Removed the IHS from an Ivy Bridge i5 3570k

ferzerp said:
Don't know, but unless you attach it with something with extremely low thermal resistance (like the solder on SB), there is physically no way a "heat spreader" assists cooling compared to a properly designed cooler directly on the die (and even then, if you could solder the cooler like the SB IHS, the direct die cooling would still be better).

You might have a heatsink that doesn't work on the smaller die due to being designed for a different type of contact (especially the heat pipe types), but anyone who says adding an extra layer of high thermal resistance between your cooler and the die is beneficial just doesn't understand physics. They may be able to type a lot and ridicule, but they exhibit a fundamental lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand all of that. The point of my facetious post was that there were a few of us who tried to point out that it did matter that Intel decided to go cheap and use grease instead of solder with IB - that it most likely would have made a fairly significant difference in temps - and we had to suffer several numbnut fanboys shouting us down and telling us we didn't know what the hell we were talking about - that it didn't matter basically "because Intel." It was horseshit.

The point was IF one is going to have an IHS then solder is the way to go. Period. It would have made a difference. How much we will probably never know. But no one wanted to hear that. They still don't. Intel screwed everyone by releasing a decent but hot chip by going cheap with TIM between the chip and IHS. In a world free of fanboys people would be more irritated about that and thinking people wouldn't have to suffer their bullshit.
 
beto said:
Yes I understand all of that. The point of my facetious post was that there were a few of us who tried to point out that it did matter that Intel decided to go cheap and use grease instead of solder with IB - that it most likely would have made a fairly significant difference in temps - and we had to suffer several numbnut fanboys shouting us down and telling us we didn't know what the hell we were talking about - that it didn't matter basically "because Intel." It was horseshit.

The point was IF one is going to have an IHS then solder is the way to go. Period. It would have made a difference. How much we will probably never know. But no one wanted to hear that. They still don't. Intel screwed everyone by releasing a decent but hot chip by going cheap with TIM between the chip and IHS. In a world free of fanboys people would be more irritated about that and thinking people wouldn't have to suffer their bullshit.
Click to expand...

How did they screw anyone? I love how just because Intel has used solder in the past, that solder is the "only way to go". They have used both solder and thermal compound in the past, so it's not like this is an unprecedented move. We have no idea why Intel switched to TIM instead of solder, maybe it was cost (probably) but it could also be that the small die size made solder impractical for some reason.

In a world free of people with an inflated sense of entitlement, thinking people wouldn't have to suffer their bullshit either.

Bottom line is the the chip runs as intended - you can call that "fanboy" logic if you want, but it is a fact. The chip runs at the speeds Intel qualifies it for within the thermal and power limits they set - just because you can't overclock it like you could Sandy doesn't make it a failure, and doesn't mean that Intel screwed you.
 
Forceman said:
Bottom line is the the chip runs as intended - you can call that "fanboy" logic if you want, but it is a fact. The chip runs at the speeds Intel qualifies it for within the thermal and power limits they set - just because you can't overclock it like you could Sandy doesn't make it a failure, and doesn't mean that Intel screwed you.
Click to expand...

Depends. On the K models I would consider it a failure to use thermal paste, given the fact that they are the enthusiast models, and also come with a price premium. On the standard models, if they can get acceptable performance with grease, then I'd say it's OK.
 
canna said:
Depends. On the K models I would consider it a failure to use thermal paste, given the fact that they are the enthusiast models, and also come with a price premium. On the standard models, if they can get acceptable performance with grease, then I'd say it's OK.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would be nice if they didn't use paste on the K chips (or any of them, really), but I would hardly call it a failure. The 1Ghz P3 that wouldn't run even at stock was a failure. This is an annoyance.
 
Has intel ever revised one of their chips after a production run? Like using TIM on one cpu chip run and then solder on a later run (same chipset)?
 
Forceman said:
How did they screw anyone? I love how just because Intel has used solder in the past, that solder is the "only way to go". They have used both solder and thermal compound in the past, so it's not like this is an unprecedented move. We have no idea why Intel switched to TIM instead of solder, maybe it was cost (probably) but it could also be that the small die size made solder impractical for some reason.

