What are the differences in waterblocks designed for direct die cooling vs IHS cooling? I would expect completely flat base for direct die, but what else? The whole direct die cooling era was before my time :D. Id imagine the pins and channels in the block were more centralized than spread out, but that is just a guess This analogy has no facts to prove this theory either a test of removing IHS and have direct contact needs to be done to confirm.
If this theory was true then water cooling would not help. The heat would build up and not make high enough dissipation for water cooling to be affective.
A heat barrier is like not locking down your heat sink then the temp is high and nothing will cool it. I would be very surprised if they would switch this "secret sauce" for solder on later chips Nice editorial Matt! Glad to see the discussion from the Ivy review got made into an informative frontpage article.
Hopefully the TIM is only on the review samples. I don't know if that comment is accurate in any way, but brownie points because it made me laugh.
I suspected that SB was soldered, proof is in the pudding. Hoping this thread exposes their choice enough to make them rethink the process. Thanks Jonnie. I'm not totally convinced that TIM paste will be a permanent feature really One might actually suspect that retail units will be soldered, and what we've found and explained in this article is more meaningful for the preliminary results we're seeing in most of the reviews and forums about Ivy getting hot when overclocked.
So there you have it, Ivy Bridge runs hotter than Sandy Bridge when overclocked but offers reduced power consumption and meets Intel's expectations at stock speeds. If you are interested in overclocking, make certain to purchase an adequate cooling solution or hold off on Ivy Bridge until the next stepping, which may improve overclocking capabilities. Topics Build Your Own. See all comments I guess ivy burns better than sand!
See what I did there? Oh noes! Intel Fanboys gonna be so mad. Jul 12, 3, 2 0. BallaTheFeared said:. Diogenes2 said:. May 19, 14, 5, I agree. Dec 6, 3, 6 0. Don Karnage said:. Broadwell wont be here till so why would they delay it? Also ivy bridge is amazing at stock speeds and volts. It just gets hot when overclocked. Jul 29, 1, 0 0. Im so tempted to buy an ivy just for fun but I just ran intel burn test at 4.
Edrick Golden Member. Feb 18, 1, Intel haven't quite nailed 22nm yet. God Mode Platinum Member. Jul 2, 2, 0 The K may just be their first attempt at pushing it as far as possible. Last edited: Apr 30, Apr 21, 44 0 0. Maybe multiprocessing will make a comeback either by putting more than one chip on a motherboard or by putting more than one processor on a single die?
Apr 19, 5, 2 I like the quote " Although our tests were conducted on the statistically irrelevant sample size of one". Ivy was delayed due to fab process issues and SB-E was delayed due to chipset problems. Then there's the Cougar Point issues last year and Ive-E being pushed back. Needless to say even chipzilla runs into problems, it's just that we don't really notice them as much because AMD is so far behind. But the cost of silicon is largely footprint based — not volume based.
So, doubling the footprint would improve the cooling quite a bit, but would also double the cost of silicon, and it would not be a good option for Intel or consumers. Temperature would be the thermal compound under the cap. The further you overclock it, the more heat it produces of a logarithmic nature not linear.
A particularly power hungry mobo, perhaps? But the reason why IB and SB have the same max clock frequency at the same voltage is still somewhat of mystery to me. With the new process and faster transistors I would expect the same voltage to yield higher clocks in essentially the same architecture….
The real improvements in 22 nm process node come in the next generation when the chip is redesigned to take advantage of the process and work around the issues like this. Clock vs clock performance at high OC levels… It could make for an interesting comparison and outcome.
This is how most graphic cards are put together. The heat spreader just keeps the chip from getting damaged since it is a removable component. I would think a cooler with continuous contact would be ideal. Hmm… not quite. They seem to scale the clocks just fine, and they do so at lower voltage than 32 nm Sandy, but the problem is that they get difficult to keep cool.
This is because it is also much smaller, and since power heat dissipation is partially dependent upon surface area and Ivy Bridge has less surface area to work with, the chip is more difficult to cool. The second part of the two-fold is the thermal interface material used in Ivy Bridge between the actual piced of silicon and the metal cap that covers it.
