Pro/Forums - View Single Post

pHaestus · 10-06-2003, 07:17 PM

Winewood:

1) Bill just said that the IHS does NOT behave just like a second TIM joint. As he is under NDA, one would conclude it must work better than predicted from such.

2) Test benches are just that: controlled tests. I would assume that a smaller die in general will produce higher temperatures than do the chips with IHS. I would also assume that the CPU + IHS produces temperatures higher than a die simulator the size of an IHS. Better to err on the high side for performance than on the low side right? Plenty of inflated performance as is.

3) How my heat "spreading" does the IHS actually do? Any data on this? JoeC seems to think the answer is "a ton" and my guess would be "a little bit". We do know that temperatures drop noticeably when the IHS is removed...

All I am saying is the use of a smaller die may not be such a bad idea even in the age of the IHS.

10-06-2003, 07:17 PM	#19
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	Winewood: 1) Bill just said that the IHS does NOT behave just like a second TIM joint. As he is under NDA, one would conclude it must work better than predicted from such. 2) Test benches are just that: controlled tests. I would assume that a smaller die in general will produce higher temperatures than do the chips with IHS. I would also assume that the CPU + IHS produces temperatures higher than a die simulator the size of an IHS. Better to err on the high side for performance than on the low side right? Plenty of inflated performance as is. 3) How my heat "spreading" does the IHS actually do? Any data on this? JoeC seems to think the answer is "a ton" and my guess would be "a little bit". We do know that temperatures drop noticeably when the IHS is removed... All I am saying is the use of a smaller die may not be such a bad idea even in the age of the IHS.