Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except it doesn't. Core Temp reads the temperature off of a sensor within the CPU, which is designed specifically and only to register a correct temperature value at the Tjmax temperature. For the CPU used in this review, the target Tjmax is 95C, meaning that the farther away from that number you get, the less accurate the numbers are. Intel's DTSes have a variance of about 10C in either direction down to about 50C, and below that they become saturated, meaning that any readings below 50C should not be considered as actually representing the real temperature. So when dealing with temperatures that aren't above 80C or so (and that might even be a generous allowance), a properly calibrated thermal probe will be vastly more accurate than the readings from a DTS that is not even designed to read accurately at those temperatures.The discrepancies between the programs and hardware monitoring is irrelevant if you accept that CoreTemp, for example, provides as consistent results as any other method.
The presence of the thermal probe is constant across the entire testing procedure, so any error that might occur from it (which would be insignificant if there is any at all) would be the same for all the results. So relative to each other, all of the numbers are accurate.By using a probe on the surface of the CPU, you are interfering with the test itself. Thermal paste belongs on the CPU, not a probe. How a thermal paste transfers heat away from the plastic on the probe, I think you would agree, is different from how thermal paste transfers heat away from the IHS.
Except that does not represent real-world heat loads. Frostytech does this, but as a result, many of their results actually are inconsistent with real-world testing (for example, on their charts the original Thermalright Ultra-120 scores better than the Ultra-120 Extreme, which is certainly not the case in reality). So that approach is much more flawed.The best way to do this test would be to create your own heating surface and thermal monitoring, beneath a genuine Intel IHS. Then you can create your own loads, and monitor temperatures, without introducing variations that you will invariably receive by having a whole computer there and interfering with the testing surface.
vengence covered this.how can you regulate applying a consistent layer of thermal paste? Did you measure the amount which was applied by drop so that drop sizes were the same? There's a lot of issues with human error introduced here, which is considered by many (as you note) to be one of the most important aspects of thermal compound.)
FBDs and Hooke's law have about fuck all to do with any of this.I understand the free-body-diagram/Hooke's "Law" idea you've got here
That is true, but only if the amount of paste initially applied is insufficient to cover the entire surface. If the amount is sufficient, then it doesn't matter how much is applied, since any excess will be displaced by the clamping pressure of the mounting system. As long as enough paste is applied, it doesn't matter what the precise amount is.let's take something more practical: Imagine you put only a nanogram of paste on in a drop, or imagine you put on the whole tube. You don't mean to tell me that the thickness of these applications is similar, do you? In a perfectly viscous situation, would not the thickness depend only on the amount of paste in the drop?
Most of that is incoherent, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, you're concerned about excess paste affecting the thickness of the layer. However, I addressed that above. Any excess paste will be squeezed out the sides due to the mounting pressure.This might be more rigorous to satisfy you: What does this say of a "thin layer"? There's not regulation here. How much paste used, as is even "shown" in the flash video referenced, has a huge impact on thermal performance. In a scenario where the paste fills only irregularities up to the surface, then regardless of viscosity, the spring will extend until the IHS. Adding more thermal paste here will thicken the layer to a point because the resistance offered by the viscosity is greater than the force offered by the spring. Do you agree? It is at the equilibrium point that we hit the thickness of a drop, and any more paste is squeezed out the sides, as you correctly said.
The proof exists in Intel's documentation. I haven't the inclination to go and search it out for you at the moment, but feel free to do so yourself and be educated. All the information about the inaccuracy of the DTSes as I explained above comes straight from them.I didn't claim that they were precise at all, for sure. My claims deal specifically with a total loss of precision. But, you do have to PROVE that it is inaccurate.
Zero82z said:The proof exists in Intel's documentation. I haven't the inclination to go and search it out for you at the moment, but feel free to do so yourself and be educated. All the information about the inaccuracy of the DTSes as I explained above comes straight from them.
Roger that.
I actually use the silicone based variety tho....any reason the non-silicone MG paste is better ?
I'm having trouble with this article's testing methods
The discrepancies between the programs and hardware monitoring is irrelevant if you accept that CoreTemp, for example, provides as consistent results as any other method. When the temperature goes up, the temperature goes up the same in any different program. You fail to mention that it's the change that matters, not the raw numbers.
