Intel's TIM continues to create heat bottleneck, many years after Ivy

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hawtdawg

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2005
1,223
7
81
Logic dictates there must be difference. If the gap is the same yet soldered CPUs have significantly improved thermals, then the gap cannot be the main culprit for the degraded thermals to begin with. So either the TIM is the main culprit, or the gap is somewhat different.

Replacing solder with TIM is the "culprit". As for why using TIM sucks so bad, it's because there is a gap between the core and the IHS, which caused no issue with solder. It's not because the quality of the TIM. Therefore, replacing the TIM is not what fixes the cooling issue, it's removing the glue that holds the IHS on, which reduces the gap between the IHS and the core.

This isn't complicated. Your post assumes that a gap would have the same effect on the performance of both solder and TIM.
 
Last edited:

JimmiG

Platinum Member
Feb 24, 2005
2,024
112
106
Replacing the TIM probably doesn't hurt, even though the biggest gain comes from eliminating the gap by getting rid of the rubbery gunk the IHS sits on. The larger gap also means more TIM is needed, which acts as an insulator, trapping the heat.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Solder isn't a magic solution. If you gave the same dies from IB and forward solder instead you wouldn't see "everything fixed" cases. SB was just easier to cool.

Everyone just blames the TIM because its easy mode. And forget all the chips, including previous before SB that was TIM.
 
Last edited:

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,637
3,095
136
Solder isn't a magic solution. If you gave the same dies from IB and forward solder instead you wouldn't see "everything fixed" cases. SB was just easier to cool.

Everyone just blames the TIM because its easy mode. And forget all the chips, including previous before SB that was TIM.

I'll come right out and admit I had no idea what was under the IHS before all of this TIM debate started. I also admit that as of now, TIM is considered evil and noobish.
 

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,655
138
106
Solder isn't a magic solution. If you gave the same dies from IB and forward solder instead you wouldn't see "everything fixed" cases. SB was just easier to cool.

Everyone just blames the TIM because its easy mode. And forget all the chips, including previous before SB that was TIM.

Nope... is because TIM became worse with the years and to make it worse, it locks the real potential of the chip.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,584
1,743
136
Solder isn't a magic solution. If you gave the same dies from IB and forward solder instead you wouldn't see "everything fixed" cases. SB was just easier to cool.

Everyone just blames the TIM because its easy mode. And forget all the chips, including previous before SB that was TIM.

Do you have a link to which Intel CPUs were and were not soldered? I've delidded a couple P4s and they were soldered, but haven't tried a Conroe yet.
 
Jul 26, 2006
143
2
81
My theory has always been that Intel did this on purpose to cripple its CPU. Why do this? Because they can, they got no competition. This gives Intel more of a buffer in the future to sell 'premium products' and get more money out of people for a longer duration. In my opinion this is also why we are still stuck on a max of 4 cores for the mainstream (I love it how there marketing department even has us calling it mainstream), intel knows it can keep milking the 4 cores while selling more expensive 6/8 cores on the 'high end' platform.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
My theory has always been that Intel did this on purpose to cripple its CPU. Why do this? Because they can, they got no competition. This gives Intel more of a buffer in the future to sell 'premium products' and get more money out of people for a longer duration. In my opinion this is also why we are still stuck on a max of 4 cores for the mainstream (I love it how there marketing department even has us calling it mainstream), intel knows it can keep milking the 4 cores while selling more expensive 6/8 cores on the 'high end' platform.

By this logic, I should just shoot myself in the foot, so I could get faster in the future when it heals up!!
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
216
116
Do you have a link to which Intel CPUs were and were not soldered? I've delidded a couple P4s and they were soldered, but haven't tried a Conroe yet.

From a quick bit of googling, it looks like the vast majority of Intel chips from Prescott through to Sandy Bridge used soldered-on IHSes. The only ones that I can find any solid evidence for using TIM instead of solder (prior to IVB) are a few Penryn-based dual-core models, and even then it doesn't seem to be universal.
 

Edgemeal

Senior member
Dec 8, 2007
211
57
101
My theory has always been that Intel did this on purpose to cripple its CPU. .

I doubt it, wild guess,.. TIM is cheaper, easier to handle, does the job they need and probably has a lower carbon footprint which would help keep Intel's pollution tax/permit costs lower.
 
