- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 421 (0.09/day)
- Location
- Quodam loco Albanianae
System Name | The Dark side of the room |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X |
Motherboard | MSI MEG X570 Unify |
Cooling | Custom loop watercooling (Bykski CPU-XPR-POM-M-V2, Alphacool Eisblock GPX, Freezemod PU-PWM5B18W) |
Memory | GSkill Ripjaws V DDR4 3600 CL16 (4 x 16GB) |
Video Card(s) | XFX Speedster QICK 319 Radeon RX 6700 XT |
Storage | 1 x Kingston KC3000 1024GB (boot drive) + 2 x Kingston NV2 2TB (games & storage) |
Display(s) | LG 34WP65C Ultrawide 3440x1440 @ 160Hz freesync premium |
Case | Thermaltake Core P90 TG (slightly modded) |
Audio Device(s) | onboard Realtek® ALC1220 with Logitech Z906 |
Power Supply | MSI MAG A850GF 80 Plus Gold |
Mouse | Generic |
Keyboard | Sharkoon Skiller SGK60 (with brown Kalih switches) |
Software | Windows 11 pro |
Benchmark Scores | It's a form of exhibitionism...;-), but fun in a way But showing off is triggering............. |
With theoretical numbers you're absolutely right, but I can't recall any review or practical test where only the Ni has been removed (not lapped) from the IHS and the cooling solution gained 6 to 7 degrees Celsius difference in efficiency.But I do need to differ, as Ni has thermal conductivity (later TC) of ~58W/mK, Cu has TC of about ~380W/mK, while CPU IHS has TC of ~315W/mK.
Why has CPU IHS so much less TC then Cu? Well, because of the Ni plating, which has about 6~7 times less TC.
So putting pure Cu CPU IHS will get you something of more TC, but it is better to scrape down the Ni & to have rougher surface (not polished).
Why? Again, you can so more damage with replacing CPU IHS, then using fine sanding paper & getting rid of that Ni from the top.
If it was this easy, don't you think the chipmakers would have omitted the nickel plating on the outside of the IHS, as that area is quite simple to mask during the Nickel application process (electrolytic or chemically).
Like mentioned before, the contact surfaces between the IHS & cooling plate being convex or concave, the applied TIM, the mounting pressure and even more variables have a way bigger impact than just this thin layer of Nickel. So in my opinion removing it is just a waste of time and voiding warranty on the chip.
Even if you think Noci is talking BS and you do remove the 58 W/mK Nickel layer, you still have to apply a TIM with an average TC of 5 W/mK and in the end there is no gain.
Just try to imagine heat being a liquid flowing through a piping system at a fixed pressure. This system has several restrictions in diameter, where the smallest diameter (in this case representing the lowest TC) is the biggest flow restriction.
Once you remove that one, then you go to the next one that is the smallest and so on until there is no flow restriction anymore. No use to remove the second one if the first one is still in the system.
That's why I mentioned fabrication & application techniques still have to mature, but many scientists are lyric about it's potential.Well, not sure...as Graphene I have looked about & found it is electrically conductive (so that is a no go) & also is very thermally polarized in its conduciveness (more conductive in line with the sheet or straws, less conductive perpendicular to sheets or straws). So although this is a good example & it is an interesting material, it can't solve anything!
If you don't want an electrical conductive TIM, you're pretty much restricted to this average 5 W/mK TIM layer. Electrical conductive TIM's like Graphene and Gallium (liquid metal) have been proven solutions for the best results, but yes they do introduce certain risks.
Unless you're a hardcore OC'er, it's better to get educated on proper TIM application, perfect mounting of your cooler than trying exotic solutions that have a big risk factor and hardly an impact on the cooling efficiency.
Note, I'm talking about efficiency, not capacity that's another story.
Last edited: