|
|
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. |
Thread Tools |
11-22-2005, 01:38 PM | #226 | |
c00ling p00n
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
|
Quote:
__________________
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* 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 *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* |
|
11-22-2005, 02:50 PM | #227 | |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kentucky USA
Posts: 64
|
Quote:
Beyond that you have established that Northwood bonding was shit, but not that the current Intel system is superior in any way to the AMD system for normal or extreme use. AMD's TIM may be superior to epoxy. (Didn't Intels overheating heating problems begin with it's use?) Some may consider the inability to remove Intels IHS a fatal flaw. If AMD's joint broke down in the first few remounts you would have a point, but I haven't experienced any problems with either of mine. edit: "It changes from CPU to CPU, and one IHS capped CPU will appear to favor one waterblock, while the exact sameCPU type from the same manufacturing batch will favor a different waterblock." Now this can indicate a problem, need American, union workers to correct!!! Last edited by GlassMan; 11-22-2005 at 03:47 PM. |
|
11-22-2005, 03:00 PM | #228 | ||
Cooling Savant
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 486
|
Quote:
Quote:
For some removing IHS is a necessity. You're lucky that you haven't had a bad chip that has resulted in the NEED to remove the IHS. Those who've experienced such will likely remove the IHS from every CPU they buy thereafter just to remove the ballache of a chance that you mount it all up and you've got ANOTHER duff one... |
||
11-22-2005, 03:04 PM | #229 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
The problem I have with IHS's, at least from the point of view of enthusiast overclocks is this.
There have been a number of cases reported in forums where an IHS capped CPU will "favor" one waterblock that ranks worse, while the supposedly better waterblock will both perform worse temperature and achieve a lower overclock. After many suggestions and remounts, this was the conclusion that was reached. Then said users changed the CPU to another CPU of the exact same type, and the stories are reversed. "Worse ranked" waterblock sees much higher temperatures and a much worse overclock. What is evident here is that subtleties in the IHS manufacture and waterblock geometry are at play. The CPU die to IHS TIM joint is NOT invariable and cannot ever be assumed to be so, and worse, cannot even be assumed to be consistent on a per cpu type or even on a per waterblock scenario. It changes from CPU to CPU, and one IHS capped CPU will appear to favor one waterblock, while the exact sameCPU type from the same manufacturing batch will favor a different waterblock. I've said it many times before, but I'll repeat it again. If we're looking to quantify the cooling effect of a generic IHS scenario, then we HAVE TO remove the variability of the CPU Die -> IHS joint, which means machining a heat die that looks just like an IHS capped CPU, but is a solid one-metal-no-join piece design. For those struggling to picture what I mean, imagine something like a 13x13mm (or whatever sized) copper heat die with a "mushroom" IHS lid on it, but all one solid piece. In fact the word "mushroom" pretty much exactly describes the sort of one-piece thing I'm talking about. Heat energy is applied at the mushroom stalk, the temperature of the die is taken from the center of the stalk just below where the IHS "head" starts to fan out. Heck, groove the IHS head and stick a TC in there too, ala Intel TTV style, and then we can validate that the relationship between IHS surface temp and stem temp is consistent. In this manner the variability of the CPU die -> IHS joint is totally removed and we now have a fixed invariable model that is not subject to TIM joint degradation or block-IHS-TIM-die geometry variations. Of course we can argue all day that "this is not exactly what an IHS capped CPU looks like", but what are we going to do? Measure and present results based upon a device with what many have observed to have huge variations? The best we can do is to model/measure against an invariable model and the day that the CPU makers get their act together and provide an invariable CPU die -> IHS interface, then it'll all make sense, and certainly a lot more sense than measuring performance based upon a variable laden model where if we start to tune just for that specific model we really don't know what variable we're actually tuning for and which way the effects of that variable are swinging in terms of waterblock->IHS->die geomterical interaction. Keep it simple. Keep it consistent. Don't play the variable game, and don't develop waterblocks around unquantified variables. That's what I'm proposing. Last edited by Cathar; 11-22-2005 at 03:15 PM. |
11-22-2005, 03:30 PM | #230 | |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kentucky USA
Posts: 64
|
Got curious about this statement, from athe Apogee page
Quote:
Gotta love market speak. I don't understand how the Apogee can cool the center of the IHS better than the Storm, single or dual, as the cooling power is concentrated there. If the diameter of the jets matrix on a Storm is less than 21.7mm (apprx. diagonal of X2 2Mg cache) I can see how the Apogee can outperform the Storm on a dual core as far as overclocking. Can't wait for more data to see if the results hold up. |
|
11-22-2005, 03:34 PM | #231 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Oh, and I tried to quantify the MCW55 on my video card GPU, but lack of an adequate temperature resolution on the card prevented me from gathering results good enough for me to make any conclusive statements about it. What was evident to me though was that it was performing roughly on par with an old Hydra prototype which was assessed on my CPU testbed to be around 0.5-1.0C worse than old original all-copper White Water at ~110W heat load. Still, such results are not conclusive in any shape or fashion and I have deliberately held off making any comments about the MCW55, other than to suggest in public that it is certainly a good performer. No GPU block has ever enabled a higher GPU overclock than the old Hydra prototype and the MCW55 was certainly the closest thing I've seen yet to it. Still, the old Hydra prototype is now WW beater, let along a Storm equaller. Take that for what it's worth, which in my opinion is worth very little and such an observation should be taken with a very small grain of salt. I have next to no faith in the finality of that performance assessment of the MCW55 other than to say "it seems pretty good for GPU's".
