[Cathar]

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.