Aug 20, 2015
60
38
61
There is still a gap with solder. Its no different.
Um... no. It's very different and there is no gap with solder. Fluxless solder applied under the IHS literally binds the IHS to the die directly. Which is why trying to delid a soldered CPU is really risky. If you don't just sand down all the solder or melt it properly, the die can be ripped apart because the solder is bound that strongly to it:



There is no gap... not in Intel's application of a soldered IHS nor in any competent TIM solution for that matter. The literal point of TIM is to eliminate gaps because air is a horrendous conductor of heat.

In contrast, Intel's thermal paste solution has the IHS bound only to the CPU package's PCB via excessive adhesive whereas the die isn't directly connected to the IHS by anything.

Solder TIM solutions are superior because of significantly higher heat conductivity AND a direct connection of the IHS to the die both. Which is also the reason why delidding a CPU with a soldered-on IHS barely produces any improvements whatsoever even if successful (most of the minuscule, potential gains likely to come from running the die naked without the IHS at all rather than a replacement of solder with any commercially-available TIM).

Solder-based TIM solutions actually do their job: Thermal Interface Material. No ands, ifs, or buts; it's nothing at all like the embarrassingly imprecise smothering of excessive adhesive and poor conductivity of Intel's thermal paste solution.

Solder isn't a magic solution. If you gave the same dies from IB and forward solder instead you wouldn't see "everything fixed" cases. SB was just easier to cool.

Magic? It's called physics wise guy; basic thermodynamic properties and thermal conductivity to be precise. And no, Ivy Bridge's heat transfer problems are actually solved by solder and Sandy Bridge is not "just easier to cool". Nothing is "just easier to cool", there are reasons. And Ivy Bridge's reason for poor temperatures versus Sandy Bridge is extremely poor thermal conductivity because of a certain gap and significantly less conductive TIM material. That's a fact (one largely discovered by the process and testing of delidding).

Soldered Ivy Bridge-E hexacores run cooler than soldered Sandy Bridge-E hexacores:




The only potentially confounding variable remaining would be thermal density, however the 4960X is actually more dense versus the 3960X (59% of latter's die size) than the 3770K is versus the 2600K (74% of the latter's die size).

Solder vs paste with a gap is the reason for mainstream Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge temperatures before delidding.

Everyone just blames the TIM because its easy mode. And forget all the chips, including previous before SB that was TIM.

No, everyone blames the TIM and the gap because it's the truth. Delidding results, -E platform comparisons, basic thermodynamic properties, and resulting common sense paint a very clear picture.

As for previous chips using TIM, only the lower-end ones and the ancient ones from before modern CPU heat generation levels; not the flagship mainstream offering and its cut-down companion (like our current 6700K/6600K models). Which, incidentally beginning with SB, almost exclusively retain unlocked multipliers and are advertised as overclocking models with some corresponding premiums.

And speaking of those past models:


That Pentium 4 is likely Northwood or Williamette. This was following a time when high-end CPUs were significantly less power hungry and had significantly lower TDP than today therefore they required less effective cooling. It was also before Intel even began soldering IHSs to the CPU at all (Netburst probably being the catalyst).

Intel first started using fluxless solder under their heatspreader with Prescott. 478 Prescott and LGA 775 Pentium 4s were soldered. Also, if you're trying to make a remotely positive point about thermals and good-engineering choices with sub-IHS paste, don't pick Pentium 4s to do it with. Comparing Skylake or Haswell or Ivy Bridge to any Netburst derivative isn't a strong point in favor of paste or Intel's current decisions.



Core 2 Duo (Wolfdale):
http://www.overclock.net/t/1483439/core-2-duo-e7200-delid

I think its hard to get a list, some got changed with a stepping.

That's a pretty low-end Core 2 and Wolfdale chip, not comparable to the current i5/i7 -K models. The entire E8xxx line based on a bigger and better Wolfdale chip were all soldered. The Conroe equivalents of the modern 6700K/6600K (nicely named E6700/6600) were also soldered. So were the Core 2 Quad Kentsfield equivalents (Q6700/Q6600). And Yorkfield, and Bloomfield, and Lynnfield.
 
Last edited:

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
The gap isn't any less with solder. Its just a different material applied in between.

2600K stock hits 85C using a TS15A cooler at 1000rpm.
6700K hits 75C with the same cooler and fanspeed.