Am presently trying to get a suitable CPU mounting bracket for the MCW55 machined up so I can quantify it directly on my CPU testbeds. One of my machinist's CNC mill's broke down though and so I have next to zero machine time available prior to Christmas. |
11-22-2005, 03:39 PM | #232 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
|
Happy that Cathar talk about that, it was the same idea as mine to make my proper die with IHS but without TIM to avoid assembly, never realized because no time... Not difficult to mill at all, some care should be take to avoid conduction secondary paths. I would to use a MOSFET because of the small size and capable to dissipate a lot of power easily and easy to control, power resistors or cartbridge are generally too big for a small and light die like that (no need to heat 500 gr of copper, too long and useless...). TIM die/IHS is only a gap in Rth, its thickness is too small to change flux repartition, so we could pull out this element and get a solid one piece die with a flat surface above. IHS and die center would be instrumented with very small TC using EDM holes (diam. <0.3mm). This kind of die would be much better than bare die for sure, nearer to reality in terms of flux spreading (always different with any WB !)
In french on attached pic but you'll understand... I think Cathar's idea is like mine if I understood well. |
11-22-2005, 03:41 PM | #233 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Yep, that's exactly it Roscal. Easy to machine.
I've actually been saying this off and on for quite a while now. Seems no one took notice. I myself have been working towards getting one made up, but always seemed to have more pressing matters with my real job, but lately with all this IHS waffle I've been becoming increasingly more motivated to do so. |
11-22-2005, 03:47 PM | #234 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
|
Problem is to know the die area below IHS, I put 12x12mm at one moment, but now dies are larger and often change with generations. Make a die every year is a pain... I don't know really if differences between 12x12 and 16x12 for example will be great, not sure, because IHS acts as a good smoother... Need tests and data, or numerical studies to get a first approach, I'll make tests with Fluent one day, not difficult to model at all...
|
11-22-2005, 04:14 PM | #235 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: inside my computers
Posts: 113
|
Quote:
I've only had two of them report extremely abnormal temps. Of those 2, both cases were caused by faulty motherboards. I fail to believe that re-mounting on the same cpu will degrade the IHS weld to the core. It is either on right, or not on right. It doesn't magically start coming off by itself. ... or at least I've never heard of it happening. |
|
11-22-2005, 04:16 PM | #236 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
CPU die sizes, including the dual-core dies, seem to be mainly sitting between 140-220mm^2, with the AMD dies typically being the most oblong, and the Intel dies being the squarest, although that has changed somewhat with some of the dual-core Intel dies. The most oblong long:short edge ratio seems to be no higher than 1.8:1 to date.
