Sorry Bill,
The moment you can come up with a suitable explanation for the TTV data for the stupendously crippled XP, a block which has an even smaller main cooling patch than a Storm, then I'll for 1 moment consider that the TTV's die->IHS TIM layer is invariable.
You've seen the data. I at least attempt to make an explanation for the reasons for it, rather than sticking one's head in the sand and blindly sticking to one's guns in the face that what is seen is simply and utterly not possible, both in theory and in practise.
This has come down to one simple basic point. I refuse to accept that which is theoretically impossible. You can't change the laws of physics. You can't just blindly accept that a well known and analysed design (re: the XP) is achieving an h(eff) that is now projecting to be between 5-10x higher than that which was ever thought possible, or has an h(eff) 5-10x higher than anyone has ever independently shown, and the ONLY new data point is the TTV that suggests this.
As it stands, the Apogee's results with the 3mm base-plate would need to have an h(eff) that is around 2x-3x that which has ever been independently speculated for any design, anywhere, for the empirical TTV results to be true.
I utterly, completely and catergorically deny that some waterblock design that is at heart minimally different to those which have come before it (re: MCW5000), has suddenly extracted a ~10x h(eff) improvement with what is really quite minimal design changes.
Can change a lot of things, but can't change the basic laws of physics. H(eff) between the small die and large die results shown to date all form an incredible disjunction the moment the TTV data is put into the picture. In prior history, all results roughly correlated.
Why?
I AM asking the questions. Problem that I see here is someone who very stubbornly doesn't like to even suggest an answer, who is postulating that nearly 100 years of theory should suddenly be thrown out the door because Intel made a TTV. Sorry, I don't buy it.
|