Shouldn't the superior solder show the opposite? Specially if there is no gap.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,584
1,743
136
The gap isn't any less with solder. Its just a different material applied in between.

2600K stock hits 85C using a TS15A cooler at 1000rpm.
6700K hits 75C with the same cooler and fanspeed.

Shouldn't the superior solder show the opposite? Specially if there is no gap.

Irrelevant comparison when they're consuming different amounts of power, in different cases and potentially different ambient temperatures.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Irrelevant comparison when they're consuming different amounts of power, in different cases and potentially different ambient temperatures.

They consume the same power in the test. Package=95W.

Case and ambient? Sure. The 6700K would perform better in a bigger case and lower ambient.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,584
1,743
136
They consume the same power in the test. Package=95W.

Case and ambient? Sure. The 6700K would perform better in a bigger case and lower ambient.

Are you basing this on something you have actually tested and measured, or just Hugo Drax's reply from the other thread?
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Are you basing this on something you have actually tested and measured, or just Hugo Drax's reply from the other thread?

I have tested the 6700K with settings Hugo did. And my 6700K sits with a high ambient case temp and a smaller case. Both running stock, unmodified and same cooler.

Feel free to do your own testing to show otherwise.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,584
1,743
136
I have tested the 6700K with settings Hugo did. And my 6700K sits with a high ambient case temp and a smaller case. Both running stock, unmodified and same cooler.

Feel free to do your own testing to show otherwise.

That doesn't imply that both CPUs dissipated 95W. And again, the higher case temp is just supposition on your part. While you may have a smaller case, he mentioned nothing about his room ambient or case temperature other than him stating his chassis fan speed.

It may very well be that the case temperatures are higher, but unless you both measured it it's not known. Similarly the package power consumption isn't known unless you actually ask him what the consumption is when he's hitting 85C. Trying to draw a conclusion about which thermal interface is better while controlling essentially no variables other than the CPU cooler is meaningless.
 
Aug 20, 2015
60
38
61
The gap isn't any less with solder. Its just a different material applied in between.
The gap normally discussed in delidding discussions isn't purely the distance between the die and IHS, but also the IHS's lack of adherence to even the thermal paste due to the glue (particularly if it expands due to heat, lifting the IHS ever so slightly higher and creating/widening a small air gap).

The application of solder prevents such a thing by creating a strong bond between the die and the IHS so that they're always strongly and uniformly connected whereas thermal paste is just kind of there. It doesn't keep the die and IHS together.

2600K stock hits 85C using a TS15A cooler at 1000rpm.
6700K hits 75C with the same cooler and fanspeed.

Shouldn't the superior solder show the opposite? Specially if there is no gap.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on or where you found that data. Review sites (when they actually compare CPU temperatures) clearly find soldered CPUs to be more effectively cooled; the gap grows more in their favor when overclocking and producing even more heat which becomes increasingly problematic for a flawed thermal interface.

But if it were true, there are still plenty of reasons that are difficult to assess without knowing the testing methodology. The most basic potential issue is a particular 2600K's soldering job could be botched, it happens. Any given 6700K could be fortunate enough to have a bit less adhesive raising its IHS than most others as well; pasting and gluing isn't the most precise and uniformly consistent process in the world.

I'm not sure what program was being run either, but stock Skylake could potentially cool more easily beneath a certain level of heat generation because of the growing temperature delta I mentioned above, especially if any of the above two conditions are true. Skylake's efficiency could be at work in this particular application and it ends up not producing heat to Sandy Bridge's level in the first place.

Aren't exactly a lot of details to go off of here, but frankly you're arguing with the laws of physics, research, Intel (note: how they keep solder on their higher-watt -E series), and several years of testing proving solder to be more effective/Intel's paste solution to be not the best if, as your argument now appears, you are trying to claim soldered IHSs do not conduct heat more effectively than glued and pasted ones using significantly less conductive materials.
 
Last edited:

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Got any review sites with Skylake and down to Sandy Bridge temperatures? Would be interesting to see. They all just measure power consumption as far as I see.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
Do you have a link to which Intel CPUs were and were not soldered? I've delidded a couple P4s and they were soldered, but haven't tried a Conroe yet.
As far as I know, Lynnfield was soldered. It was hardly a large die with a whopping 775 million transistors and no more than four cores.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
Um... no. It's very different and there is no gap with solder. Fluxless solder applied under the IHS literally binds the IHS to the die directly. Which is why trying to delid a soldered CPU is really risky. If you don't just sand down all the solder or melt it properly, the die can be ripped apart because the solder is bound that strongly to it:



There is no gap... not in Intel's application of a soldered IHS nor in any competent TIM solution for that matter. The literal point of TIM is to eliminate gaps because air is a horrendous conductor of heat.

