Go Back   Pro/Forums > ProCooling Technical Discussions > General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar JavaChat Mark Forums Read

General Liquid/Water Cooling Discussion For discussion about Full Cooling System kits, or general cooling topics. Keep specific cooling items like pumps, radiators, etc... in their specific forums.

Reply
Thread Tools
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:19 PM   #51
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

Cathar
you are postulating an 'event' to account for extraneous data
i.e. the 'durability' of the IHS TIM joint
I do not question its finite # of cycles, but this has no bearing on the new heat source

you question the flatness of the heat source IHS when such is presumed to conform to the sink, clearly when the relative stiffness of the 2 are reversed deformation of the bp will occur
- but its best characterization will still be on an IHS

the 'problem' with these heat sources is that they cannot be referred to, and they change -> which mandates a new data set
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:26 PM   #52
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

Pressure is a known value if you do well the tests and multiple mounting are always here to ensure consistency, no matter than TIM is changing. TIM doesn't change radically in 2 days to give a 3°C gap, this is a false pretext. Perhap's change will be visible in 2 years because you are doing only 1 or 2 tests a month and what will be the variation at these 2 different moments? 0.01°C? 0.1°C? 1°C? more? Nobody has the answer because nobody made measurement (don't think Bill made such test?) and it's always a special case anyway, no global statement. But to ensure no matter, you make a flash solder on a ultra thin thickness between IHS and die and no problem anymore.

IMO, it's the responsability of the tester to program a maintenance period of his die : you fully test a WB and one year later, you test it again and compare, how results will be? How much variations I get? Is die worn? Is TIM changed? etc. etc. A lot of interesting stuff here.
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:28 PM   #53
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

Actually Bill, it was Jaydee that postulated the durability.

I am questioning the effects of block geometry, and the applied pressure and deviations in effect as a result of this. 1.5mm thick copper flexes fairly easily, we know this. The edges of the IHS are mounted against the packaging substrate with a compressible bond. The IHS will warp and flex in accordance with the pressures, and locations of the pressure applied as a function of the block geometry.

You talk about deformation of the IHS and the bp, and I agree, and that is precisely the issue here. If the IHS is deformed in a convex fashion (with respect to the heat die) then the center of the IHS, where the heat probe is, is measuring a point on the IHS that is pushed hard against the block and not against the heat die, instead the edges of the heat die serving as the major point of heat transfer. If a block is convex (or at least less concave) when under mounting pressures, the reverse would be true.

Given such variations, I must express a great deal of frustation about this line of reasoning. The CPU die is NOT the IHS.

I am particularly perplexed by this comment from you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
the die temp is a fiction
Sorry? Just what is it that we're trying to cool here?
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:36 PM   #54
Etacovda
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dunedin NZ
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
the die temp is a fiction
Dunno about anyone else, but i couldnt give a flying **** at a rolling donut what the IHS temperature is...

The final goal of a watercooling system is to make the die as cool as possible for overclocking. Otherwise, its just for silence (in which case, who cares what the temperature is, so long as its stable - and the waterblock does not effect the noiselevel significantly.

Why do we ignore the die temp? jesus, this seems like backpedalling to make a product seem 'better' than it is... independant tests will show this either way, i guess? Change the test bed so you like what you see? Think i might move house and avoid gravity, i always wanted to use my ceiling!

Isnt 'lowest possible die temperature wrt waterblock design' what we're all after?
I mean, i personally dont care - and wouldnt pay good money for an extra 0.5 degrees, because realistically at the end of the day, it doesnt matter, and its probably not going to effect your overclock a noticable amount... but surely being true to the science of it is actually worth doing?

In my (very) humble opinion, why not machine a single piece die with an integrated IHS, estimate the TIM joint between the two (ie, solid piece of copper, which is both the die and the IHS) and go from there? It would simulate the actual heat spread, allow the die temp to be tested... i dont see the down side.
__________________
Hypocritical Signature I tried to delete: Procooling: where scientific principles are ignored because big corporations are immune to mistakes and oversights.

Last edited by Etacovda; 11-19-2005 at 10:59 PM.
Etacovda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:43 PM   #55
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

Don't you understand that die at a lower T° equal IHS center at a lower T° (assuming their T° are correctly taken) ? It's not necessary to be absolute, relative measurement is also valid. Put 2 TC if you want in die and IHS center and take your data, you'll see well the situation... The 2 T° goes up and down in a same way.
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:45 PM   #56
Les
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
Default

I presume
Temperatures are across interfaces (water/copper/TIM/ugh probe)
Flux measured by coolant temp rise
Die temp irrelevant
Les is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:49 PM   #57
Etacovda
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dunedin NZ
Posts: 735
Default

ok, assuming they are the 'same'

why measure the IHS temp at all, then? Surely the way to test is to make the the die as close to a real cpu as possible.

