![]() | ||
|
|
ProCooling Article/Review Discussion This is the place to discuss work on ProCooling. All threads are auto generated when the article is posted. |
![]() |
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Big PlayerMaking Big Money
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
|
![]()
Article is here
Think of it as a general overview and a launching point for CONSTRUCTIVE discussion on testing please. Any comments, questions, additional information, or clarification should go here. I hope we can now get all the discussion into this single thread instead of crapping all in every waterblock review thread on the planet k thx.
__________________
Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
a cogent survey of the state of testing, Thanks pH
makes sense to me also to consider different test platforms developing data for different purposes that such platforms would differ in their price/performance objectives would enable testers to evaluate the 'best bang for the buck' (what info does their audience want, and which platform/methodology is best suited - adaquate ? - to develop that data) from a testing perspective; there are different uses for data some of which require good accuracy and precision (product design), but others for which lower resolution data is quite sufficient (product performance for example) the right tool for the right job |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Where hockey pucks fly free
Posts: 12
|
![]()
A very thorough and informative article. Props to you.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kentucky USA
Posts: 64
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Big PlayerMaking Big Money
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: irc.lostgeek.com #procooling.com
Posts: 4,782
|
![]()
I will try and dig up all the good links and posts made by Marci and others today and compile them here. Eventually I'll get them into the article. I am hoping to get some more discussion than just "you rock pH" up in here too. They are still arguing about whether diodes on P4s are reliable or not in the Apogee thread for example (I'd add a lol if I could bring myself).
__________________
Getting paid like a biker with the best crank... -MF DOOM |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
I would hope that those arguing about P4s are also those using them, but that issue is outside your article
it would be more proactive if those proposing things also had a specific interest in that type of testing - IF those comments apply to CPUs in a 775 package, then it is the accessing and intrepertation that is of interest if you can manage the disparate elements pH, it will help to keep separation between bare CPU, CPU w/IHS, and die sim methods |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Responsible for 2%
of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,302
|
![]()
What we need is a demonstration (proof) that the AMD internal TIM is variable.
Intel's internal temp probe is on the edge of the core (and therefore not representative), we know, which makes it a poor temp probe for CPU testing. TCC is not accessible (except as an on/off state). That leaves the IHS groove. I also believe that the dynamics behind the IHS (Intel or AMD), physically, are a black hole. We could use more info there too. I'll be pursuing the heat die route, on 10mm by 10mm, as well as 14mm by 14mm, with a floating, grooved, IHS; at least my mounting surface will be durable. I was planning to adapt the heat die to a dead motherboard; I'll see what can be done there. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
stacked sensors per Inco ?
(I have extra phenolic if needed) EDIT when you say "we", who are you including ? no, you want it to me it is a terrific waste of testing time and $ to confirm that over which there is little controversy and to quantify that for which there is no use perhaps this would be a good tune-up for your bench ? Last edited by BillA; 12-15-2005 at 04:10 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Thermophile
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: France
Posts: 1,221
|
![]()
Isn't the IHS irrelevant anyway ? Who wants to keep this thing in the thermal path.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
Intel users ?
- one of pH's proposed 3 ways to heat a wb |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
c00ling p00n
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
|
![]() Quote:
Note to the 2 thermal diodes agument; I don't see what the fuss is all about really. One diode is for the user to monitor, yes it is in a 'cooler' spot on the core, but an internal reading none the less. The other unreadable diode is only for throttling and thermal shutdown / protection, we ought to consider this diode dead unless it can be read somehow. I am confident (yeah no 'real' proof here) that reading the diode we can read in the P4's would show various WB performance MUCH better than with an AMD and the IHS. If anyone has a block that will fit 775 that they want to loan me that is arguably worse than the G5, I'll be happy to slap it in and record the differences with the basic tools that I've got. Perhaps testing should move to tying into the P4 readable diode and using the 775 as the testbed for IHS based CPU's as for one, the TIM is far better and 2, it is not removeable. Leave the AMD for IHS-less tests.
__________________
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." 1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home aNonForums *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
"Perhaps testing should move to tying into the P4 readable diode and using the 775 as the testbed for IHS based CPU's as for one, the TIM is far better and 2, it is not removeable. Leave the AMD for IHS-less tests."
reasonable to me with both bare and clad, W is not known but guesstimated (on basis whatever) - for bare (AMD only), C is based on pH's diode reader ? open source ? technical skill req ? cost ? (does procooling care if ph's bench is unique ?) - for 775s, C is based on the TC reading of the grooved IHS open source dwg and procedure ? skill ? cost ? (does procooling wish/intend doing 775 based testing ?) -> why not ? (want more readers ?) The heat die sim seems more problematical, what now needs to be recognized is that a good die sim is far more than the slug I began with. To derive a non-intrusive face temp requires a sophisticated design with excellent equipment and procedures, a commitment of time and resources. Ice Czar is perhaps the only possibility for such a device that I am aware of, inclined to test commercial products. peeps wanting a good die sim should be really nice to IC |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
c00ling p00n
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 758
|
![]()
For 775's C should be based on diode reader and/or TC in grooved IHS, would be nice to see the IHS vs diode data, this is what I've been after ever since I learned of the TTV. We know what TC readings in the IHS already result in, confirmation of it and the relationship of it in re to diode is going to hopefully yeild some 'fun' data.