By using a probe on the surface of the CPU, you are interfering with the test itself. Thermal paste belongs on the CPU, not a probe. How a thermal paste transfers heat away from the plastic on the probe, I think you would agree, is different from how thermal paste transfers heat away from the IHS.
The way you justify this testing method is by how Intel tests their own processors. But, you're not testing the processor.
The best way to do this test would be to create your own heating surface and thermal monitoring, beneath a genuine Intel IHS. Then you can create your own loads, and monitor temperatures, without introducing variations that you will invariably receive by having a whole computer there and interfering with the testing surface.
(One last edit, now that I've actually read the full article, rather than just testing methods, as per request of "vengence" and "brentpresley": how can you regulate applying a consistent layer of thermal paste? Did you measure the amount which was applied by drop so that drop sizes were the same? There's a lot of issues with human error introduced here, which is considered by many (as you note) to be one of the most important aspects of thermal compound.)
Most of that is incoherent, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, you're concerned about excess paste affecting the thickness of the layer. However, I addressed that above. Any excess paste will be squeezed out the sides due to the mounting pressure.This might be more rigorous to satisfy you: What does this say of a "thin layer"? There's not regulation here. How much paste used, as is even "shown" in the flash video referenced, has a huge impact on thermal performance. In a scenario where the paste fills only irregularities up to the surface, then regardless of viscosity, the spring will extend until the IHS. Adding more thermal paste here will thicken the layer to a point because the resistance offered by the viscosity is greater than the force offered by the spring. Do you agree? It is at the equilibrium point that we hit the thickness of a drop, and any more paste is squeezed out the sides, as you correctly said.
I don't know where you got that idea. Nobody is taking this personally; we're just pointing out that you're wrong. It seems like you're actually the only one who's bringing personal feelings into this.I'm still confused as to why people are taking this all so personally
Wrong. FBDs are a way of visualizing rigid-body systems. Thermal paste is not a rigid material, so FBDs do not apply. Hooke's law is a way of calculating the force stored by the extension or compression of an elastic material, but thermal paste is not an elastic material so Hooke's law does not apply. What does apply to the paste is fluid dynamics.So, in this situation, FBDs and Hooke's Law have something to do with this. That is to say, the situation is described by basic physics.
Wrong. Spring-based mounting mechanisms use compression springs, so the amount of force applied by them increases the more they are screwed down. The system is kept in equilibrium by the reaction force applied by the backplate which acts through the screws.For a larger than necessary amount of thermal paste, the spring pushes down with a diminishing force as its extension increases (approaching zero at rest, this is Hooke's law).
Sort of. It is true that an equilibrium is reached though, and that depends on the viscosity of the paste and on the clamping force. However, the amount of paste initially applied does not affect anything, since that does not change the viscosity.This movement occurs, pushing excess paste out, until an equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium occurs when viscosity and the force of the spring are at peace with one another.
Yes.We remove all of the excess paste and view the scenario again: Now the paste is at a height "h" at equilibrium. We see that this h is greater than zero because, when we remove a cooler from the CPU, there is always leftover grease, not just grease in microscopic crevices.
That makes no sense. The spring is obviously at rest, because it is not moving. Like I explained above, it is held in equilibrium by the backplate. And the force applied by the spring is nonzero for any position it is in such that its length is compressed by any amount.Let's assume that the spring's force is non-zero for any position of the cooler such that the base's height is >= that of the IHS. In other words, the spring is never at rest with the cooler installed.
The flaw there is that if you apply less than the critical amount of thermal paste to cover the whole heatspreader, when the cooler is clamped on, the paste will not spread out to cover the entire surface. It will only spread out as far as its viscosity will allow it. So it is not the height of the layer of paste that changes, it is the surface area that it covers.Now, if we remove any amount of thermal paste from the equilibrium, h decreases and the spring expands. The paste still covers the CPU because h>0. So, for any amount of paste for which 0 < height <= h, we note that the spring will still push the base to meet with the paste, but the height of the thermal paste will vary.
Summary: Equilibria occur somewhere in the middle. According to physics, the height of the thermal paste can vary between 0 and the equilibrium height.
I was pretty sure that AS5 has a cure time of 200hours of high-temperature exposure to reach max performance.
XCPUs.com found the same exceptional performance out of the Shin-Etsu X23 as well. Too bad the stuff costs an ARM+LEG.
EDIT: and what is up w/ the CHEESE?
I don't know why you're taking this so personally, I mean, clearly I don't have a Mechanical Engineering degree, it's not interesting to me. But, that doesn't mean we can't discuss this.
I've done commercial/professional electronic installations for years.
1 degree of improvement ain't worth it........It's irrelevant in a commercial setup.If you need 1 degree , your thermal management setup is crap.period.....
I bought my MG silicone thermal paste for 9 bux , and It'll last me till the day I die.
'Nuff said.
i have made a video on how the compound spreads.. hope u all like it~~
How Thermal Compound Spreads (MX-2 Edition)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffK7L0Qj13Q
How Thermal Compound Spreads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyXLu1Ms-q4
Nice videos. Should be helpful to some.
Nice videos. Should be helpful to some.
I have never found anything that works as well as goodl old charcoal lighter fluid, it will disolve everything from the old sticky pink pads that some heatsink manufactuers use, all the way up to AS5 and Shinestu.
Qtips and paper towels used for the wiping. For $1.79 you get about a 30 year supply
I hate to be the BS detector, but the socket A mobo's peaked with the athlonXP's, when the athlon 64's hit 754, then when the dual core ahtlon64's came out they were originally for the 939 (or 940) sockets only.
Just make sure to clean it off with isopropyl alcohol afterward because lighter fluid will leave a residue.Huh, never heard of or tried that, gonna give it a go when I build my next rig and re-seat my TR XP-90 on the old system.
Just make sure to clean it off with isopropyl alcohol afterward because lighter fluid will leave a residue.
Just make sure to clean it off with isopropyl alcohol afterward because lighter fluid will leave a residue.
Here's a quote from W1zzard
completely wrong way to measure this. they just looked at how intel suggests coolers should be qualified (qualify == keeps the system stable != scientific measurement)
only one application per thermal paste? or did i miss something?
a $60 multimeter to measure temperature? wtflol. that meter has an accuracy of +-1°C
"Ambient temperature will be kept at 25C for the duration of the tests and measured with a MicroTemp EXP non-contact infrared thermometer." - that meter has something like +-2° accuracy...
total that's +-3°C .. as a result those charts are pretty worthless since all pastes are within 3°C of each other.
great review. pick 6 pastes, roll dice, less work. if you have no idea how to review something, stay away from it.
He's clearly a software guy, not a hardware guy and doesn't even understand how a thermal couple works.... Just another idiot who thinks because he's good at one thing he suddenly has knowledge of everything.
His points are really not valid at all. How is he wrong? Read below.How is he wrong? His points are valid, a little harsh but valid.
Intel's methods are pretty damn scientific out of pure necessity. If they weren't, they'd be fairly useless as a means of doing anything. They make use of thermocouples with good accuracy, a consistent testing protocol, and a standard of measurement that can be carried across their entire range of products while retaining its usefulness. I don't see a reason why this methodology would not be sufficient, and it is certainly much more effective than any other method that's been tried.completely wrong way to measure this. they just looked at how intel suggests coolers should be qualified (qualify == keeps the system stable != scientific measurement)
That's true, but realistically it doesn't make a whole lot of difference.only one application per thermal paste? or did i miss something?
+/- 1C compared to the DTSes built into the CPU that have an accuracy of about +/- 10C? I'd say that's pretty damn good. Considering the fact that we're dealing with temperatures in the 35-45C range at load, that's an uncertainty of roughly 2.5%, which would be considered excellent in most cases.a $60 multimeter to measure temperature? wtflol. that meter has an accuracy of +-1°C
An 8% uncertainty at most. Still quite acceptable."Ambient temperature will be kept at 25C for the duration of the tests and measured with a MicroTemp EXP non-contact infrared thermometer." - that meter has something like +-2° accuracy...
Two things: first, the mere fact that all pastes have similar results technically means that the entire idea of a comparison such as this is fairly pointless since all of the products have relatively similar performance to begin with. However, the real benefit of this test is not to show which pastes are necessarily better, but rather to show that none of them offer any major advantages over the others.total that's +-3°C .. as a result those charts are pretty worthless since all pastes are within 3°C of each other.
This guy should take his own advice. It's best not to preach about things you have no understanding of.great review. pick 6 pastes, roll dice, less work. if you have no idea how to review something, stay away from it.
He dosen't review hardware for TPU? How is he wrong? His points are valid, a little harsh but valid.