Wednesday, May 27th 2020

Intel Slightly Upgrades Stock Coolers for Some of its Higher 10th Gen Core and Xeon-W

Intel is packing a slightly improved stock heatsink-fan (HSF) cooling solution with some of its higher-end 10th generation Core desktop and select Xeon-W processors. The cooler, while nowhere close in size or weight to the TS15A, features a slightly thicker heatsink with a copper core, compared to the one included with lower-end parts such as the i5-10400. This heatsink's primary material is black anodized aluminium, with a copper core. The fan's cable is now black sleeved, instead of being a loose bunch of four ketchup-and-mustard wires. The hub of the fan, which usually had a white or blue label with ugly regulatory markings, now has a solid grey sticker with just the Intel logo.

There are no performance numbers, but the cooler looks physically similar to the copper core coolers Intel used to include with some of its oldest LGA115x processors, such as "Lynnfield" and " Sandy Bridge," capable of handling 95 W TDP. Intel is including the cooler with the Core i9-10900, the i9-10900F, i7-10700F, i7-10700; and Xeon W-1290, W-1270, and W-1250 boxed processors in the DIY retail channel.
Sources: NguyencongPC, ChipHell Forums, Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Intel Slightly Upgrades Stock Coolers for Some of its Higher 10th Gen Core and Xeon-W

#1
Caring1
This looks much better than the stock, shiny alloy cooler, although I'm sure it won't be suitable for an i9-10900.
Posted on Reply
#2
$ReaPeR$
Still with those damn stupid plastic pins..
Posted on Reply
#3
Vario
$ReaPeR$
Still with those damn stupid plastic pins..
These units aren't bad if you use a bolt, washers, and a nut but the plastic pins are the real reason they don't cool well stock.
Posted on Reply
#4
EntropyZ
Oh, so they brought back the copper slug that existed on the radiators with the socket 775 chips already. *yawn*

Still garbage even for a 65W chip.
Posted on Reply
#5
$ReaPeR$
Vario
These units aren't bad if you use a bolt, washers, and a nut but the plastic pins are the real reason they don't cool well stock.
They are serviceable. For the vast majority of users. Their cooling performance is not hindered by the plastic pins but by their design, they do the job but those pins are shit when it comes to repasting and cleaning the cooler. I hope next time they follow AMD s lead with their wraith screw mounting points.
EntropyZ
Oh, so they brought back the copper slug that existed on the radiators with the socket 775 chips already. *yawn*

Still garbage even for a 65W chip.
Lol yes hehehe
I think they're fine for factory settings tho.
Posted on Reply
#6
Animalpak
Do not think to overclock with that on your CPU. Pathetic " cooler "
Posted on Reply
#7
Th3pwn3r
POA.

Paperweight on arrival.
Posted on Reply
#9
hat
Enthusiast
It's still the same half-height cooler they introduced during the Core 2 Duo times. It may have worked okay on the 65w E8400, but not these.
Posted on Reply
#10
Paganstomp
Put some paint and stickers on it and call it an "Upgrade". :D
Posted on Reply
#11
Gmr_Chick
Awww, it's so cuuuute! :roll:

Seriously, even a basic Hyper 212 from Cooler Master is better than this... :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#12
ratirt
Upgrade? Intel you cheap bastard :)
Posted on Reply
#13
laszlo
ratirt
Upgrade? Intel you cheap bastard :)
is a "huge" upgrade - the cables are sleeved!
Posted on Reply
#14
Crackong
This is just the good old 4th gen stock cooler painted black......
Posted on Reply
#15
londiste
There are no performance numbers, but the cooler looks physically similar to the copper core coolers Intel used to include with some of its oldest LGA115x processors, such as "Lynnfield" and " Sandy Bridge," capable of handling 95 W TDP.
That cooler was used for 65W TDP CPUs, not 95W.
Listed CPUs are also 65W, so it won't be great but it'll work.
Paganstomp
Put some paint and stickers on it and call it an "Upgrade". :D
These stock things have not had copper inserts for a while. So it is an upgrade, even if a small one.
Posted on Reply
#16
ShurikN
Caring1
This looks much better than the stock, shiny alloy cooler, although I'm sure it won't be suitable for an i9-10900.
This cooler is barely suitable for smaller 65W cpus let alone a 10 core one.
I personally wouldn't put this thing on anything higher than a pentium.
Posted on Reply
#17
Melvis
Is this the biggest news from Intel in the last 10 years? since everything else has just been a yawn fest.
Posted on Reply
#18
dyonoctis
For a company that sells itself as being premium, I don't understand why they are being so cheap about the cooler. AMD got less money, but can do it better...
Posted on Reply
#19
ratirt
Maybe it will spin faster.
Posted on Reply
#20
londiste
ShurikN
This cooler is barely suitable for smaller 65W cpus let alone a 10 core one.
I personally wouldn't put this thing on anything higher than a pentium.
We will have to see how this goes with 10-series but there has been a notable difference between how Intel K-models are running by default and how non-K models run by default. While we all have seen K-models consuming ungodly amounts of power, non-K models generally stick to the TDP for power limit with lower PL2 and Tau values for boost.
Posted on Reply
#21
hat
Enthusiast
Still, Intel can't afford to stay efficient when fighting off AMD with an old architecture on an old node. This cooler would have worked for the i7 7700, maybe even the i7 8700. I wouldn't expect the 8700 to hold turbo properly on all cores, though. With the 9 series and above, they started cramming in more cores at higher clocks than this old node and architecture can normally handle. They're effectively factory overclocked. They're way out of the efficiency curve with next to no headroom left.
Posted on Reply
#22
Octavean
hat
Still, Intel can't afford to stay efficient when fighting off AMD with an old architecture on an old node. This cooler would have worked for the i7 7700, maybe even the i7 8700. I wouldn't expect the 8700 to hold turbo properly on all cores, though. With the 9 series and above, they started cramming in more cores at higher clocks than this old node and architecture can normally handle. They're effectively factory overclocked. They're way out of the efficiency curve with next to no headroom left.
You said it right there,...

An old architecture on an old node so no surprise when it comes to an old cooler,.....

See, this is why we can’t have nice things,..... :)
Posted on Reply
#23
londiste
hat
Still, Intel can't afford to stay efficient when fighting off AMD with an old architecture on an old node. This cooler would have worked for the i7 7700, maybe even the i7 8700. I wouldn't expect the 8700 to hold turbo properly on all cores, though. With the 9 series and above, they started cramming in more cores at higher clocks than this old node and architecture can normally handle. They're effectively factory overclocked. They're way out of the efficiency curve with next to no headroom left.
This is my point - Intel's non-K models do not hold that excessive turbo. The boost period is still there but is actually limited with the long-term power limit set at TDP.
Posted on Reply
#24
Elysium
This is just plain pathetic. If a reality existed where the Wraith Spire was socket cross-compatible, it would completely cuck this thing, and the Max/Prism would cuck the TS15A too.
Posted on Reply
#25
hurakura
95W cooler for a 200+W cpu. slight upgrade
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment