Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unregistered
it doesn't really matter, cancels out with the same source - or a correlation is developed if the interest and data are sufficient
|
Well, not really. If the heat-die to IHS TIM interaction is varying with respect to block geometry, which I strongly believe was shown with the XP results, then it does matter.
If the IHS is not being pushed against the heat-due strongly, or there are variations, then the thermal probe will read differently when the IHS is making poor contact with the heat-die. If such is not quantified, or that variable not removed, then what is being measured?
In order to remove this variable, the simulated die and the IHS need to be a single-piece affair, and in doing so the issue is solved. When can then use TIM layer extrapolations/experiments/calculations to apply a project temperature delta when a die->IHS TIM layer is present. Doing so does not take into account the full variability of this thermal interface, but attempt to derive a "clear picture" of waterblock performance when such a variable is in effect seems flawed. No?