Innovatek Block - Page 4

EMC2 · 03-28-2002, 06:03 PM

Joe - here are some Thermocouples you might find interesting that will fit beside the die as I illustrated a ways back

Phaestus - well written, interesting question regarding the Duron. I like your writing style

One thing regarding consistency - will you not have most of the same issues regarding replicating the setup on a die simulator as you do on a real CPU? (thickness of thermal compound, mounting of the block, etc.)

Regarding the variability of the diodes from part to part - I can give you a quantitative answer to that in degrees C if you are interested or provide you with the info on how to determine it if you prefer. It might well be within the measurement error of the setup.

Question for you, honestly interested in your view. Which problem(s) do you think is(are) insurmountable?

pHaestus · 03-28-2002, 06:23 PM

A simulated die has the advantage of having no secondary cooling paths (if properly set up) and having a way to control and measure pretty exactly the heat load produced. As you move towards studying 0.1C or 0.01C differences then knowing the heat load precisely becomes critical (and impossible on actual systems). That was why I said that CPUs could never be used for high end testing like BillA and Joe are talking about.

Another good point though: secondary cooling paths can be substantial. I talked with Andrew at Millenium Thermal about this (he worked on the Agilent Articooler also) because I was getting far better temps on Dynatron heatsinks with 44CFM Delta fans than the Overclockers die would produce. Other heatsinks seemed to fall pretty much in line with Joe C's testing. In the end, I realized that with really high CFM, high pressure fans that secondary cooling might be important. This would be kinda interesting to study. You might want to come up with an adjustable benchtop PSU for the fans though; power supplies on computers will have variable voltage.

When all is said and done, the parameter that frightens me is paste application. Ingenuity can deal with changes in pressure, suitcases of money would solve the resolution/accuracy issues (and purchase a very nice simulation setup), but how to deal with paste application? What about differences in consistency as the tube of paste ages? I have an old Arctic Alumina tube that seems to have gone bad. What about changes in formulation from batch to batch of paste? How many replicates do I need to do to capture this variability: 5, 10, 100?

EMC2 · 03-28-2002, 06:59 PM

Ok - I can agree completely with your points depending upon what your intended goal is

Now let's look at in from another perspective - take the secondary cooling paths. If one is really trying to see how well a block performs in a system in comparison to other blocks then shouldn't you also take those secondary cooling paths into account? Or what about other variables that you have "in system" that you don't have with a die simulator?

Part of the above invokes the question of what are you trying to really test? Is it the performance of one block to another? Is it the measurement of deltaT between inlet coolant and die temps (as some would say a "bastardized" C/W)?
Or maybe it is how well a CPU will OC with one cooling method over another? Part of the issue here - is the entire die surface uniformly cooled or are there hotter areas with one method or another? What about reaction to load change? How quickly does the cooling device respond, are there any short duration temperature spikes?

I also completely agree, no matter what the intent of the testing is, that the thermal interface between the die and the CPU is the most troubling one in some ways (for that matter between the temperature measuring device and any solid object). That having been said, there is a possible way around that problem in the case of the wb/die interface, depending upon what the intended testing goal is. I know you'll probably make faces at this one, but give the thought a whirl before you reject it

You pretty well addressed the issues of using thermal compound at the wb/die interface (thickness, aging, batch to batch variations - with thickness/application being the biggest headache within a given testing sequence). What about using something that doesn't vary as much - but - isn't as thermally conductive? In this case - one of Thermagon's conductive foams. Controlled thickness (always the same if you use the same piece of foam and same compression force and it's reusable). It would significant reduce the variability at the wb/die interface. (note - I am not suggesting it's use for an actual system on a day to day basis because of the C/W rating of it, just as a tool to help eliminate some of the issues of thermal compound for a test environment).

Oh - and a wild thought about the differences in the temp measurements on that Duron you mentioned - were there heat producing components in the "well of the socket" that were affecting your readings? (like resistors)

Joe · 03-28-2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unregistered
"EMC2... you remind me of somone else I know in many ways ( stubborn arrogance"
watch it there EMC2, you're on thin ice now . . . .

EMC2 (and any others interested),
I have a TC measurement analysis ? as part of a rather involved thread

care to comment ?

hehehe Unreg

there was a smile in that post you didnt copy hehe it was a joke.

Joe · 03-28-2002, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pHaestus
I don't understand how Joe, Joe C, BillA, and other serious testers keep at it. Bill's adage is true:

"All temps are crap...."

I agree a lot with this! Here is a break down on my whole lil deal about cooling reviews: ( this applys only to reviewing cooling products)

I hate reading them, I hate writing them, I hate even the thought of doing them. You know why??? Simple, cause people take the numbers litterally. When I do reviews like the Waterblock roundup I do a whole bunch of products at once for the simple reason that me taking temps with my setup on one product will yeild results that are rather baseless and have no guage to how my temps relate whe comparing to other products.

This is why Reading a review of 1 HSF or something is about the biggest waste of time, since I have no idea what kind of error this guys setup has so I have no idea how Site A's test compares with Site B's test. Normally there are significant differences.