So perhaps a ~180mm^2 die size, with a long:short edged ratio of 1.4:1 would be a suitable middle ground? A 16.0 x 11.5mm die size shape? Just throwing a suggestion out there. Everyone's going to have different opinions on what would be most representative, or what would be the most acceptable "middle ground" unless testers are prepared to provide results on multiple IHS testbeds. |
11-22-2005, 04:22 PM | #237 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
no
it is improper to characterize all CPU/IHS TIM joints as being intrinsically variable to a huge extent that some may degrade so over time and use has nothing to do with testing (don't use old shit) that some may be inconsistantally mfgd is another separate issue (don't buy cheap shit) Cathar, take your entire post above and read it in the light of a consistant TTV CPU/IHS TIM joint being a fact there is nothing to your post, it is ALL totally predicated on variable TIM joint performance remove that variability and all that's required is learning what the new numbers signify I have cross-tested multiple TTVs, and tested them over time; they are fine tools -> what is perhaps not known/being applied is an appropriate correction factor nothing wrong with a TTV the real difficulty is that TTVs are not available anything positive ? there DO seem to be (today) CPUs not having IHS issues "Keep it simple." we agree, test the actual configuration where possible; and since there ARE CPUs w/o an IHS problem . . . . but this still leaves the quantification of heat unresolved if using a CPU source ". . . which means machining a heat die that looks just like an IHS capped CPU, but is a solid one-metal-no-join piece design." and this will replicate the heat flux through the TIM joint, and the subsequent lateral spreading through the IHS ? Roscal says so, I have no good basis to object where is the DIE TEMP to be measured, and how ? (I missed this in your post) Roscal did make a suggestion, but - how do you establish the correspondence of this measured slug temp with a CPU temp ? where the temp is taken and its value are irrelevant, the correlation is key there are some assumptions here, as did I with my old heat die; I defined it so how many today would accept that ? junk the hat, work on valid CPU specific correction factors for a simple post NB if you want to assess dual core cooling you will need a dual core source (or do junk testing) -> how is the die face to be maintained ? do you know what the TTV has that no die will ever have ? repeatability, lesser absolute performance but a greatly reduced range |
11-22-2005, 04:27 PM | #238 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
Orkan
many mountings or severe thermal cycling will do it outside of the scope of 'normal use' Marci's experience is different due to his customers |
11-22-2005, 04:28 PM | #239 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Bill, sorry, but I'm going to have to say it.
I really don't understand your steadfast defence of a testbed where the TIM layer is not quantified. Really. Please. You don't know the die temp on the TTV, so you cannot EVER conclusively say that it is invariable now can you? Why? Because you don't really know. Truly, I find this head-in-the-sand approach from you most out of character and disappointing. There. I said it. I just had to get that off my chest. I have never ever witnessed ANY person who claims to hold to a scientific testing methodology and then blatantly dismiss what is a potentially variable, especially in light of the admitted "bad data" that has been observed, and then say "sorry - no - I don't care - it's invariable". Seriously, please. Pleading for ignorance now? Why? I cannot understand this mentality from you. It is so against everything you've ever stood for in the last 5 years. |
11-22-2005, 04:39 PM | #240 | |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
Quote:
While championing the TTV for dual cores, you're also putting forwards a case that a single middle-of-IHS case-temp is suitable for all scenarios. Can't have it both way. I find this defense of the TTV model utterly and totally incomprehensible in light of the admitted and unexplained bad data. In scientific terms, the TTV is a theoretical model in which observed phenomena cannot be explained. Either find the explanation or the model is as invalid as any aspersions you care to lay at any other testbed's feet. What will happen Bill if independent testers start to find results that do not agree with the TTV? Will you then engage in tearing down every independent tester that does not usa a TTV? |
|
11-22-2005, 04:42 PM | #241 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North of France
Posts: 198
|
Bill > I didn't say to take only die T° at a certain point (copper isn't silicon, processor get numerous hot spots, flux has a very complicated shape and never "flat" like a bare die, thermal probe in processor die could be near an edge or elsewhere). If I had a my die done, I'll take several T° as well the IHS internal T° to get a global view, but IHS center T° above core is normally enough to characterize a system thermal resistance (with a groove on it like Intel TTV or with a tiny hole to fit TC/RTD just above center die at 0.2-0.3mm from IHS surface with my version), die T° reacts as IHS center do. Absolute T° in copper die won't be never the same as a processor so we can't say if I got 2°C difference with my die between X and Y, I'll have 2°C better on my processor between X and Y, this is not true. Die T° is just to complete data and see if relations are linear between 2 different coolers, we could have a better view of how an central impingement will affect IHS T° and core T° in comparison of a simple WB for example, flux spreading, etc. We can imagine 5 thermal probes in IHS, one for center and one in each quadrant, why not..
Last edited by Roscal; 11-22-2005 at 05:02 PM. |
11-22-2005, 04:49 PM | #242 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: inside my computers
Posts: 113
|
round and round we go.