Intel switched to some different kind of material. Sandy Bridge apparently used some kind of soldier and that would transfer heat extremely effectively. Ivy Bridge uses something different — what, exactly, Intel has not said — but it seems to be less effective at transferring heat than the soldier used in Sandy Bridge. Reworking a soldered heat-spreader could be much more tricky. My guess is the solder method has a non-zero failure rate.
Dave at RWT had an interesting take on this, tri-gate seems to change the dynamics of voltage tweaking for OC purposes:. This is model reduces the entire thermal gradient from the temperature sensor in the CPU to the ambient air as one system.
I think the main thing holding IVB back is the power density. Intel probably never intended for 22 nm 1. Well, since we know IB will run at 4. There is no one reason. You are partially right. The important thing to measure the temperature of Ivy and Sandy is the Delta from the room. So its good for intel profits.
But intel is in the business of making money,IVY will do that for them. Hopefully they have something up their sleeve along the lines of Gulftown, and release an 8-core SB-E for desktops.
I build DAWs, and digital audio benefits from as many cores as possible. Ivy Bridge is still a great step ahead when it comes to anything but overclocking. Using a ring oscillator to detect the temperature, though, could work as fin channel temperature would affect the oscillation frequency.. I agree with you that this is partly the reason the smaller die size still plays a role, though.. I think the small die size and the poor thermal contact to the heat spreader are more likely to be the culprits.
You do not need to use absolute temperatures degrees Kelvin or Rankine for heat transfer calculations. It could be done using the thermal voltage of a diode, or the frequency of an oscillator on the chip. The normal convention is to use the log-mean temperature difference. I can show you with number is if you like. Yep, upon reflection, I agree with this. My current Q transfers heat very well with the Corsair CPU water cooler, so the corsair radiator fan and the big case fans can and do run very slowly.
At these slow speeds, they produce no discernable fan noise. I should have said in my post that I never overclock. I just never feel the need to mess with it. The primary reason is to prepare to retire my current 5-year-old components in an orderly manner before they pop a bad surprise on me. I can wait another year if necessary, but I would rather not wait another two years.
Use the same cooler and take the temp from a fin in the cooler, or multiple places on the cooler. If the IB gets hotter than the SB, its transferring heat just fine and just makes more of it. Have overclockers considered the fact that 22nm process with Tri-gates is simply leaky when you feed it with more volts?
The power consumption results from overvolting makes this painfully apparent. Considering that Ivy Bridge die has a smaller surface area to dissipate wattages comparable to Sandy-Bridge-E chips at similar clockspeeds. It is really no surprise that Ivy Bridge gets to be toasty when you try to push it hard.
Prescott is perhaps the most famous example. It was barely faster clockspeed-wise than Northwood, but was stuck with an architecture that require high clockspeed to overcome its IPC inefficiencies.
It is likely because the 22nm process with Tri-Gates just is leaky. However, we already know that the heat transfer for the two systems is W and W neglecting power supply efficiency and motherboard VRM heat output.
If you want to derive the heat transfer coefficient of the cooler, you would use the ambient air temp and the area of the fins. I said it was likely. It was a prediction. You should be comparing the temperature of the processor to the temperature of the air being used to cool it. Thermal runaway is more something that happens with BJT class-A power amps. Not just runaway. CMOS devices run better at lower temperatures. Temperature increases as the amount of heat in an a given mass increases.
Actually, transferring heat well lowers the temerature difference over a thermal junction and allows the rest of the cooling solution to run slower. You are going to come to a thermal balance. All that changing the efficacy of thermal transfer does is decrease the temperature of the item being cooled. Are we slated for a socket refresh this year, presumably an Ivy Bridge-E chip?
It seems like with the die shrink, they should be able to pack more cores on it. As others mentioned all that needs to be done now is to have the heatspreader chopped off in a dramatic fashion as you risk life and limb to achieve the absolute best possible in technological benchmarking.
The review aside, I would put money on Intel trying to limit the results of overclocking on these early samples with a different thermal compound. A tiny fraction of actual users will risk destroying their CPU by removing the heat spreader for a small boost in cooling. Maybe Intel wants that too? So there is risk involved with actually pushing the CPU a lot further as you can destroy your CPU merely by trying to overclock it all the way.
That would end up netting them some money too as people pull off part of the die with the spreader. Not everyone needs to release a peer reviewed paper with statistical analysis showing their personal results.
0コメント