__________________
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* E6700 @ 3.65Ghz / P5W DH Deluxe / 2GB 667 TeamGroup / 1900XTX PC Power & Cooling Turbo 510 Deluxe Mountain Mods U2-UFO Cube Storm G5 --> MP-01 --> PA 120.3 --> 2x DDC Ultras in Series --> Custom Clear Res "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." 1,223,460+ Ghz Folding@Home aNonForums *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
no Scott, I truly do not understand why experience - the only experience available to you guys - is so casually dismissed
?? again you do NOT know the IHS temp, properly measured who has done so ? data ? I agree it will be interesting to see the comparison. I would disregard a diode 'reading' if an actual physical measurement is available, but that is only my preference Does the "diode" temp = the "die" temp ? Where is this defined, by whom ? We have a die temp from JoeC (2 or 3 in fact), another from pH, several from Lee; which is the real deal ? -> What is the target ? Not trying to be difficult, just pointing out that some decisions need to be made, at least by the tester putting together a bench. Shall we launch another impossible popularity debate ? Can we define "die temp" ? method of measurement ? different for AMD and Intel ? (why, how to compare ? - sink performance must be predictable) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
|
![]() Quote:
My idea of the target is the temperatures associated with attached suggested-power profiles. My "testing target" would be to characterize these with one temperature measurement. Going to the pub |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
all of these are approximations of something else
cannot see any benefit to deriving data from other than the center, again approximations relating to . . . this rather well undefined 'die temp' - note that a single (point) masurement will not describe that profile, not a constant I accept we are not talking about any temp described in a Thermal Design Guide, so where does it come from ? we have 90°C #s, 130°C, what ? do these numbers relate to something measured ? (by whom, how ?) we seek a greater range so a 'die temp' is considered better than an IHS temp, I'm seeking an explanation of the basis for defining, for our purposes, the die temp |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
|
![]()
Yes. all the razor.
At the moment there is nothing on which to use Ockam |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Cooling Neophyte
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 28
|
![]()
Bill, using the center, even though logical, could produce "bad" results. Notice that most CPU designs are not symmetrical and usually have the L1 and L2 cache at one side.
I think the best idea would be to use a die simulator and a real CPU and testing exactly the same waterblocks (trying to keep everything else the same, I know it is difficult) to try and correlate the 2 testing methods where the give consistently the same result. example: give a CPU that has a power consumption of 100W, use "software heating" (this can range, but has to be the same once a method is chosen, method has to be exact ... a program that is specifically designed to do this, or a program that can be readily monitored/controlled. The said program also can't be based on any multi-user operating systems ... windows,unix,etc.) and then try to vary the power applied to the die simulator that produces the same readings that the CPU does. In both cases, the temperature probing should be done in the same way ... would it be possible to drill into the IHS and stick a thermal probe in there? The idea here is to create a simulation which is "close enough" so then you can adapt it to other CPUs and be able to graph out close approximations to how a cooler would act on a given CPU. Thus you get a database, where you choose a cooler (air cooler per say, assuming all come with a fan that isn't changed) that can be tested on a die simulator and then results can be produced with simple calculations ... I also think that testing should turn to less exact changes ... meaning, I don't care if one cooler performs by 1C better than another (highly subjective) ... I would care though, how they would handle themselves in a variety of ambient temperatures (mainly 20C to 30C in 5C increments, inclusively). Also, don't forget that until you can measure the kinetic energy of every molecule, no matter how you construct your testbed, you will never produce 100% accurate readings ... To those lazy to read ... create your own testbeds but find a single standard testbench that you can correlate your tests to. This way, we can compare various results and correlate them between reviewers. Much like in file formats ... there are Alcahol CD image formats, then there is Nero, then there are a bunch of others ... but the ISO 9660 is standard and anything can be converted to it and from it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
read the P4 TTV inst, follow them in general
this is technology, not science |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
|
![]() Quote:
Hopefully a judiciously placed temperature sensor and a Total Power(both transmitted along primary(HS) path and Source) can distinguish between four cases shown. Presently investigating(with Incoherent's [13beermat] ^(3++) simulations) "judiciously placed". Last edited by Les; 12-24-2005 at 10:09 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Pro/Staff
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 1,439
|
![]()
Bill, you say tech and not science, but I have to play devil's advocate. Some people here are interested in the science and modelling.
Les, thanks for running the numbers to show how a centered power source distributes heat across a 101mm^2 silicon die (I hope I'm reading your graphs correctly). I'm not sure how they can help, though. We don't have a case of even a single hot spot. A P4 die has several potential hot spots that shift as the instruction mix changes. Would a waterblock do significantly better if it was designed to focus on known hotspots of a particular CPU? Better, meaning better overclock or increased stability (e.g. better stability despite equal or worse/higher temperatures measured at some arbitrary location like the P4 diode)? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |||
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Helps because a statement of the problem is essential to getting a solution.The distribution is part of the solution. The solution is being investigated, starting with an even simpler case than previously illustrated - Uniform Central HotSpot on square 0.5mm thick slice of Si(attachment) Quote:
Last edited by Les; 12-29-2005 at 04:06 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
CoolingWorks Tech Guy Formerly "Unregistered"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Posts: 2,371.493,106
Posts: 4,440
|
![]()
Brian
that the 'scientific' interest exists I agree, but many wishing to opine do not understand the underlying technology "example: give a CPU that has a power consumption of 100W, use "software heating" (this can range, but has to be the same once a method is chosen, method has to be exact ... a program that is specifically designed to do this, or a program that can be readily monitored/controlled. The said program also can't be based on any multi-user operating systems ... windows,unix,etc.) and then try to vary the power applied to the die simulator that produces the same readings that the CPU does." I am not interested in the above wishful dream as many here have beaten this topic for 5+ years deal with what we have first, then - using that info - define the next useful step lol this crowd cannot even measure an IHS temp, or even agree as to its utility science ?? a way to go yet |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
Cooling Savant
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wigan UK
Posts: 929
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Pro/Staff
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 1,439
|
![]()
What software did Incoherent use for that, again?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|