TIM is Behind Ivy Bridge Temperatures After All

I feel I should point out that a change in load temperature from 61 degrees Celcius (334K) to 50 degrees Celcius (323K) is a change of 3.29%, not 18%.

 

This actually might be a deal breaker for me. I might go the 2500k route not the 3570k.

 

Stop trying to start a flame war, I mean Trickson hasn't even posted so your obsession with his fanboy-ism is kind of disturbing. Grow up and stop mentioning Trickson every time Intel appears to do something incorrect, but correct me if I'm wrong but IVB is still faster than anything AMD has got so I wouldn't even start on this battle considering it isn't what this thread is about. I'm sick and tired of your fueling every AMD flame war that shows up on TPU and you really need to learn when enough is enough.

As far as the TIM, people who have IVB already have it so a stepping won't do them any good. Going on, if Intel is planning on releasing another stepping, replacing the TIM might not be a bad idea, but honestly, if an enthusiast want to OC higher, the user might just try replacing the TIM them-self.

 

pædagogans!

 

Meh. Ivy isn't supposed to be given more than 1.35 volts anyway. All the action came at 1.4+, really 1.5/5GHz.

Would Ivy have better thermals with a soldered IHS? Sure. But do bad thermals impair the OCability of the chip?

That's a question for the lawyers. I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'll argue that electromigration is more damaging to Ivy Bridge than heat. So:

Intel put the paste on because it was good enough.

The paste is good enough because Ivy can't handle high voltages.

End of story. According to Intel's lawyers. I don't know how it works in reality, but I'm satisfied getting my 3570k up to 4.7.

 

Actually the decrease is 19,355% (going from 62°C to 50°C)

 

Since you're being pedantic, I'd like to point out that we should be comparing delta Ts, i.e. temperature difference from ambient which was 24°C according to the first image.

So the change was from (61-24) 37°ΔC to (50-24) 26°ΔC , or a change of 29.7%

 

Imo, I'd remove the IHS and place my block directly on that chip oldschool. That would definitely give me better temps.

 

The main problem with direct contact is that you can actually crumble the chip if you apply too much pressure or you apply the pressure on one edge too strongly.

 

What a pity that they use TIM. I wonder why? Gonna get an Ivy even with the temps - I want PCIE 3.0 for my next GPU upgrade.

 

Strange TIM is indeed placed under the IHS on these chips.

They could have at least place TIM under the non K chips.

 

TIM is easier to use with MCP package chips that haswell and broadwell will be I guess. So get used to it. Besides the cpu doesn't need any more oc headroom. Anyway the scaling is bad above 1.2V with only 100Mhz for each 0.1V so I don't like it.

 

Thing is, for the people who don't want to touch their CPU it's a bad thing tbey decided to use the weaker material. I am interested in removing the IHS if it's safe when done correctly but not yet. This is really the first chip and board I got to bothee to OC with and it looks like I'll have to go that route eventually.

 

May I say that I never mentioned the word AMD in a defensive way or insinuated performance results or a consumer choice. So Maybe the fanboy or flame war starter is closer to home.

I've been looking to upgrade my rig to Ivy for weeks now. This TIM stuff has put me off. I'm hoping Intel has something in the works otherwise my money is staying in my wallet.

 

I'm not talking about AMD, I'l talk about you trying to start a flame war with Trickson for what he believes. Stop getting on his case when he isn't around.

 

who care about i5/i7 with attached overpriced crappy video chip

big question is what they will put in Xeon parts (which have HT, no vga, and better priced)

we will know after 14th may 2012 (xeon ivy release date)

 

If only Intel would say WHY they decided to use TIM instead of solder. Maybe they are retooling and didn't want to delay Ivy, so they used TIM in the meantime? Was there a technical problem using solder on Ivy? They could have went on Newegg and ordered some better TIM. The whole situation seems totally unnecessary and a result of carelessness during planning.

 

Well if Intel is true hopefully they will do something about this.

I just bought an IB CPU.... serves me right for adopting early. Well I can sell this and my SB and buy a SB-E setup!

 

Not if you want to overclock. If you leave your hardware stock, it might be faster for the same price, yes.

 

Removed.

 

if you want overclock - it is better to use sandy bridge
ivy i5/i7 is useless for everyone except fans of intel gpu
sandy for overclockers
xeon ivy to take advantage of new tech - for stability performance and temperatures

 

Ivy Bridge still has better IPC than Sandy Bridge and the temperatures aren't THAT bad, you can reach high clocks with adequate cooling so why would you say that it is useless?

 

Can you even get CPU's without stupid GPU being integrated in the die?

 

IB is faster clock for clock. An IB typical max OC ends up performing better than a SB typical max OC despite the clockspeed deficit, and uses less power in the process.

a) You've missed my point.
b) Where did you get 62°C from?

The article text references temperatures rather than temperature deltas, but as it happens I think you make a good point. 29.7% should probably be the headline figure.

 

Hahahahaa !

I sucessfully shaved IHS off from my 3570k.
Removed socket holder and directly mounted the Heatkiller waterblock on it !

I now have 15 °C better Temps !

Before i had 4,6 Hhz @ 1.32 V @ 80°C

Now i have the same config @ 65 °C.

So its a nice drop !!!