Ah its debates like this which is why i joined procooling none of this geforce penis extender stuff.
On the IHS i personally prefer to have it added as it simulates the real world but adding with the full knowledge that thermodynamically it makes the results poo as stew points out. The IHS has a number of effects that cannot easily be taken away. If your running a proper testing rig you should probably develop a correction factor / formula / testing mythology to account for said effects but I’ve not seen anyone postulate a a good one or account for it in testing data properly. Doing a bare die without IHS correction is in my opinion worse than an IHS on a repeatable accurate testing rig (set a die up and keep using and make sure that it doesn’t change much). Give me a repeatable real world test over fancy Dan stuff any day.
Looking at the geometry of it i can’t get it into my head how it would beat a storm g4 design but I am willing to accept that this is a gut feeling that could well be wrong, At the end of the day manufacturer testing is good but some independent data would be luvly.
My concern with this block is that it will do well on a test rig and be awful in actual long term usage. The base depth concerns me greatly the reason is it is going to flex and going to flex over time possibly gradually separating from the thermal paste. Also the thinness means that heat cannot be spread easily through the block as there is enough transfer thickness to move heat evenly around. This extra thickness will degrade performance as its ultimately insulation but a real processor is not a single temperature field like a die sim(high conductivity base, heat will follow the easiest path) but a more varied distribution where heat needs to be moved around in the block (as silicon is not conductive).
|