Warriorprophet
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 22, 2001
- Messages
- 1,510
I would submit that a more dense cheese would probably have fared better, afterall american nearly melts at room temp. Perhaps something in an aged gruyere?
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.
Sorry, but it's got to be said: anybody who read the article and thinks FAIL isn't in tune with reality.No IC Diamond? Review FAIL.
I was trying to be funny...but...grap this one...Loved the Article...
Also, we wanted to share our data with the community. You can grap the Excel file from here in a zip. Feel free to use this data for your own graphs or articles, all we ask in return is that you give us a link in your article and please send it to us. We always like to see how others represent the data and what can be mined from it. Thanks!
I had another one, but I've lost it now...
Great job nonetheless.
I use alchohol to clean the CPUs surface prior to applying thermal compound. Kyle often writes in magic marker what CPUs are what when giving them to us for testing. They tend to go back to him blank.
Great review! Is there a similar test with the i7 920?
Now it's a pity you didn't inlude most [H]ard of all thermal pastes - Coollaboratory liquid pro - which consists of liquid metal (but i don't know if you can buy it in US)
http://www.tweakers4u.de/artikel/coollaboratory_liquid_pro_wlp,,12,2005,,458.htm
Honestly, I don't know many people who use a computer for longer than 4 years. :shrug:
Careful with that Ceramique if you use the thin layer method. It gets VERY sticky after awhile. I had it yank out a locked down Athlon 3800x2 out of the socket of an AsRock Socket A board.
I would have used Velveeta instead. It's much closer to the consistency of thermal paste designed for higher temperatures.
Good review, was hoping to see the Zalman thermal paste that you apply with a brush, kinda curious about the temps on it.
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 and ARM+LEG.
Due to the unique shape and sizes of the particles in Arctic Silver 5 conductive matrix, it will take a up to 200 hours and several thermal cycles to achieve maximum particle to particle thermal conduction and for the heatsink to CPU interface to reach maximum conductivity. (This period will be longer in a system without a fan on the heatsink or with a low speed fan on the heatsink.) On systems measuring actual internal core temperatures via the CPU's internal diode, the measured temperature will often drop 2C to 5C over this "break-in" period. This break-in will occur during the normal use of the computer as long as the computer is turned off from time to time and the interface is allowed to cool to room temperature. Once the break-in is complete, the computer can be left on if desired.
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_singlecore_expsd.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_singlecore_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_amd_dual_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/Ins_as5_amd_quad_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_intel_dual_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_intel_quad_wcap.pdf
Section 3:
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_singlecore_expsd.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_singlecore_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_amd_dual_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/Ins_as5_amd_quad_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_intel_dual_wcap.pdf
http://www.arcticsilver.com/pdf/appinstruct/as5/ins_as5_intel_quad_wcap.pdf
Section 3:
TheMead said:If the system is being used for stuff like simple webbrowsing, paying bills, and etc. You would be surprised how low of specs you can get away with. Especially when your dealing with a aunt and uncle, grand ma, or etc. that simply does the "monkey do" after seeing how to work a computer.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
Intel defines a certain Tjunction temperature for the processor. In the case of Yonah it is 85C° or 100C°. First of all the program reads from a Model Specific Register (or MSR), and detects the Tjunction temperature. A different MSR contains the temperature data, this data is represented as Delta in C° between current temperature and Tjunction.
So the actual temperature is calculated like this 'Core Temp = Tjunction - Delta'
The size of the data field is 7 bits. This means a Delta of 0 - 127C° can be reported in theory. But from preliminary tests, the reported temperature doesn't go below 0C°, no matter what kind of cooling was used.
AMD chips report the temperature by a special register in the CPU's NB. Core Temp reads that register and uses a formula provided by AMD to calculate the current temperature.
The formula for the K8 is: 'Core Temp = Value - 49'.
The formula for the K10* is: 'CPU Temp** = Value / 8'.
The sensor in AMD CPUs can report temperatures between -49C and 206C.
Because of the style of clips used, there is a constant total force, and thus pressure applied, this will insure a repeatable application if using a drop, regardless of total drop size as the resulting thickness is a function of pressure and viscosity both of which are now constants.
If you simply wanted to know the thermal conductivity of the objects you should just go run a ASTM D5470. Thermal conductivity is not what is being measured by this testing procedure.
This article was a valid real world testing situation.
It did not require the stringent testing criteria of a university laboratory.
If you take it on it's face.........the variables were met as squarely as they could be under a well defined situation.
Within the boundaries of the real world, where we all live and work, this was very well done.
Would you be so kind next time as to provide data proving this point? You provided data on simply load temperatures, that doesn't back up the conclusion that hardware monitoring is better. I'm just saying that you should show me that the load changes in the programs are inconsistent with your hardware testing because that's how you draw your conclusion that hardware is better, you know? So, if CoreTemp goes up by 5C one time, and 6.3C the next, but your hardware goes up by 4C both times, then you've got something.The temperature goes up but core temp and software DO NOT accurately measure temperature changes. The method used to extract temperatures from CPU's is a kludge and a prayer even if Core Temp bows at the alter of the DTS.
Surely you agree?
Surely I don't. The method used to report temperatures by Core Temp and other software is neither accurate or precise which negates your argument as you can't know what the value actually is or how much it really has changed and what was done to the value to come to a final number by the formula. That is why you ALWAYS measure physical and electrical properties with actual instruments that are appropriate for the property being quantified.