Quote:
ms
read the Swiftech stuff carefully
Swiftech's are now device C/Ws, previously the C/Ws were case-to-air/water and included the TIM joint
Swiftech data is comparable if on the same graph, not so between graphs (different bench in almost all cases, I know for I did it)
with offsets you can daisy-chain, but with errors probably
|
Thanks for the heads up, Bill, I won't bother. It won't help things, it appears.
I've never been a TIM fan. Sure it is easier for the OEMs, but it sure does make things hard over here at procooling. I'm with Stew (not that my opinion matters, a boy among the kings here) on the TIM varience issue. Here's why:
Case1:
About 18 months ago, I had an Intel 2.8e which I overclocked (great chip, hot as hell though). On air with a MCX-478 my maximum stable OC was 3.2. Temps were high (no sense in posting as I have no accurate way of measuring). When I put some of my watercooling gear on (an old BIP, MCW5000, hydor L-20) my maximum stable OC went up to 3.4. I say to myself "Strange. This chip is regularly hitting 4.2. Bad chip perhaps?" I checked out the bin number (week 23 malay if I remember) over one VR and saw that some had gone as high as 4.4 on water.
What I noticed was that my temps had not improved that much, though I was using a vastly superior thermal solution on a very hot CPU. After a couple of remounts I thought to myself "Maybe a bad IHS?" It would take to long to lap the sucker, so I took it off. Next (scary) mount of the block: major decrease in temps, maximum OC shot up to 4.0.
Case 2:
In a recent upgrade (on a different rig), I swapped out an old 2.6C for, wouldn't you know it, a 2.8E (great value for the old 478s). Checked it out on VR again, seemed like I had another good chip (week 37 malay). This time, out of the box, IHS on, the thing does 4.0. Temps are surpisingly good (using the same MCX 478). Pop off the IHS, install new WC gear (Dtek WW, MCP350, BIP3). Temps improve, but not nearly as much as the last time. OC went to 4.2, also not nearly as much as last time.
Obviously not science, but it is good anectodal evidence. The first 2.8E couldn't go anywhere near its max OC with the IHS on. The second 2.8E went almost to its max OC WITH the IHS on. This would seem to say that the IHS on the first chip was severly limiting my ability to cool the chip, while the second IHS had much less of an impact. I consider that to be inconsistancy (varience).