Why does this remind me of all the reviews you see of a TC thermal-taped to an IHS side...
__________________
Hypocritical Signature I tried to delete: Procooling: where scientific principles are ignored because big corporations are immune to mistakes and oversights.
Etacovda is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 04:51 PM   #58
Cathar
Thermophile
 
Cathar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
Default

I give up.

If the simple concept that die->IHS variability cannot be understood, then I really wonder what motivations are really at play here.

Logic seems to have left the playing field.

I'm out. Too frustrating.
Cathar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:31 PM   #59
jaydee
Put up or Shut Up
 
jaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roscal
nikhsub1> TTV TC is just above the core center, thermal gradient is only one way because power comes from die (hottest part), if IHS center is cooler then core is cooler and vice versa, the opposite isn't possible, it's not physical. If really you are motivated, nobody prevents you to control multiple points (die T° in addition to IHS center for example) if you really want to see how linear or how non linear relations are, choose a method and have more data. Die temp isn't the only interesting point.

jaydee> IHS is bigger than a die, it's not the same thing to put ~1.4mm more height (IHS thickness) on a 10x10mm die, than put a 30x30mm IHS on a 10x10mm die. And it's not the same to make a 30x30mm die (Joe on o/c.com makes one, no? It's meaningless), it's absolutly not equal to a die covered by a 30x30 IHS part !

For the TIM between die and IHS, you can solder it if you want or use epoxy, no matter and it don't change for tests. Intel uses epoxy to this place, it's not liquid thermal paste (pump-out effect is always possible)
I am confused by this. Are you assuming the entire IHS is actually heated evenly?

I hope not.
jaydee is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:42 PM   #60
bobo5195
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 400
Default

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).
bobo5195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 05:49 PM   #61
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440

Roscal
sure I tested grease over time, but the data is not mine; AS has data also I believe
the curve depends on the paste, thickness, and pressure (therefore use the same methods and materials)
the time-to-test is a variable that must be controlled, even if reading only tenths (the variation over time can exceed a degree or more)
this is crucial with an IHS as compared to the smaller and flatter CPU die surface

one min/max period for quick comparative, 48hrs for 'final' data if a known testing paste used

Cathar
understood
and taken as a given, whatever/however it is
I do not concern myself with what is below the IHS, I share your concern but do not consider this characteristic as a variable

re the CPU temp, a heat source and a specific CPU can be correlated with a TC on the IHS
this is a test methodology for heat sink thermal resistance characterization
so cut a groove in your CPU heat sources ?
why not ?

ok, then slot the wb bp
too thin ? then slot the IHS
the (required) goal is a direct measurement, indirect is ok if understood
this is purely an experimental issue, no more (offset and compression)
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 06:13 PM   #62
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

"My concern with this block is that it will do well on a test rig and be awful in actual long term usage." and then some unclear stuff about warping of the bp
??
my guess has to be that you do not understand the present wb product offerings, Swiftech products have thick bps

jd
the goal is not a CPU emulator, it is a CPU + IHS emulator
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 06:19 PM   #63
jaydee
Put up or Shut Up
 
jaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
"My concern with this block is that it will do well on a test rig and be awful in actual long term usage." and then some unclear stuff about warping of the bp
??
my guess has to be that you do not understand the present wb product offerings, Swiftech products have thick bps

jd
the goal is not a CPU emulator, it is a CPU + IHS emulator
Did you read the Swiftech page? it spacifically said the base flexes? Did I read it wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiftech
The CNC machined C110 copper base plate is at the heart of Apogee's cooling efficiency. The Patent Pending Diamond Pin Matrix was optimized using Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis to yield the remarkable results recorded by the water-block. In the process, thickness of the base was reduced to 3mm. This resulted in a higher compliance of the base with its mating surface (i.e. the CPU heat spreader) thanks to the base plate added flexing ability.
As for the CPU-IHS emulator.... why? Havn't we decided the IHS was not important enough to concern ourselfs with?
jaydee is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 06:40 PM   #64
bobo5195
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 400
Default

I got confused between all this I h s talk and bp thickness, forgive me im still a newbie at this stuff.

My gut feel is still that 3m is too thin but I could well be wrong.. the geometry of the design leads me to believe that it would need a thicker than normal bp.