In a world free of people with an inflated sense of entitlement, thinking people wouldn't have to suffer their bullshit either.

Bottom line is the the chip runs as intended - you can call that "fanboy" logic if you want, but it is a fact. The chip runs at the speeds Intel qualifies it for within the thermal and power limits they set - just because you can't overclock it like you could Sandy doesn't make it a failure, and doesn't mean that Intel screwed you.
Click to expand...

This. Even though K series are unlocked, there are no warranties or representations made about how far they overclock. I imagine this was a cost cutting measure, and as an Intel shareholder I support it.

If IB chips failed to hit 4GHz then there might be reason to complain, but in most cases they will at least match OC'd SB (on average, not every SB is 5+GHz).
 
Hi guys,

Made an account just to ask this...

If I de-lidded and replaced the TIM, would I see any improvement in OCing in terms of voltage? Like, if I am stable now with 1.2V @ 4.3 GHz, would I be able to run 4.3 GHz at 1.15 V after?
(I know temps will drop, but will it have any effect on how stable an OC is at a certain voltage)

I only ask because right now it I have to bump my voltage to 1.3 to even boot when I am on 4.4 GHz

(3570K with a Hyper 212 evo(which may be upgraded soon) if it matters)
 
I don't see how better temps would allow you to reach the same overclocks at lower voltage. The idea is you'll be able to get higher OC at the same temp or the same OC at a lower temp.
 
bigal1542 said:
Hi guys,

Made an account just to ask this...

If I de-lidded and replaced the TIM, would I see any improvement in OCing in terms of voltage? Like, if I am stable now with 1.2V @ 4.3 GHz, would I be able to run 4.3 GHz at 1.15 V after?
(I know temps will drop, but will it have any effect on how stable an OC is at a certain voltage)

I only ask because right now it I have to bump my voltage to 1.3 to even boot when I am on 4.4 GHz

(3570K with a Hyper 212 evo(which may be upgraded soon) if it matters)
Click to expand...

Work on your over clock. You should be able to tweak your voltage lower. 1.2v or much less voltage for 4.5GHZ with your chip is very common.


If your chip wont do 4.5GHZ with no more than 1.2v then you got a slow one and are probably better off selling it on ebay and buying another one to see if you get a faster chip. More chances of getting a better clocking chip by buying another than delidding your current chip just to lower temps a little.
 
SonDa5 said:
Work on your over clock. You should be able to tweak your voltage lower. 1.2v or much less voltage for 4.5GHZ with your chip is very common.


If your chip wont do 4.5GHZ with no more than 1.2v then you got a slow one and are probably better off selling it on ebay and buying another one to see if you get a faster chip. More chances of getting a better clocking chip by buying another than delidding your current chip just to lower temps a little.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bad idea. Then you just lose $50 to maybe get an extra 200mhz. Maybe. Hardly "better off" IMO
 
Thanks for sharing! I haven't had too many issues with my 3570k overheating though. I was able to do 4.2ghz with the stock cooler and 4.6-4.7ghz with a coolermaster 212+ both under reasonable temps when running prime95.
 
RamonGTP said:
Sounds like a bad idea. Then you just lose $50 to maybe get an extra 200mhz. Maybe. Hardly "better off" IMO
Click to expand...

As opposed to delidding it to maybe gain an extra 200mhz and losing (likely more) money at resale?

If he has to push the OC higher, buying a replacement is the better option IMO.
 
I don't think its worth delidding just for a possible 200mhz more on the speed.
 
SonDa5 said:
I don't think its worth delidding just for a possible 200mhz more on the speed.
Click to expand...

OTOH, it's nice that people are doing this in order to find any potential root causes for the higher than SB thermals when OC'ing an IB past x GHz and past x Vcore.

Makes it easier for us to blow the whistle and call the manufacturer out on it's bullshit. :D
 
DejaWiz said:
OTOH, it's nice that people are doing this in order to find any potential root causes for the higher than SB thermals when OC'ing an IB past x GHz and past x Vcore.

