Swiftech Apoggee review by Robotech systemcooling

[bigben2k]

0/094 = 2.3876mm, not 2.8376...

Weird. This could have a big impact on testing.

[Roscal]

The impact is big, we can't ignore it ! When AMD will use solder (I hope) to get out their poor TIM1, all people will be about on a same basis. Then, no more BS and false pretexts about WB testing because IHS will be attached permanently ! Datasheets show facts about IHS, I compiled the 3 majors parts here :



AMD IHS were always thicker than Intel ones, not a suprise if you get the 2 models in your hands. And the more thicker the IHS is, the less difference you'll get between different WBs using differents techniques because of more flux spreading, no secret here too ! That's why all the tests we can see with processors and IHS reports the same (depends of precision measurement and care taken) and this is not a mistake, a fake or a lack of objectivity like I saw in the other thread !! Some people seems to land from the twilight zone, welcome in the real world guys...

[BillA]

what ?
reality ?
oh no, no die temp ?
what will we do now Cathar ?

Thanks Roscal
it is somewhat amazing to see the testing people speak virtually with one voice (how many are there ?),
only to have their inputs ignored or rejected on the basis of their conflict with the pronouncements of Cathar

perhaps Cathar should let the testing to those who do so,
I am quite tired of pointless battles with an armchair General playing to an audience of lapdogs

Ben, no impact on testing at all
clear ?
you test as you use, why test otherwise ? (user based)

[Roscal]

The point I dislike is about people who think that IHS removal is the only key to test WBs, but it represents only a few people. I agree with Cathar about differences between bare die and "IHSed" die for WB techniques and their capability to remove high power density, but we need to take the 2 situations in a same time, not only one to give global answer about WB performance for ex. In my comparative, I said Storm is an excellent WB because it's true but under some circumstances it's not necessary to pay $$ because others designs less costly could do a similar job with actual processors conditions. This statement doesn't mean that Storm is useless, not at all. I worked more than one week each day on Storm/APogee to be sure results were valid on my tesbed because difference gave me a bit of surprise, but I obtained the same on each mount (using differents fixing too to apply more pressure and see the changes), what could I do more ? To enlarge the view, another processor will be used and an update will appear very soon to see differences between a 478 and a 775 Intel, the more controled data we get, the better generally...

To be stubborn on bare die testing only is idiotic. We can talk about that because AMD allows the IHS removal till now, but when their IHS will be permanently attached using solder (when?), what Cathar and others will think about bare die ??? That's a good question IMO... As a lot of things, we need evolution in testing methods, bare dies are the past (for typical use). Constructive criticisms are always welcome if people could show a bit of mind opening, and on the contrary, it's lost time.

Did you see the new Joe's die here : http://www.overclockers.com/articles1284/ . First approach but not agree on the wood used to applied IHS, too soft for me to ensure a good mechanical stability under pressure (clipping force could be a bit askew with a 4 points fix). IHS should be lapped to be flat too (like Intel said in their datasheets) to ensure no bias between WBs.

Thermal aspects about IHS could be controled if we are a bit conscientious. "Mushroom die" as we discussed in the other thread could reduce variability (TIM1 is an offset, not really useful for measurement : a die =! processor). What we want is the thermal spreading caused by IHS to see changes between WBs. Thermal flux are never the same on WBs with an IHS because of the spreading (bell shape power density, more dependant of the convection coeff on whole baseplate), on the contrary of a 1xx mm²bare die (~flat power density). Storm is almost unbeatable when dealing with high power density on small surfaces (and yes Apogee will be beaten easily here), but others simple designs could be more at ease with big surfaces and less power density (at a same power obviously)...

The final choice about WB is the decision of the consumer : the cheaper one? a Storm because of Cathar? the most bling bling? the smaller/lighter? a good performer at reasonable price? etc. For the price of 1 Storm, we could have ~2 Apogee, and at final the typical consumer won't see any difference at all between the 2 models (who is at full load under BurnP6 each time to see 0.5°C difference? Nobody...)

[Les]

Originally Posted by Roscal

.......... Storm is almost unbeatable when dealing with high power density on small surfaces (and yes Apogee will be beaten easily here), but others simple designs could be more at ease with big surfaces and less power density (at a same power obviously)......)

Not sure about that.
My crude modelling would suggest may have more competition "with high power density on small surfaces".
See attachment.

The Storm is modelled as here but with a 1.2625mm bp in light of Cathar's comment here

[BillA]

well sure; as the source becomes smaller than the sink's specific capability, so the benefit will accrue from decreased spreading resistance (aka thicker bp)

are all aware of the 'diamond' heat spreaders ? (no link provided)

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by BillA

what ?
reality ?
oh no, no die temp ?
what will we do now Cathar ?

Thanks Roscal
it is somewhat amazing to see the testing people speak virtually with one voice (how many are there ?),
only to have their inputs ignored or rejected on the basis of their conflict with the pronouncements of Cathar

perhaps Cathar should let the testing to those who do so,
I am quite tired of pointless battles with an armchair General playing to an audience of lapdogs

I made no comments at all on Roscal's tests.