And as for CFD I’m ready to call my ass about that because you’ve got to know what you are doing with a design like that.
bobo5195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 06:41 PM   #65
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

3mm, compared to which products ? (which wb bp is thicker ?)
flex ?
lol, sure some deformation occurs with any load but it is the IHS 'till the edges bear on the bp; then the mobo will start deflecting depending on the socket
- I did not write that, its sales bs (turn your bs filter on)

sorry jd, I am not part of "we" in seeking a consensus;
I do what I think is correct, after discussion if I can find the interest
as long as CPUs are sold with IHSs, I will want to test the thermal solution in the same way
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 06:48 PM   #66
bobo5195
Cooling Savant
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 400
Default

the cfd was just a general comment, if they cant pay your wages im somewhat doubting that they can pay for $20k cfd packages and ppl who can use them, my guess is COSMOS in solidworks which would get this horribly wrong. I need to think about this distortion thickness stuff i got 1.5mm from IHS mixed in there which would deform as part of bp.

3mm compared to the conductivity of copper and potential temprature variation accros the block, especially if your talking about extremley low temprature differentials.
bobo5195 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 06:55 PM   #67
BillA
CoolingWorks Tech Guy
Formerly "Unregistered"
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
Default

IHS = Integrated Heat Spreader, nickle plated copper lid on all desktop CPUs (less than 1mm thick I believe - ?? someone ?)
despite its name it is for physical protection, the thermal hit from it and its TIM joint is known and accepted by the mfgrs

bp = base plate, 3mm is pretty thick in the high performance crowd - 2mm is more typical of impingment, some less
BillA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:04 PM   #68
Senater_Cache
Cooling Savant
 
Senater_Cache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: F L
Posts: 125
Default

Ok guys. Not the best pic yet...better ones are coming asap.
Enjoy.


Last edited by Senater_Cache; 11-18-2005 at 07:20 PM.
Senater_Cache is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:11 PM   #69
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Uhh SC, no pic here WTF? Been boozing?
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:12 PM   #70
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydee
I am confused by this. Are you assuming the entire IHS is actually heated evenly?
I never said that, it's not the case anyway.
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:12 PM   #71
FooTemps
Cooling Neophyte
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: WA, USA
Posts: 49
Default

Okay, about the IHS vs die readings... If we look at the real world applications, there are so many bad IHS to die interfaces on processors these days. There are people who get strange temps because of these poor interfaces. I'd rather measure from the die for this reason...

Think about it... Does it make sense to measure the middle layer when we actually want to know how effectively the bottom layer is cooled?



Excuse the crude paint drawing...
Would you measure the item that generates heat or just a layer the heat transfers through?

Last edited by FooTemps; 11-18-2005 at 07:27 PM.
FooTemps is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:12 PM   #72
nikhsub1
c00ling p00n
 
nikhsub1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
IHS = Integrated Heat Spreader...
Or as I like to call it, Idiot Handling Shield
__________________

*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX
PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe
Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube
Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home
aNonForums
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*
nikhsub1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:14 PM   #73
Roscal
Cooling Savant
 
Roscal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unregistered
IHS = Integrated Heat Spreader, nickle plated copper lid on all desktop CPUs (less than 1mm thick I believe - ?? someone ?)
IHS thickness above the die on P4C is between 1.3 to 1.4mm.
Roscal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:21 PM   #74
Senater_Cache
Cooling Savant
 
Senater_Cache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: F L
Posts: 125
Default

** fixed
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikhsub1
Uhh SC, no pic here WTF? Been boozing?
How did you know buddy lol

cheeers.
anyways , enjoy.

-No jetting, and no sort of water channeling through the fins vertically (like in the 6000s), interesting in how basic this design is (assuming I know nothing of their fluid-dynamic modeling throughout the fins)

I cannot wait for pH to bust a move on this one.
Senater_Cache is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11-18-2005, 07:30 PM   #75
jaydee
Put up or Shut Up
 
jaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 6,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roscal
I never said that, it's not the case anyway.
Ok, just trying to clarify. I am unable to understand all this ramble. All I got out of it is testing water blocks is futile and no one's results are worth the time it took to get them and no one agrees on a acceptable way to go about it. :shrug:

IHS CPU's are not acceptable to me for testing results. Intels way about it isn't acceptable and AMD's way isn't acceptable. They are not interested in accuracy but just a base line of general performance as to not kill their CPU's. Prime example is the half assed thermal throttling system they use which is based off the ondie diode which we know is crap yet the CPU are throttled from it.

Bah, I understand Cathars frustration.
jaydee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C) 2005 ProCooling.com
If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were probably really drunk...
Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer...