Best long lasting TIM in 2017? MX-4?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah and it had real-world implications both parties here made future predictions on CFL, feel free to reread. All this research? I was rereading the thread as stated, and read the different lines of conversation contained within, and that guy (STR) got ganged up on... and he was right in the end. I'll always take a moment to congratulate someone in that scenario. Everyone dismisses you in the moment then forgets as soon as the results come in. I'm not doing any research, I found all of this out on CFL launch-day, just regurgitating the stuff I saw. It wasn't just LTT either, look around yourself but I already said that Ars Technica had the same at stock. Both are as credible if not more than the average site so dismiss at your own peril because it's reality and that means you're just punching upwards when trying to insist you're right.

I have gone around and looked after your post and haven't seen anything that corroborates your points other than LTT. Given one outlier, I'd dismiss it (regardless of the "peril"), until there was a specific trend from all the review sites.

I'm happy to debate thermodynamics all day if you'd like, which is how we got into this in the first place.
 
I have gone around and looked after your post and haven't seen anything that corroborates your points other than LTT. Given one outlier, I'd dismiss it (regardless of the "peril"), until there was a specific trend from all the review sites.

I'm happy to debate thermodynamics all day if you'd like, which is how we got into this in the first place.

Well you didn't look too hard, just like many reviews didn't. And if you missed it in the first go round upon the 8700K launch, why would today be any different? ;)

I'm not going to spend hours digging and digging when I already proved you wrong with multiple sources. From memory I already stated Ars Technica. I'll just quote it and end this debate right here and now.
Quad-core chips don't require as much voltage, and thus don't put out as much heat, meaning the use of a TIM less of an issue. The 8700K on the other hand pumps out the heat and then some. At stock speeds on auto settings, the 8700K reaches a toasty 90°C under full load when paired with a substantial 280mm liquid cooler (in this case a CoolerMaster MasterLiquid Pro). I had paired the 8700K with a 240mm liquid cooler, but that wasn't enough to keep the temperatures down.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/intel-coffee-lake-8700k-review/
 
Well you didn't look too hard, just like many reviews didn't. And if you missed it in the first go round upon the 8700K launch, why would today be any different? ;)

I'm not going to spend hours digging and digging when I already proved you wrong with multiple sources. From memory I already stated Ars Technica. I'll just quote it and end this debate right here and now.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/intel-coffee-lake-8700k-review/

The quote you provided "Quad-core chips don't require as much voltage, and thus don't put out as much heat" is completely incorrect from an electrical engineering standpoint. Voltage has zero to do with core count.

If you read earlier in the article you provided from Ars, they also claim significant BIOS problems with that motherboard, which resulted in much higher VID than Intel's spec, resulting in higher temps than expected at stock:

The problem is the over-zealous VID spit out by the motherboard. In this case, the board pumped in around 1.248V into the CPU to maintain the stock 4.7GHz all-core boost clock. That's much higher than the 1.0V or lower you would see in a quad-core CPU. Indeed, undervolting the CPU greatly reduces temperatures without affecting stability. Naturally, this will vary from CPU to CPU, but I found a -0.090V offset to be a good starting point for undervolting, which brought temperatures down well below 75°C. It's likely that future BIOS updates will fix the issues with Auto settings, but it's something to bear in mind if you jump in at launch.

Seems like the temps may not be related to core count, but more to improper voltages from the early BIOS versions.

Yet again, I don't see anything that rates anything close to "spectacularly wrong".
 
The quote you provided "Quad-core chips don't require as much voltage, and thus don't put out as much heat" is completely incorrect from an electrical engineering standpoint. Voltage has zero to do with core count.
If you read earlier in the article you provided from Ars, they also claim significant BIOS problems with that motherboard, which resulted in much higher VID than Intel's spec, resulting in higher temps than expected at stock:
Seems like the temps may not be related to core count, but more to improper voltages from the early BIOS versions.

Yet again, I don't see anything that rates anything close to "spectacularly wrong".
Multiple sources detailed you as spectacularly wrong. The fact that you just now read that review trying to pick it apart tells me you weren't and aren't paying attention. The case is closed. As far as making excuses for the temps, if Intel is selling a defective platform then that's their problem, but I wouldn't advise anyone take your word for it after you were publicly proven wrong multiple times.

I'll tell you what you're missing. The truth is that the bottom line is that "under load" is a huge variable, that's the real answer here, most review sites didn't do their homework and neither did you. No need for new narratives and excuses about motherboards. The chips are pigs and tacking 2 cores onto Coffeelake did exactly the opposite of what you predicted.

You and SomeGuy133 were absolutely curb stomped here, while STR and myself ended up being right.

You went down in flames on this one kiddo. Both LTT and Ars, among others whom you didn't bother to look into (you didn't check into the ones I provided until you were shamed).. I had to provide literally all the evidence here, demonstrating that you were spectacularly wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top