That sums it up pretty well.
The IHS really doesn't spread heat laterally all that far, so using a heat die similar in size to the P4 die is, in my opinion, acceptable. The problem, or, where I'm stuck, is how to reproduce the temperature measurement, or more specifically, where to take it, within the die.
Then the issue becomes: what adjustment factor does one use, to account for an IHS? First, there's the thickness of the IHS (is it really 1.5 mm?), then there's the curvature in the Intel IHS that becomes flat with clamping, then there's the TIM joint, then there's the silicone, up to the internal diode.
I could compare any AMD to the heat die, but an Intel P4 is a real puzzler. Bottom line, each tester is going to have a different temperature: that's why we have cross testing: so that we can all figure out how off we all are from a CPU temp reading.
As for the exceptional performance of the Cascade, I defer to the design: it can handle the hot spots of the CPU die much better than any other block. The real puzzler is the magnitude of any kind of hot spot (if my theory is correct): I thought that the IHS's purpose was also to smooth out these hot spots.
|