Makes it easier for us to blow the whistle and call the manufacturer out on it's bullshit. :D
Click to expand...

I agree.

Revisions with improved IHS and stepping are needed.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
As opposed to delidding it to maybe gain an extra 200mhz and losing (likely more) money at resale?

If he has to push the OC higher, buying a replacement is the better option IMO.
Click to expand...

doubt it. by the time you go to resell it it would have already lost much of it's value, doubt it would lose another $50 Besides, de-liding (if you actually do it properly) will reduce your temps. Losing $50 for a replacement could get you the same, better or even worse over clocks.
 
RamonGTP said:
doubt it. by the time you go to resell it it would have already lost much of it's value, doubt it would lose another $50 Besides, de-liding (if you actually do it properly) will reduce your temps. Losing $50 for a replacement could get you the same, better or even worse over clocks.
Click to expand...



If you got a good deal on 3570k you could possibly break even or make money on selling it. I guess this is only true if you have a Micro Center near you.

In any case I don't see the point of delidding if the cpu is not a good over clocker.
 
SonDa5 said:
If you got a good deal on 3570k you could possibly break even or make money on selling it. I guess this is only true if you have a Micro Center near you.

In any case I don't see the point of delidding if the cpu is not a good over clocker.
Click to expand...

The point of de-lidding is to lower temps, then you have the option of running as is with lower temps or over clocking higher with the same temps.
 
SonDa5 said:
What were your temperature improvements?
Click to expand...

I am running my 3770K without the IHS...I have a high flow cpu block (Enzotech Sapphire) mounted directly on the cpu die..

In the brief testing I did before tearing my loop down, I saw a 10-17C drop vs running it with the IHS and stock paste..This was @ 4.7Ghz..
 
ccityinstaller said:
I am running my 3770K without the IHS...I have a high flow cpu block (Enzotech Sapphire) mounted directly on the cpu die..

In the brief testing I did before tearing my loop down, I saw a 10-17C drop vs running it with the IHS and stock paste..This was @ 4.7Ghz..
Click to expand...



Intel really screwed the pooch with IB IHS design.



Running direct die is calling me.
 
How much would you guys pay for a used 3570k that has been delidded and upgraded with better TIM?
 
You're basically doing a price check but I wouldn't pay a cent more than retail price. You might have footed the risk to take off the lid but you also voided the warranty. In the end it breaks even.
 
XacTactX said:
You're basically doing a price check but I wouldn't pay a cent more than retail price. You might have footed the risk to take off the lid but you also voided the warranty. In the end it breaks even.
Click to expand...


I would pay less than retail. I don't think a used cpu is worth retail.


Not doing a price chek since I am not trying to sell or looking to buy such item. Just trying to figure out how delidding a 3570k effects its value.
 
Last edited:
Yeah you're right, I misspoke. If for example the 3570K is selling for $200 used I'd pay a similar amount for a delidded one. Perhaps a little bit more depending on the circumstances but not more.
 
grambo said:
I imagine this was a cost cutting measure, and as an Intel shareholder I support it.
Click to expand...

cost cutting measure... you support sending out bad products? I'm not upgrading to ivy bridge as long as I'd have to delid the damn thing. I'll wait for the next generation, assuming I don't have to delid that one too.

take your "cost cutting" measure, figure what you "saved" by using bad tim and screwing up the IHS setup, and now figure out the amount of money you lost by people that refuse to purchase cpus that they would have to void the warranty of just to use to its max potential. it's entirely possible you've now lost money. 10 - 17 degrees is HUGE, at least another multiplier bump.
 
gjs278 said:
cost cutting measure... you support sending out bad products? I'm not upgrading to ivy bridge as long as I'd have to delid the damn thing. I'll wait for the next generation, assuming I don't have to delid that one too.

take your "cost cutting" measure, figure what you "saved" by using bad tim and screwing up the IHS setup, and now figure out the amount of money you lost by people that refuse to purchase cpus that they would have to void the warranty of just to use to its max potential. it's entirely possible you've now lost money. 10 - 17 degrees is HUGE, at least another multiplier bump.
Click to expand...