Let me ask this simply: How does varying levels of heat, change the ability of a waterblock to remove said heat? So from one cpu to the next, there are varying levels of heat being transferred through the IHS. So what. Every single person that buys these blocks knows that someone else with the exact same setup, may have cooler, or higher temps based on the fact their CPU's may put out less or more heat. The heat being trasferred to the block by the cpu being higher or lower does NOT affect the ability of the waterblock to remove that heat. The amount of talking and lack of doing astonishes me. Ok, so you say you can't re-mount a waterblock to the same cpu because the IHS is changing its contact every time you do. The law of greater numbers will take over when you average out, and give you solid numbers either way. (solid enough for me and 90% of the community anyway) You have 2 waterblocks. You want to compare them. You say if you use the same processor/comptuter setup to test them, the IHS will be different every time you re-mount. So mount it five times, alternating the block you use. ... so the variations will be as close as you can get. Then do the same thing on FOUR other computers. I get the distinct feeling that everyone just keeps talking, making things more complex and more complex until no one knows at all what anyone else is talking about... but they sure did talk alot. Bottom line: - as a consumer Who is going to figure out which block performs better? How are they going to figure it out? Not that it would really matter... as demonstrated by this thread. No matter who did the testing or how they did it... half of you would believe them, and the other half would not. Round and round we go. Someone pass the pepsi. |
11-22-2005, 05:08 PM | #243 |
c00ling p00n
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
|
LMAO @ Orkan. It seems as if this whole discussion is upsetting you Orkan. This is how perhaps progress can be made in the world of testing WB's. Or not. Good dialogue for sure. Let me explain again, to you; the IHS issue at least with AMD and older northwood Intel CPU's. The IHS is affixed to the PCB of the chip, not to the core itself. You slide a blade round the IHS on an amd and whammo! the IHS will come off. This was also the case with the NW's of which I've owned many and have seen DRASTIC irregularities in temps between like CPU's with IHS on, however, pop it off and each CPU is well within what one would consider a 'normal' margin, ie they thermally behave very similar at similar speed and voltage. How could this possibly be?
__________________
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* 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 *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* |
11-22-2005, 05:09 PM | #244 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london, england
Posts: 416
|
Quote:
|
|
11-22-2005, 05:20 PM | #245 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Over There
Posts: 37
|
The part I don't get
There's a few things that confuse me here. It's going to take me a while to get to the relevant point, but I will get there, don't worry.
For a closed system, power in *must* equal power out. That's a fact we know for sure. Next, given a set flow-rate, and a set airflow through a rad, it's easy to characterize a radiator's performance. We know that too. Given that knowledge, we can characterize the heat added to a system by the pump, friction, turbulence, etc. That heat can also be characterized by insulating the pump, and measuring it's power dissipation (closed system again here). Would it not be easy to measure power into a system by measuring the temperature change across the barbs of the radiator, the ambient air temperature, and the coolant flow-rate? Given that measurement of coolant temps is easy (used everywhere in industrial process control) and so is flow rate (if you want to pay for it, and have the space), how hard would it be to characterize full die->coolant performance--which is all we should care about anyway? I know the on-die CPU diode is not the best measure out there, but it's better than nothing, which is where we are now. If a worthy tester was willing to grove the IHS of an actual CPU, the thermal output of the system can be characterized off of the radiator. Given the CPU diode and the IHS measurement, the quality of the IHS contact, and the thermal resistance could both be characterized for any given WB. Others have said it, I'll say it too. The temperature of the IHS doesn't mean a thing to me. I care how well the whole system works together. We need wholistic testing because--really--who cares if the IHS is a few degrees colder if the CPU keeps overheating and crashing? |
11-22-2005, 05:29 PM | #246 | |||
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ohio
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-22-2005, 05:34 PM | #247 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: london, england
Posts: 416
|
Quote:
|
|
11-22-2005, 05:43 PM | #248 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
Cathar
everything can be considered variable, we accept that it is the degree of variation that is in question I would not use an AMD CPU because of what I have heard about the IHS, I have no personal experience however I have not heard of IHS related problems with current Intel products, nor in asking do I hear of them so I do NOT assume AMD and Intel have the SAME CPU IHS problems the TTVs use a TC so resolution is limited to 0.1°C, cross ckg TTVs indicated no differences that I could measure are they all the same; forever ? - no, nothing is Cathar, I have no devotion to TTVs, I will probably never have one; but they are a repeatable heat source if the TTV numbers are wrong, they need a correction factor (as Intel provides for specific CPUs) if the Swiftech numbers are wrong, they need an (appropriate) correction factor I repeat, the TTV is a fine tool; the data's interpretation may be/is the problem baby and bathwater issue the TTV is only a tool, and 'produces' test results; a TTV does no cooling as Intel says, confirm the results (Swiftech seems to have done so on a CPU) -> a conflict between TTV and CPU results ? the CPU every time, what else ? (the TTV is not a cooler) get real Cathar, why would I "tear down" a tester for something they cannot get ? I see the latest posts and now we have people believing that IHS and silicon temps are independent ? ah, progress |
11-22-2005, 05:54 PM | #249 | |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
Quote:
|
|
11-22-2005, 05:59 PM | #250 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,538
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|