So compare'n a BIG group of blocks or HSF's or Rad's together and laying all the data out you can see how they relate to eachother to give some basis for whats better and whats worse and where. I honestly dont take the numbers in the review as being absolute, I think they are as accurate as I can get with the gear I have currently, but I dont say they are "THE" temps. Out of a review on cooling stuff I only aim to show how Product A did against Product B on a level playing field with the lowest possible error factor.

But many people of the [H] mentality ( I think you know what I mean when I say that so I am not going to explain that comment... it isnt directed at anyone in this thread just at the general mentality of some people... AKA Noobs) look at the temps I list as absolute, and either say the review is GREAT if they think the numbers line up with theirs, or it SUCKS if they dont, without looking at the big picture of tests. That is why I hate doing cooling reviews, cause all it does is unleash a load of emails asking me why their temps are different than mine, or that "You temps suck, learn how to cool!... my temps are 5deg below yours and right at ambient at full load...." beautiful logic.

anyway thats my story.

as far as saying thermocouples are shit, and Thermistors are the shit, or any of the above... I think we have come to a point in the discussion that we can both agree some Thermistors suck, some rock, some Thermocouples suck some rock. It all depends on the quality of the gear you use.

Now... what about thermal diodes/transistors like the Crystal Fontz 633 uses?? something that is NOT affected at all by solder joints, or wire lenght ( each is a self contained thermometer for all intents and purposes).

BillA · 03-28-2002, 07:37 PM

pHaestus
re the goop application:
I was afforded an informal review of a previous setup wrt the actual system accuracy potential by the NZ national standards people. They indicated a 2^C range, and were impressed that I was well below that at 1.3^C. Their comments were the impetius for the present (and quite last, to many $$) system upgrade.

Sample size is always a problem, bigger being better but being a PITA given app, 'rest' time, and then testing. Another problem with large sample sizes is the recognition of how easily "flyers" (bad apps) can slip in, for a presumed 'high tech' business the goop application is anything but. Any 'good' test will have a sufficient number of trials for at least a crude statistical analysis.

As EMC2 suggested, other materials can provide greater consistancy - for the purpose of testing; but then the correlation bit becomes a factor (of which there are already several). I tried none (air) but did not care for the really high temps, dielectric grease seems best. Don't like foam as it hides any surface problems, which may be an advantage or not - depending on the goal.

Despite my initial despair, I am now able to recognize a bad app before I test it - so some progress is being made (and also skewing the data - which is ok by me, I just want [close to] the same values).

I'm not interested in hsfs, but any review of chip packaging/mounting indicates that the secondary losses can be appreciable, and quite dependant on mobo level air flow.

easy Joe, I showed it being truncated, and my caution was also a joke;
but a noob sprang to your defense 'just-in-case' I guess
(biting my tongue - mouth filling with blood, choking arrrghh . . .

Joe · 03-28-2002, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unregistered
easy Joe, I showed it being truncated, and my caution was also a joke;
but a noob sprang to your defense 'just-in-case' I guess
(biting my tongue - mouth filling with blood, choking arrrghh . . .

Worst part of email and forums is you cant tell if the guy was smile'n or pissed off on the other side of the screen.

hehehe I think I know what you are bite'n your tongue about...

EMC2 · 03-28-2002, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Worst part of email and forums is you cant tell if the guy was smile'n or pissed off on the other side of the screen.

VERY true

Usually takes a while to "learn" the other persons "writing style" to get clues from and to figure out the typeS of humour they use. (have known some to use

to soften real anger)

* knows exactly why the tongue biting is going on *

Sometimes people can't resist giving a little good natured poke either

Brad · 03-28-2002, 11:15 PM

yeah, a little

or

can make it seem like you're just kidding around, but it is so easy to make a really harsh comment without really realising it

03-28-2002, 11:15 PM	#84
Brad Thermophile Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Nuu Zeeelin Posts: 3,175	yeah, a little or can make it seem like you're just kidding around, but it is so easy to make a really harsh comment without really realising it __________________ 2x P3 1100's at 1400, Abit VP6, 2x Corsair 256mb PC150 sticks, 20gb 'cuda ATA-III, 2x 40gb 'cuda ATA-IV in raid 0. 20" Trinitron. No fans 2x 2400+ at 2288mhz (16.0 x 143), Iwill MPX2, 2x Kingmax PC-3200 256mb sticks, 4x 20gb 60gxp in Raid 5 on a Promise SX6000. Asus Ti4200 320/630. Cooled by Water

03-28-2002, 06:03 PM	#76
EMC2 Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Dark Side of the Moon Posts: 365	Joe - here are some Thermocouples you might find interesting that will fit beside the die as I illustrated a ways back Phaestus - well written, interesting question regarding the Duron. I like your writing style One thing regarding consistency - will you not have most of the same issues regarding replicating the setup on a die simulator as you do on a real CPU? (thickness of thermal compound, mounting of the block, etc.) Regarding the variability of the diodes from part to part - I can give you a quantitative answer to that in degrees C if you are interested or provide you with the info on how to determine it if you prefer. It might well be within the measurement error of the setup. Question for you, honestly interested in your view. Which problem(s) do you think is(are) insurmountable?

