Intel Prototypes New Cooler for Gulftown CPU

Status
Not open for further replies.

hispeed120

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2008
136
0
18,680
0
This makes me worried. Seeing as Intel(or any company for that matter) tried to obtain the highest profits while still allowing for a reliable product, the inclusion of these coolers may hint that the power requirements/thermals are significantly higher than in previous processors.

Either that or they are giving us a decent cooler just for the heck of it. I'm betting on my first comment, but hoping for the second. :)
 

jwl3

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2008
341
0
18,780
0
Uh oh for Zalman, Coolemaster, Xigmatek, etc.

The difference in temps just got a whole lot narrower from stock to aftermarket.

Wonder if this means that Intel will themselves be "overclocking" their CPU's as stock now that they can dissipate heat better. Imagine them OC'ing an i7 860 to an i7 870 and charging the 870's price - all because of a better heatsink.
 

doomtomb

Distinguished
May 12, 2009
810
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]hispeed120[/nom]This makes me worried. Seeing as Intel(or any company for that matter) tried to obtain the highest profits while still allowing for a reliable product, the inclusion of these coolers may hint that the power requirements/thermals are significantly higher than in previous processors.Either that or they are giving us a decent cooler just for the heck of it. I'm betting on my first comment, but hoping for the second.[/citation]
This has been necessary for some time now. Ever since the first quads, the stock intel cooler has become insufficient at cooling the CPU and renders overclocking virtually impossible. Nehalems have higher thermals than Core 2 Quads and I only expect the thermals to continue to go up but better smaller manufacturing processes (32nm) and lower voltages will curb this trend slightly. I'm not worried, my watercooling performs well.
 

Scotteq

Splendid
Hmmm... It's not like Intel to go overboard - they'll absolutely make something that's appropriate/adequate for the task at hand - but not a whole lot more. Though with 2 more physical cores, if they were to maintain current TDP they'd necesarily have to cut the existing 4 back. So it makes sense we (may be) geting an acknowledgement of thermal reality in the box.

Question: How many nanoseconds will it take before someone decides to put one of these HSFs on the existing (warm...) 1600 quads?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Gee... It sort of looks like AMD's Black Edition heatsink... Not that AMD innovates and Intel imitates... (of course, some fanboy is going to say "well, Intel does it better", see my next comment).

If only Intel didn't have the OEMs by the balls in the Athlon 64 days, unfairly and illegally stealing marketshare....


That design is utter shit though... Look at the lack of a shroud around the fan, it's going to blow air out the sides instead of forcing it through the fins.. Idiots...
 

eklipz330

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2008
3,014
7
20,795
1
[citation][nom]zipzoomflyhigh[/nom]For a thousand bucks you SHOULD get a decent cooler right? To JWL3, they do that already. Do you really think a $1000 i7 950 is any different than a i7 920? No, they just clocked it higher.[/citation]

the i7 975 are just better binned with unlocked multipliers
 

Ryric

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2009
65
0
18,630
0
Would be nice to see them make it so you could swap the fan out for a potentially slient/better airflow unit aftermarket. I think everyone is correct about the increase in heat from additional cores, my inital read would be that its not going to replace aftermarket coolers, its just intel dealing with the realities of the situation. Although I always wondered why intel even bothered with a bundled heatsink, a aftermarket one costs $50...
 

krazynutz

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2003
1,023
0
19,280
0
Would it be feasible that Intel is packaging in a much better cooler to advertise their chips' overclocking potential? By doing this, they can both raise the price of their boxed cpu's by $25+ and keep people from needing to buy 3rd party coolers. Extra profit for Intel while "giving the people what they want" up front. Win-win, as long as the coolers can compete with Xigmatek, Zalman, and Thermalright. Don't get me wrong. I love my HDT-S1283 but if I didn't have to buy it, that's more $$ I could spend elsewhere. Could get interesting.
 

krazynutz

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2003
1,023
0
19,280
0
Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a prototype. If you click on the link in the article, you get to see more pics. I was right, they're pushing overclocking as a perk of the heatsink, but with those temps (in Real Temp?), not sure what the headroom is!
 

frozenlead

Splendid
Does anyone else sense a trend? A while back Intel's top chip got hotter and hotter (peaking at the Pentium D - or two Pentium 4's) until AMD knocked them off the hill. Then AMD got lazy, and Intel made an efficient chip. Now Intel is making chips hotter and hotter...
 

warmon6

Splendid
Well lets just "HOPE" that they don't include the push pins. Remember this is a Prototype and it can change in the future. AKA it mean they may still add those dumb things on it.

[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]And the best part of all?It doesn't have the goddamn pushpins.[/citation]
 

eyemaster

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
750
0
18,980
0
I'm thinking back at the heatsink that came with my Cyrix 100 (or was it 166?). Boy was it small and simple when you compare it to just 12 years after. Heatsinks now are massive elaborate designs!
 
[citation][nom]JWL3[/nom]Uh oh for Zalman, Coolemaster, Xigmatek, etc.The difference in temps just got a whole lot narrower from stock to aftermarket.Wonder if this means that Intel will themselves be "overclocking" their CPU's as stock now that they can dissipate heat better. Imagine them OC'ing an i7 860 to an i7 870 and charging the 870's price - all because of a better heatsink.[/citation]
Doubt table. I'd say this is close to an old Freezer 7. Notice that the Intel one isn't DHT. Also look at the fact that the fan looks like it's 92mm, not 120mm. At any rate, I do hope i9 doesn't go the way of the P4s in terms of thermals.
 

erloas

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2007
104
0
18,680
0
The question is how much more does it cost Intel to make a heatsink like this compared to what they already include with their processors. If the old design cost them $2.50 and this new design costs them $3.15 thats next to nothing compared to the $100+ for the CPUs they will be bundled with (most will be in the $200+ range to a lot more).

The advantages is the same as aftermarket coolers, quitter and lower heat, both of which are selling points to everyone. Even the layman that knows nothing about overclocking or what is a good or bad temperature for a CPU is, they can easily understand quit and less heat is easy to sell too.
 
[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Doubt table. I'd say this is close to an old Freezer 7. Notice that the Intel one isn't DHT. Also look at the fact that the fan looks like it's 92mm, not 120mm. At any rate, I do hope i9 doesn't go the way of the P4s in terms of thermals.[/citation]

Technically already is considering its already in the ~130w neighborhood.

The issue with the pentium 4/pentium d was the fact that it was outputting that heat without performing well (performance per watt).

As for the description - "four copper heatpipes." ??? - that looks more like 8
 
MCM or monolithic, care to answer Intel? To see Intel putting out such a large cooler for it's retail segment suggest that this one has a TDP at stock that is going to make this chip infamous like netburst for heat dissipation and power consumption. 150-200W
 

CHRISTLUBAS

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
112
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]Does anyone else sense a trend? A while back Intel's top chip got hotter and hotter (peaking at the Pentium D - or two Pentium 4's) until AMD knocked them off the hill. Then AMD got lazy, and Intel made an efficient chip. Now Intel is making chips hotter and hotter...[/citation]
So AMD will knock them again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY