Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

I don't think that we excluded a heat die just yet. In fact, I believe that a heat die is still preferable, but true CPU as a heat die would allow us to figure out what offset to apply to our results, to give out data that a user can relate to, i.e. :

I have an (AMD/Intel) proccy model XXX and I'm considering ABC cooling solution. Our testing results show that one would be able to get temperature X, but apply correction Y to figure out what one would actually read.

I'm not suggesting that we do both, but rather that we get together; one does real CPU, another a die sim. This requires that we measure temps the same way, so that we can relate. Grooved IHS measurement can be done by every tester.

Al, I'd be more than happy to assist anyone that has testing issues.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

no Ben, no heat die is any part of this discussion
no pH, ditto

you are not going to get anyone at all to make a convoluted heat die (even me probably)

if a TC is put on the IHS it will have to be read with a thermometer
anyone with a good price/performance suggestion (not off eBay) ?

refocus
if the goal is a CPU based testing system, then it could be considered in 2 parts:
1) grooved CPU and TC thermometer, CFxxx and DOW sensors for air (water optional) - suitable for sink or kit testing, components by substitution
2) as above plus flow and pressure measurement capability - to create parametric performance curves for components

lets focus on #1 only for now

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Be noted the CF633 and sensors need serious calibration. In my experience the probes are far from consistent from each other. I got 8 probes with mine and only 3 would read somewhat close together. Others were off .5 to 5C. Also had one that would not scale liner to the others. For ever 10C on the others it would raise 9C for example. I found it to be a pain in the ass but it worked out ok after cherry picking the probes. Kinds sucks to have to buy a bunch of probes and hand pick though. Also the probes are far from water tight. They need good water proofing.

I still don't see people grooving their IHS's though.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

I'd like to see this also, but with both setups as professional as can be, so as to correlate/interpret the data. i.e. not what we're after in this thread.


Not in house, for sure. May be easier if we source a machinist or two, even better if we get mulitple reviewers to commit and send many procs to be done at the same time. I fear this may be unlikely, depends on cost though...

--Jay

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

re TCs
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fluke-2190A-Digi...QQcmdZViewItem
these things are not difficult to find

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Bill whats that wrong with the one I currently have (or if you think it will work for a test - it would seem that the resolution is similar to the fluke)

http://www.procooling.com/index.php?...icles&disp=100

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

I was pondering last time when I was testing with TC's to pick up a calibrator such as : http://www.extech.com/instrument/pro...433201data.pdf

seems to be a "cheap" way to make sure your gear is still returning valid data.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

same resolution, the accuracy/uncertanty ~1/2 that of the Fluke (±0.5 vs. 0.3 or so, as I recall)
yes, a calibrator will work as a ck (eBay ?)

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Then could it be an option to provide custom made IHS, and already grooved, according to specs?
People would then cap off their AMD 64 cpu's, substitute their original IHS for these, and the fear of damaging the processor if one would attempt to groove the IHS would disappear.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

so a DIY TIM joint is automagically better than a factory one ?
in your dreams, going to take some data to convince me

my effort is to 'qualify' an existing CPU as a heat source,
not to make a heat die with an IHS as I do not think that such is within anyone's budget, talk this one to death

IF a CPU is to be selected for use as a heat source, why on earth pick a CPU with known TIM joint reliability issues ?

it seems the 'problem' with this idea is that using an Intel CPU is out of favor with the OCing community, though how Intel CPU heat differs from AMD heat is unclear

lets revisit die temps
what are the silicon temp 'limits' ? (not the 'case' (IHS) temp given in the thermal design gides eh)
I happen to know a number of these values, short term, long term, etc. but this info is not public
why the pursuit of die temps when the limits are unknown ?

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Bill, I must have missed it in the other thread, is there factual data on the TIM joint reliability issues with AMD? is there actual data behind that?

And is there any factual data bout Intels TIM joint reliability? From what I understood most of this is all assumptions still.

Just looking to get more smart on that topic.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Is the diode to be read known to be in the "hotspot"or is it still location unknown?
If the later; is the relation between it's temperature and IHS(Case) the relation which is sought
Think Incoherent's future Iron Age die may be more informative, it potentially being easier to model.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

uncollated - factual as in a chunk of folks with first hand tales of the issue, inc myself altho I seem to be one of few who has had CPUs with duff IHS contact from new. No figures... just "know" of it happening and it's existence.