Bill, you can truly be such a petty and spiteful ridgeling. It was best said elsewhere in this post.

[BillA]

had to ck the topic
why would you comment ? similar results to others, anechodotal, ignore it
(and there seem to be others now carrying the 'IHS= no test' banner)
Stew, I continue to be annoyed by the effects of your tutelage
there is more in my quote of the day if you seek heartburn

when your position evolves from pronouncements of unacceptability to an accomodation with product/testing reality, I'll cut you some slack
- a co I work with just evaluated die sims, identified the preferred configuration, and concluded 'hell no'; no desire to design, build, and validate such a complex device
lab tools are fine, but very expensive

[TerraMex]

hmmm.

[Orkan]

I can supplement:

Derf?

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by BillA

(and there seem to be others now carrying the 'IHS= no test' banner)

That is not what I said. I said one of two things:

1) Prove that the IHS is not a major variability issue, or if it is an issue, at least quantify its variability, with respect to CPU temp vs IHS temp
2) If we are able to know the die temp, then measure the IHS temp to your hearts content.

I did not say "IHS = no test".

"Blame it on Stew".

Stew, I continue to be annoyed by the effects of your tutelage

Interesting, given that it was yourself who started the die-sim kick a few years back, expressing great and public disdain towards all things "real world". My tutelage? No sir. You are far guiltier of such tutelage than I have ever been. The difference here is that you seek to make a U-turn.

"Blame it on Stew".

there is more in my quote of the day if you seek heartburn

Your quote of the day gives me no heart-burn at all. Read points 1 & 2 above. The only issue I have with your quote of the day is your own libelous association that such a comment has anything to do with what I've been pushing for, quite consistently.

As par for Bill, "Blame it on Stew".

when your position evolves from pronouncements of unacceptability to an accomodation with product/testing reality, I'll cut you some slack

I thought I had been discussing points 1 & 2 all this time. Oh well.

"Blame it on Stew".

- a co I work with just evaluated die sims, identified the preferred configuration, and concluded 'hell no'; no desire to design, build, and validate such a complex device
lab tools are fine, but very expensive

Guess this must be my fault too, eh?

[BillA]

I am trashing threads with my pointless returning to the same disagreement, I will desist
sorry it got to name calling (ridgeling ?)

[Les]

Originally Posted by BillA

(ridgeling ?)

A good example of of a top class ridgeling is Selkirk .
Was Champion British-Based Sire 2003

Selkirk at stud in Newmarket(2004)

[BillA]

a damn sight better looking than I, different job too
(dare I say better bred too ?, certainly more considered)
still unsure as to the applicability ??
a horse fu*ker ??
perhaps just a horse ? missed the posterior I guess
hi ho

[Les]

ridgling ("rig"): A horse with one or both undescended testes
"..the colt wasn’t striding well and it was decided that Selkirk would undergo surgery to remove an undescended testicle"

Selkirk is still standing at Lanwades Stud - £40,000 (no foal, no fee)

[BillA]

ah, I see said the blind man
low fee for #5 producer, because of the hung teste ?

perhaps merely a gratuitous insult

[Joe]

I am sorta amused at so much work has gone into researching a possible insult

[BillA]

Les and I like horses, give a crap about new names for me

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by Joe

I am sorta amused at so much work has gone into researching a possible insult

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridgeling

An oblique reference to persistent infantile personal attacks, not just against myself, but against many of late.

[Joe]

I think the rule thats going to come down is this... Personal attacks are going to be considered "over the line" in the forums. I am getting quite a few PM's and emails complaining about the seemingly personal attack fest going on now. And how theres a handful of people still on topic but the heavy hitters are all worried about beating each other up in every thread like a playground brawl.

Disagreeing is fine, everyone does it. But From this point forward, at a point personal attacks will not be allowed in a discussion. I mean there are barbs here and there, but its pretty clear when the discussion devolves into just anger and emotion.

So... Cant we all just stop calling each other names and continue debating in a civilized manner?

[Joe]

Please read the new announcement on the top of all the forums.

[Orkan]

Its about time.

Thanks for seeing the light joe.

[Joe]

It sucks that I cant post what I want to say right now because it would violate the new rules I put in place...

[BillA]

I can still call myself an idiot, right ?

EDIT
just noticed (i'm slow), an infantile idiot
lol

Hey Les, think our jerking around caused this clampdown on new insults ?

unrelated item -
HOT NEWS BRIEF: Undecended teste in horse obliqued with infantile behaviour in man.

easy Joe, just my humor

[Les]

Originally Posted by BillA

Hey Les, think our jerking around caused this clampdown on new insults ?

Yes, I think it helped precipitate the action.
However, my understanding of language and logic is too shallow to say whether was the cause.

Edit: Dunno