So the stock i3 2100 cooler is better than the stock i7 2600k cooler.

M

munkle

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
11,799
I had a spare 2600k cooler and I thought it might cool my i3 2100 better than it's stock cooler since the 2600k cooler has a copper core. Turns out the all aluminum cooler is better by 1 degree. My guess is because the all aluminum cooler is completely flat so it makes contact with the whole IHS while the 2600k has a copper core inserted into the center and the copper is raised off the bottom so not all of the cpu heat spreader is in contact with the cooler.
Just thought you all might like to know that. :p
 
1 degree is not a good enough delta to prove anything.

How do you know that the ambient temp of the atmosphere didnt change 1 deg during your experiment.

1 deg is not enough data to necessarily prove anything useful as a result unless you recorded all the numbers you could before and after to eliminate changes in temp etc....

Not to be mean of course,.
 
tangoseal said:
How do you know that the ambient temp of the atmosphere didnt change 1 deg during your experiment.
Click to expand...

I have thermostat in my room, and used the temp gun to record the results. I guess you could put it in the margin of error but to say it doesn't prove anything isn't necessarily true. It at the vary least shows the two coolers are comparable and the copper center doesn't really make a difference.
 
Now you just need to do the same test on a 2600k!
 
450 said:
Now you just need to do the same test on a 2600k!
Click to expand...

I dare not, the 2600k went to 80c in 10 seconds of running prime 95 on the stock cooler. I got an h50 on it now and it runs around 50c with a slight oc on prime 95. (this is with software monitor so I don't know how accurate those temps are since the bios temp is way off, it shows like 75c but once you boot to windows it shows low 30s)
 
I'd still say that a 1C delta isn't much to talk about. At most you can say that the two coolers are approximately equal at load temperatures. But if you put them under a load of prime95/lynx/etc I wonder if it would show more difference there?

the 1C could also be down to as much as cure time for the TIM used, or exact same application, and margin of error.
 
Janus67 said:
I'd still say that a 1C delta isn't much to talk about. At most you can say that the two coolers are approximately equal at load temperatures. But if you put them under a load of prime95/lynx/etc I wonder if it would show more difference there?

the 1C could also be down to as much as cure time for the TIM used, or exact same application, and margin of error.
Click to expand...

They were loaded under prime 95.
 
munkle said:
I dare not, the 2600k went to 80c in 10 seconds of running prime 95 on the stock cooler. I got an h50 on it now and it runs around 50c with a slight oc on prime 95. (this is with software monitor so I don't know how accurate those temps are since the bios temp is way off, it shows like 75c but once you boot to windows it shows low 30s)
Click to expand...

BIOS typically doesn't enable power saving functions, which it why it's temp is much higher.
 
People do realize that modern processors can't really be "burned out" anymore, right? That the thermal diode inside the core(s) self-checks and will basically shut the processor off (literally) if it gets about a degree from Tjmax, right?

People do know these things, right?

Right? :D

I've got a Q6600 that's been running at 4C under Tjmax for 19 months straight, with only a handful of reboots and less than an hour of downtime since I put that thing to work, and I seriously doubt today's less power hungry and cooler running processors would even blink at 2C under Tjmax for the same period of time or longer.

You ever get the impression that people just focus entirely too much on temps and other aspects of their PCs instead of actually using them? I know if you're a [H]ardcore overclocking maniac there can be some concern over temps, but even in spite of massive overclocks, as long as you're under Tjmax, I'm confident people can run those machines for many years to come without issues.
 
Joe Average said:
People do realize that modern processors can't really be "burned out" anymore, right? That the thermal diode inside the core(s) self-checks and will basically shut the processor off (literally) if it gets about a degree from Tjmax, right?
Click to expand...

People do realize that others don't like to run there chips at 80c? Right? Right? :D
 
What actually could be happening is that the aluminum heat sink is for all intents and purposes just fine--in your environment. Intel goes to great lengths to validate the coolers with each CPU, however, they validate for every possible use-case scenario.

It could be your environment just isn't extreme enough to see any different. If you had a much hotter operating environment (I think most products these days have a temp range specified for ambient temps), and were on the top end of the acceptable range, you might actually need the copper core.

Purely speculation, however...

ETA: For reference, back in the QX6700/X6800 days, I took a X6800 to 3.73 stable on the Intel QX6700 heat sink (D975XBX2 motherboard). Now, it was on a "test bench" chassis with a Delta 120MM server fan blowing over the setup, but it worked just fine with that copper core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top