Quote:
Originally posted by winewood
The right thing to do, but it in many cases negates the benifits of mm from base cooling that delivers such good results because they are so focused on their specific job. Im not here to start a flame post in any way, but point out that a heat spreader will do just that and the core heat area will now be bigger.
I am thinking the proper course is not to defend what already is but to learn and adjust for this. If not learn from the newer environment that we are working then assume the arguement of keeping your older block and ask how many degrees different is it now, and is this enough to change peoples mindsets toward focusing on a couple of types of non-tec blocks.
I feel that this movement narrows the gap between the non directed blocks as the chip manufactures seek to find ways to keep aircooling an option.
Is this a logical observation? Once the larger heat spread area is accounted for, it will become a crutch that manufactures can use to spread out the heat or make the cores larger. Then we must address this topic later if not now.
|
The gap is "narrowed", but what is important here is how much it is narrowed. At present IHS thicknesses (~1-1.5mm) the gap really isn't narrowed to any major degree that I can see. The IHS doesn't laterally conduct the heat far enough to make a major impact to the high focus designs. The high focus designs that I use are already made in such a way to account for IHS use. If I would guarantee that the IHS was not there, their focus would be even tighter than at present.
What is of critical important though is test-bed setup. Too many independent testbeds create a heat load that is distributed evenly across a simulated IHS area, and this is wrong. An IHS CPU has a small die with a separate thermal junction to a thin IHS.
I fear that what may happen is bogus test-bed setups are used that drive customers away from the designs that do tackle the problem appropriately.