Never heard of issues with P4's...

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Joe,
Marci had some good anecdotal AMD 'problem descriptions', a phase change guy (Eric K) said the AMD thermal cycling problem was well known, plus my observations on the (non)removal of the Intel IHS with the absence of reported issues - different mfgn process

the assumption that the Intel internal TIM joint is stable seems quite valid

Les
2 courses here, CPU and die
I agree that the die is more suitable for modeling (w/o a long ton of assumptions re the CPU, mobo, etc)
a die will always yield more and better data as that is its purpose,
but as an alternative to the cost and complexity of a die I wish to explore using a real CPU in some fashion

something that we can recommend to those scorned and despised review sites

agreed there is a temp relationship between the IHS and the silicon (lol), but as you say where ? and what is it ?
seems simple, assume a TIM joint value and add a bit for IHS conduction and calc a die temp

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

If it is the "what" of interest, the power region,yes, should be simple.
But if not the high power then the so called compression is probably only known by the manufacturer. It will just add another temperature to the "unknown offset" list.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

"But if not the high power then the so called compression is probably only known by the manufacturer"

not understood

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Yes, can calc a die temperature but if not the temperature in "region of max power dissipation" then another offset is required. Our(pH's) temperature will only be the temperature that processor manufacturer allows us to see.
Still worth having - but I am not doing the work.
The difference in temperature of our(pH's) position of measurement and the temperature in the region of maximum power dissipation will be unknown to us.
I only guess that this is the temperature of "max power region"to which "well documented thermal characteristics of the TTV" applies (quote from memory).

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Why is it necessary to test with a CPU and not a calibrated heatsource as a simulated CPU?

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

I think because that would cost money and Bill was trying to see what could be done by 'typical' review sites without laying out too much cash (which they would be unlikely to do).

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

So what is the projected budget?

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

undecided / unfixed. Budget will be whatever it costs once parts are decided. No matter how it's done, real CPU testing should still work out cheaper to produce than diesim etc... in theory...

and just for clarity to other readers...

In my case, aware of generalisation and lack of empiricism when statement made...

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

as the use of a CPU with an IHS to test cooling solutions has been roundly denounced as unacceptable in the Apogee thread; it is time to close this topic, at least for procooling

it seems that while there is considerable interest in rather exotic testing hardware, this does not extend to consideration of a test method utilizing a CPU with an IHS (as bought)
by declining the challenge of defining a CPU based testing system, used for 99% (?) of all 'reviews', procooling forfeits the opportunity to shape, and assist those doing, that type of testing

is procooling only to address the absolute high-end ? (as seen from within procooling)

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

Bill... the more I look at it the more it makes no sense to test with more unknown variables than are needed to do a simple, inexpensive (relatively) test. Since you cant prove that the Intel TTV's or CPU's are 100% consistent, since no one can prove for fact what kind of inconsistencies are seen with AMD cpu over a range of CPU's and different plants (same goes for Intel)...

I think in large the IHS is a liability to the testing no matter who makes the chip. Since we are discussing testing something that there are few facts about (just lots of assumptions and word of mouth observations from friends of friends of friends), and little confidence in getting real tangible results from on a consistent basis... It just seems to go against the logic that got us to the point of testing the way we are.

I mean look at the review industry as a whole, its all moving to better ways and methods. Think 5 years ago when most sites used mobo probes and MBM to do review testing with. Someones gotta move testing forward... or present different ideas and ways of doing it. Being happy with the variability in an IHS as "real world" gets us back to MBM days.

I don't buy that testing without an IHS is an absolute high end, to me if you are an enthusiast, you probably are going to remove an IHS to get your moneys worth out of the cooling system. I just see us as catering to our audience: enthusiasts.

If procooling stands on its own to test in a way that is logically more sound than other sites, I guess thats what happens. We've been there before. If other sites want to join in and start testing sans IHS, then so be it.

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

I've no real objection Joe, I just think we are walking away from something that is potentially useful - even with limitations
no mechanic discards a tool

Re: product testing today – who is being served ?
 

... but his main tool is still a hammer . ;)