Pro/Forums - View Single Post

RoboTech · 06-12-2004, 02:56 PM

OK, lets talk about die size... some more...

I have recently completed my second thermal die simulator. (My first attempt was modeled on a Thourobred core, made out of brass and was designed to be mounted into a dead socket 462 mobo. I found it more trouble than it was worth to try and rigidly mount the die just to use an existing socket - and maybe the brass wasn't such a good idea either!)

OK, a year later and I made a new one. Based on prevoius comments in this thread it struck me size really wasn't too important - it's a simulator after all. Given all the different CPU core sizes (now and to come) and the question of how big a role does the IHS play = no obvious decision.

For my second generation die I decided to go with copper (like everyone else) but make the die area much larger so it would be more robust and hopefully better able to stand up to repeated testing - maintain surface flattness and finsih without the relatively soft copper deforming over time. I picked 1000 mm2 (actually 1,024 mm2), which is 32 mm x 32 mm - almost the exact size of a P4 IHS (31 x 31) And I like even numbers...

Pics of my new thermal die simulator

This "seemed" like a good compromise as it better represents the actual contact area a HSF or waterblock will see when mounted to any of the new generation CPUs with IHSs. 1,000 mm2 is bigger than any of the actual cores, about the same size as a P4 IHS and smaller than AMDs new IHSs.

I don't think it is realistic to assume we can truly simulate the thermal characteristics of an actual CPU. Hot spots, thermal spreading, etc. By definition a simulator has to make some compromises so one size will more or less fit all.

I built my current prototype to mainly test insulation effectiveness and mounting techniques - haven't been too worried about die size. Since posting some details in my recent Reserator review it seems like a few folks are getting their pantys in a knot about how big my die is...

Sure it will give much different C/W values than other die sims but so what???

I'm open to suggestions and can easily mill down the existing die surface area if given proper justification. (I'm already working on a new design that incorporates an automatic, universal loading mechanism.) So what do you think? What size is the best compromise for a CPU thermal die simulator???

06-12-2004, 02:56 PM	#26
RoboTech Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 229	OK, lets talk about die size... some more... I have recently completed my second thermal die simulator. (My first attempt was modeled on a Thourobred core, made out of brass and was designed to be mounted into a dead socket 462 mobo. I found it more trouble than it was worth to try and rigidly mount the die just to use an existing socket - and maybe the brass wasn't such a good idea either!) OK, a year later and I made a new one. Based on prevoius comments in this thread it struck me size really wasn't too important - it's a simulator after all. Given all the different CPU core sizes (now and to come) and the question of how big a role does the IHS play = no obvious decision. For my second generation die I decided to go with copper (like everyone else) but make the die area much larger so it would be more robust and hopefully better able to stand up to repeated testing - maintain surface flattness and finsih without the relatively soft copper deforming over time. I picked 1000 mm2 (actually 1,024 mm2), which is 32 mm x 32 mm - almost the exact size of a P4 IHS (31 x 31) And I like even numbers... Pics of my new thermal die simulator This "seemed" like a good compromise as it better represents the actual contact area a HSF or waterblock will see when mounted to any of the new generation CPUs with IHSs. 1,000 mm2 is bigger than any of the actual cores, about the same size as a P4 IHS and smaller than AMDs new IHSs. I don't think it is realistic to assume we can truly simulate the thermal characteristics of an actual CPU. Hot spots, thermal spreading, etc. By definition a simulator has to make some compromises so one size will more or less fit all. I built my current prototype to mainly test insulation effectiveness and mounting techniques - haven't been too worried about die size. Since posting some details in my recent Reserator review it seems like a few folks are getting their pantys in a knot about how big my die is... Sure it will give much different C/W values than other die sims but so what??? I'm open to suggestions and can easily mill down the existing die surface area if given proper justification. (I'm already working on a new design that incorporates an automatic, universal loading mechanism.) So what do you think? What size is the best compromise for a CPU thermal die simulator???