overclocking."
I think the heat increase is mostly due to higher density, because I've seen conflicting reports about the IHS. Some people see no difference by changing the paste.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
