I don’t have much time to do a deep analysis for every case like I did over here and I think is better to make this thread more complete and adding a why i said no the new ivy bridge CPU?
Many people think as it consumes les energy will run cooler they take it and find them self’s in a situation to find a new CPU cooler thinking it will solve their problem well it is not!!
Older Intel Chips had the CPU core attached to heat spreader with a fluxed soldier as you can see here:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4836/sb20ihs.jpg
That soldier had heat conductivity 80 W/mK
Ivy CPU’s are using a plain thermal paste as you can see here:
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3070/ivyy.jpg
With thermal paste that has thermal conductivity at 5 W/mK
Isn’t safe to assume that an older CPU was sending 16 times faster the heat to CPU cooler because the attached surface is a bit bigger but ivy chip is found running +20 C hotter in many different websites. Is not only an overclock problem is running hotter by the hour and I doubt someone with Ivy chip can run a 2 hours stability test of the machine like this:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3953/prime956gbytesfurmark18.jpg
Prime95 torture mode 4096MB minimal FFT (half the CPU cache size) and 6 GBytes ram (more than half total ram of the system) while at the same time furmark 1.8 extreme burn was running. I believe they will have a problem even with 1 hour test of prime95 all CPU cache FFT size and half the ram!
With the cores at 90 c and above 100 c for long time you have the risk the glue that used to attach the heat spreader to start evaporating inside the chip! More problems can be created of this heat starts spreading in back of the board and though the copper all over the motherboard for those who doubt such a thing can happen I have these pictures taken by a thermal camera:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5849/266pxheatdiffusion.png
You can see the first image the heat spreads to a surface all over and covers everything, always running faster to the cooled area, you can also see the stable heat flow to the heat sinks. The cooling effect itself seems to appears more random, the 2 pictures that follow, due to surface imperfections microstructure (some not detectable by the eye edges) and the air movement that is not 100% predictable.
Many crazy solutions can be found to the internet about cooling this chip removing the heat spreader and applying better thermal paste directly to the cooler, melting down even the attached surface! I assume not many will risk as you losing the guarantee.
Many people don’t seem to know that many motherboards were coming with heat sinks at the back like GA-P35-DQ6 with a system called Crazy Cool because is very effective. By removing this system and adding a bigger heat sink like HR-05/IFX as you can see here:
http://www.thermalright.com/products/index.php?act=data&cat_id=8&id=107
You can leaving it hanging out of the box parallel to the sealing and have a passive system that is actually dragging the heat out of the box. Have no doubt that is a very effective method and as the heat gets bigger to one side the other side is in ambient the performance is increased. You can add a small 80x80 fan and increase the performance even in idle mode.
I have serious doubts even this method proved to be effective enough to the ivy as I have no enough data of anyone preforming the hard stabilities tests that I making.
Bottom line I have to turn down this CPU as unusable in hard working data processing environments (hard multitasking), I suggest to anyone to avoid it.