In contrast, Intel's thermal paste solution has the IHS bound only to the CPU package's PCB via excessive adhesive whereas the die isn't directly connected to the IHS by anything.

Solder TIM solutions are superior because of significantly higher heat conductivity AND a direct connection of the IHS to the die both. Which is also the reason why delidding a CPU with a soldered-on IHS barely produces any improvements whatsoever even if successful (most of the minuscule, potential gains likely to come from running the die naked without the IHS at all rather than a replacement of solder with any commercially-available TIM).

Solder-based TIM solutions actually do their job: Thermal Interface Material. No ands, ifs, or buts; it's nothing at all like the embarrassingly imprecise smothering of excessive adhesive and poor conductivity of Intel's thermal paste solution.

Magic? It's called physics wise guy; basic thermodynamic properties and thermal conductivity to be precise. And no, Ivy Bridge's heat transfer problems are actually solved by solder and Sandy Bridge is not "just easier to cool". Nothing is "just easier to cool", there are reasons. And Ivy Bridge's reason for poor temperatures versus Sandy Bridge is extremely poor thermal conductivity because of a certain gap and significantly less conductive TIM material. That's a fact (one largely discovered by the process and testing of delidding).

Soldered Ivy Bridge-E hexacores run cooler than soldered Sandy Bridge-E hexacores:



The only potentially confounding variable remaining would be thermal density, however the 4960X is actually more dense versus the 3960X (59% of latter's die size) than the 3770K is versus the 2600K (74% of the latter's die size).

Solder vs paste with a gap is the reason for mainstream Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge temperatures before delidding.

No, everyone blames the TIM and the gap because it's the truth. Delidding results, -E platform comparisons, basic thermodynamic properties, and resulting common sense paint a very clear picture.

As for previous chips using TIM, only the lower-end ones and the ancient ones from before modern CPU heat generation levels; not the flagship mainstream offering and its cut-down companion (like our current 6700K/6600K models). Which, incidentally beginning with SB, almost exclusively retain unlocked multipliers and are advertised as overclocking models with some corresponding premiums.

And speaking of those past models:

That Pentium 4 is likely Northwood or Williamette. This was following a time when high-end CPUs were significantly less power hungry and had significantly lower TDP than today therefore they required less effective cooling. It was also before Intel even began soldering IHSs to the CPU at all (Netburst probably being the catalyst).

Intel first started using fluxless solder under their heatspreader with Prescott. 478 Prescott and LGA 775 Pentium 4s were soldered. Also, if you're trying to make a remotely positive point about thermals and good-engineering choices with sub-IHS paste, don't pick Pentium 4s to do it with. Comparing Skylake or Haswell or Ivy Bridge to any Netburst derivative isn't a strong point in favor of paste or Intel's current decisions.

That's a pretty low-end Core 2 and Wolfdale chip, not comparable to the current i5/i7 -K models. The entire E8xxx line based on a bigger and better Wolfdale chip were all soldered. The Conroe equivalents of the modern 6700K/6600K (nicely named E6700/6600) were also soldered. So were the Core 2 Quad Kentsfield equivalents (Q6700/Q6600). And Yorkfield, and Bloomfield, and Lynnfield.
Thanks for the informative post.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
221
101
Obviously available to the public, so warranty doesn't look like a problem..
Since it looks like the lidless CPUs were used in quite old models the parts may have ended up on Ebay via liquidation, not necessarily because Intel sold them to the general public directly.

Also the sort of customer who buys a Mac Pro and then swaps out the CPU for one that cost $1500 is not the sort of customer who is going to be doing things haphazardly. This seems to be a classic "edge case".

However, given that Intel has sold a somewhat recent chip bare perhaps it might consider offering one bare i7 for enthusiasts. I have no idea what kind of warranty it could offer, though.

This site shows a spreader for the "late 2013" (trashcan) model:
http://blog.macsales.com/22188-owc-confirms-mac-pro-2013-processor-upgradeable
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |