Thanks for the answer that makes a ton of since. I remember back in the day having to be super careful putting on your heat sink or you would risk breaking the chip. Also thinking back seems like they started lidding CPU's when the clocks started getting higher and higher thus producing more heat.Many people were accidentally crushing their CPU dies and another problem is that without a minimum amount of thermal mass attached to the CPU die, the CPU could overheat and destroy itself faster than thermal management could shut down clocks.The IHS eliminates or significantly reduces two of the most common failure modes in retail CPUs.hotroderx :I wonder why manufactures even went to the lidded setup. I remember the old AMD 2500 bartons the chips where uncovered on those.
Actually all that really indicates is that if you use them improperly, high-end aftermarket pastes don't do well. I've seen some thermal compound articles that indicate that a lot of the fancier pastes are VERY particular. They *can* work well (assuming it truly is a good compound and not an overpriced wannabe) in the right circumstances. Some are as easy as a pea method, and maybe are forgiving if the results are less than perfect, or it's a bit too thick. Others need to be spread extremely thin, and may be difficult to spread unless heated. Some of them do pretty good with light to medium clamping pressure, others need to be spread thin and used with setups that apply a lot of pressure.Removing the glue and putting the IHS back on reduces Intel chips' core temperatures by 8-15C. Putting paper shims to replicate the stock gap and using "better" thermal paste between the IHS and CPU produces worse results, indicating that Intel's "crap paste" actually outperforms the vast majority of "high-end" aftermarket pastes.