Oh please. The number of people who are boycotting Ivy because of the IHS issue is less of a cost issue for Intel than free snacks in the employee lounges. The chip works just fine within the specifications Intel set for it - it is in no way a "bad product" just because you personally can't get 50% extra speed out of it for free.
 
From a purely economic perspective grambo and Forceman are right but as an enthusiast I hope you guys understand that Intel let us down. It wouldn't be impossible to use fluxless solder for the K series chips that were made to be overclocked (and even allow you to purchase an overclocking warranty). If it would cost $5 per chip to solder the IHS to the die with K series chips, fine, maybe they could add $10 to the MSRP to make up for it. It might be a little bit more expensive for the end user but at least we wouldn't have today's situation. As it is, the only way to get decent temps with an Ivy Bridge when you are overclocking is to take matters into your own hands and void the warranty. That's really not an optimal scenario for an enthusiast and if Intel is marketing certain prudcts specifically to enthusiasts, I expect better.

EDIT Honestly, Intel can do better than this. The highest temperature that is in Japanese characters is the stock configuration.

114b.jpg
 
Last edited:
XacTactX said:
It wouldn't be impossible to use fluxless solder for the K series chips that were made to be overclocked (and even allow you to purchase an overclocking warranty). If it would cost $5 per chip to solder the IHS to the die with K series chips, fine, maybe they could add $10 to the MSRP to make up for it. It might be a little bit more expensive for the end user but at least we wouldn't have today's situation.
Click to expand...

It would at least require them to set up a second separate packaging line for the K chips, so who knows how much that would actually cost. Plus they'd have to validate the process, which requires engineering resources and time, and we actually don't know whether the change was made purely as a cost savings or if there is something else at play. Maybe the extremely small die size gave them problems with soldering, or maybe the thermal stress caused a soldered die to crack. Heck, maybe Intel did it on purpose to prevent people from being able to overclock too highly so they'd sell more 3770Ks instead of 3550Ks.

The chips run fine even at normal overclocks - they might get hot at 4.5 or so, but I haven't heard of any problems with clock throttling at those frequencies. I don't know why it should be expected that Ivy temps have to be the same as Sandy temps.
 
Forceman said:
It would at least require them to set up a second separate packaging line for the K chips, so who knows how much that would actually cost. Plus they'd have to validate the process, which requires engineering resources and time, and we actually don't know whether the change was made purely as a cost savings or if there is something else at play. Maybe the extremely small die size gave them problems with soldering, or maybe the thermal stress caused a soldered die to crack. Heck, maybe Intel did it on purpose to prevent people from being able to overclock too highly so they'd sell more 3770Ks instead of 3550Ks.

The chips run fine even at normal overclocks - they might get hot at 4.5 or so, but I haven't heard of any problems with clock throttling at those frequencies. I don't know why it should be expected that Ivy temps have to be the same as Sandy temps.
Click to expand...
While its not always the case, I don't think expecting the next generation chip on a smaller process node to run cooler than the previous one is unreasonable, especially considering the architecture is so similar. In fact, its obvious that the expectations are actually in line with reality when you look at the results of removing the IHS. If Intel had used solder or even quality TIM instead of cheap TIM, IB would have been a much more exciting proposition than it is now. Its frustrating as an enthusiast consumer to see that the potential of the chip in stock configuration is artificially limited by a cost-cutting measure. I'm not "boycotting" Ivy Bridge because of the TIM, but it cost them a sale from me because IB isn't enough of an upgrade over Sandy Bridge, mainly due to the OC's being limited by the TIM
 
Either you are satisfied with IB performance with the cruddy IHS design or you take control of the situation and improve the performance by delidding.

Until Intel improves IB IHS design there is no other choice for enthusiast who want the best performance possible from IB.
 