03-28-2002, 06:23 PM	#77
pHaestus Big Player Making Big Money Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com Posts: 4,782	A simulated die has the advantage of having no secondary cooling paths (if properly set up) and having a way to control and measure pretty exactly the heat load produced. As you move towards studying 0.1C or 0.01C differences then knowing the heat load precisely becomes critical (and impossible on actual systems). That was why I said that CPUs could never be used for high end testing like BillA and Joe are talking about. Another good point though: secondary cooling paths can be substantial. I talked with Andrew at Millenium Thermal about this (he worked on the Agilent Articooler also) because I was getting far better temps on Dynatron heatsinks with 44CFM Delta fans than the Overclockers die would produce. Other heatsinks seemed to fall pretty much in line with Joe C's testing. In the end, I realized that with really high CFM, high pressure fans that secondary cooling might be important. This would be kinda interesting to study. You might want to come up with an adjustable benchtop PSU for the fans though; power supplies on computers will have variable voltage. When all is said and done, the parameter that frightens me is paste application. Ingenuity can deal with changes in pressure, suitcases of money would solve the resolution/accuracy issues (and purchase a very nice simulation setup), but how to deal with paste application? What about differences in consistency as the tube of paste ages? I have an old Arctic Alumina tube that seems to have gone bad. What about changes in formulation from batch to batch of paste? How many replicates do I need to do to capture this variability: 5, 10, 100?

03-28-2002, 06:59 PM	#78
EMC2 Cooling Savant Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Dark Side of the Moon Posts: 365	Ok - I can agree completely with your points depending upon what your intended goal is Now let's look at in from another perspective - take the secondary cooling paths. If one is really trying to see how well a block performs in a system in comparison to other blocks then shouldn't you also take those secondary cooling paths into account? Or what about other variables that you have "in system" that you don't have with a die simulator? Part of the above invokes the question of what are you trying to really test? Is it the performance of one block to another? Is it the measurement of deltaT between inlet coolant and die temps (as some would say a "bastardized" C/W)? Or maybe it is how well a CPU will OC with one cooling method over another? Part of the issue here - is the entire die surface uniformly cooled or are there hotter areas with one method or another? What about reaction to load change? How quickly does the cooling device respond, are there any short duration temperature spikes? I also completely agree, no matter what the intent of the testing is, that the thermal interface between the die and the CPU is the most troubling one in some ways (for that matter between the temperature measuring device and any solid object). That having been said, there is a possible way around that problem in the case of the wb/die interface, depending upon what the intended testing goal is. I know you'll probably make faces at this one, but give the thought a whirl before you reject it You pretty well addressed the issues of using thermal compound at the wb/die interface (thickness, aging, batch to batch variations - with thickness/application being the biggest headache within a given testing sequence). What about using something that doesn't vary as much - but - isn't as thermally conductive? In this case - one of Thermagon's conductive foams. Controlled thickness (always the same if you use the same piece of foam and same compression force and it's reusable). It would significant reduce the variability at the wb/die interface. (note - I am not suggesting it's use for an actual system on a day to day basis because of the C/W rating of it, just as a tool to help eliminate some of the issues of thermal compound for a test environment). Oh - and a wild thought about the differences in the temp measurements on that Duron you mentioned - were there heat producing components in the "well of the socket" that were affecting your readings? (like resistors)

03-28-2002, 07:37 PM	#81
BillA CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered" Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106 Posts: 4,440	pHaestus re the goop application: I was afforded an informal review of a previous setup wrt the actual system accuracy potential by the NZ national standards people. They indicated a 2^C range, and were impressed that I was well below that at 1.3^C. Their comments were the impetius for the present (and quite last, to many $$) system upgrade. Sample size is always a problem, bigger being better but being a PITA given app, 'rest' time, and then testing. Another problem with large sample sizes is the recognition of how easily "flyers" (bad apps) can slip in, for a presumed 'high tech' business the goop application is anything but. Any 'good' test will have a sufficient number of trials for at least a crude statistical analysis. As EMC2 suggested, other materials can provide greater consistancy - for the purpose of testing; but then the correlation bit becomes a factor (of which there are already several). I tried none (air) but did not care for the really high temps, dielectric grease seems best. Don't like foam as it hides any surface problems, which may be an advantage or not - depending on the goal. Despite my initial despair, I am now able to recognize a bad app before I test it - so some progress is being made (and also skewing the data - which is ok by me, I just want [close to] the same values). I'm not interested in hsfs, but any review of chip packaging/mounting indicates that the secondary losses can be appreciable, and quite dependant on mobo level air flow. easy Joe, I showed it being truncated, and my caution was also a joke; but a noob sprang to your defense 'just-in-case' I guess (biting my tongue - mouth filling with blood, choking arrrghh . . .

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)