Delidded and replaced my 3570K with liquid ultra, got as much as 20C drop in temps at higher clocks and as much as 10-12C on lower clocks. The difference is there guys
 
Forceman said:
Oh please. The number of people who are boycotting Ivy because of the IHS issue is less of a cost issue for Intel than free snacks in the employee lounges. The chip works just fine within the specifications Intel set for it - it is in no way a "bad product" just because you personally can't get 50% extra speed out of it for free.
Click to expand...

Comparatively, yes, it is a bad product. They have better products that are older. This is a new product. If you don't fix the IHS yourself (voiding the warranty), it is worse than the older product.

A lot of people are not buying it until the IHS is fixed on their end. There's no reason a newer product should be less effective than the older one. This "cost cutting" measure, if it was even that, is causing them to look bad here. I'm on a 980x now, I wouldn't even consider an upgrade until I know for sure all measures are taken by Intel to fix this IHS issue.
 
gjs278 said:
Comparatively, yes, it is a bad product. They have better products that are older. This is a new product. If you don't fix the IHS yourself (voiding the warranty), it is worse than the older product.

A lot of people are not buying it until the IHS is fixed on their end. There's no reason a newer product should be less effective than the older one. This "cost cutting" measure, if it was even that, is causing them to look bad here. I'm on a 980x now, I wouldn't even consider an upgrade until I know for sure all measures are taken by Intel to fix this IHS issue.
Click to expand...

It isn't less effective, and it isn't worse than the older product. It is better in every category that matters to Intel and the vast majority of users. It uses less power, it is faster clock for clock, it supports new features, it has better IGP, and is only marginally hotter at stock settings (if at all). Just because you can't overclock it as high as older chips doesn't make it a bad product. It may make it a bad overclocker, but that is a different thing. It doesn't even look bad to people who want moderate overclockers - it works very well at 4.2~4.4, which is the speed equivalent of normal 4.4~4.6 overclocks on Sandy chips. The only people this chip looks bad to is the small subset of users that try to obtain high overclocks.
 
Last edited:
Forceman said:
It isn't less effective, and it isn't worse than the older product. It is better in every category that matters to Intel and the vast majority of users. It uses less power, it is faster clock for clock, it supports new features, it has better IGP, and is only marginally hotter at stock settings (if at all). Just because you can't overclock it as high as older chips doesn't make it a bad product. It may make it a bad overclocker, but that is a different thing. It doesn't even look bad to people who want moderate overclockers - it works very well at 4.2~4.4, which is the speed equivalent of normal 4.4~4.6 overclocks on Sandy chips. The only people this chip looks bad to is the small subset of users that try to obtain high overclocks.
Click to expand...


IB will run cooler if Intel fixes the IHS design.
 
gjs278 said:
the old product didn't have a design flaw that required physical parts to be removed from it to lower temperatures up to 10-20C
Click to expand...

Neither does this one. It isn't a design flaw, it's a design choice. And you don't have to remove parts to get it to run 10-20C cooler unless you want to because it runs just fine the way it was intended to run. Were the old Athlons flawed because you could de-lid them and get lower temps also? A design flaw was the old 1GHz Pentium, which wouldn't run at stock speeds without failing, and a bad product was Prescott, which used significantly more power than the previous generation product - neither of which is true this time. This is just overclockers crying because they can't get huge performance increases for free any longer. And for all that, it still overclocks fine for moderate clocks, it's just people trying to recreate Sandy results that are having issues.

And I fully understand your point, and I'd like to see them soldered as well, I just think you are overstepping by calling it a flaw or a bad product. You need to reserve those terms for actual flaws and bad products, or you devalue the terms - a kind of reverse grade inflation. Just like every new game is "game of the year" and "a 9.5 out of 10" even though everyone knows they suck.
 
Last edited:
There is also the power/total heat output trade-off to consider. Yes, IB may run hotter (smaller mfg process/surface area to dissipate heat), but the total power consumed/heat output into your system is lower than SB clock for clock (and there is improved IPC). It really depends on what an enthusiast wants from their system as to whether SB is a better product or not. For my use as an enthusiast gamer/encoder, IB was the better choice when buying a new system in early May. No complaints @ 4.5GHz rock solid 1.2V @ 100% load test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top