Intel's Ivy Bridge Hotter Than Sandy Bridge When Overclocked

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will be the first to say "meh"

Yea, 20 degrees higher on a stock inch thick cooler. If you are going to overclock you can get a decent cooler for a couple dollars, I imagine it would still run within reasonable temperatures overclocked on a cheap aftermarket cooler.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]Oh noes! Intel Fanboys gonna be so mad. Bulldozer is cooler in this case after all[/citation]
Yeah but bulldozer struggles to keep up with Phenom 2.... Which it is supposed to replace...... and neither one can touch sandy bridge let alone ivy bridge which slightly out performs sandy bridge.
 
Just a thought but what if you removed the thermal plate that they used paste on and put artic silver on it and used an aftermarket water cooler? To hard to do? I know it would void the Intel warranty..
 
Intel used “a different package thermal technology” because its cheaper and they really don't have any completion with stock frequencies. So why should they make the chips overclock with low amounts of heat?
 
Back in the day CPU's didn't have these thermal plates. Just bolted the CPU cooler right up against the CPU. Of course you had a few cracked CPU's from the pressure.

Wonder if a Thermalright cooler would do better on these CPU's? I ask because the base on their coolers used to be concave(not sure if they still are) which should reduce the space between the thermal paste and the cpu plate if it bends in a bit.
 
So cost cutting methods by intel is resulting in higher core temps with Ivy Bridge. You miles well just take the heatshild off and apply your own thermal paste, like you did back in the Athlon K7 days.
 
[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]So cost cutting methods by intel is resulting in higher core temps with Ivy Bridge. You miles well just take the heatshild off and apply your own thermal paste, like you did back in the Athlon K7 days.[/citation]

Its interesting how people think it was a cost saving method when in reality the amount saved by this is probably minimal per CPU since they procude more than anyone else.

I don't know why they did but even if they stuck with the solder method, there is no way for anyone to be 100% sure it would be any better since the smaller die size does add to less space to allow for heat dissipation.

I read somewhere that Intel is possibly planning on moving back to the solder method and that would be a different stepping but we will have to wait and see if that actually happens and if it does the results will be clearer there.

I personally think the only way to see lower temps with IB is to have more cores or more cache.
 
IIRC Sandy Bridge only got around 4.6 to 4.7 oc'd when it first came out some 16 months ago. So I'd expect IB to similarly improve as the 22nm process node matures. But of course, nobody knows for sure..
 
So what exactly is the purpose of the heatspreader then? It just a thermal resistance now. Need to work a good way of not using it at all. maybe a plastic shim on each side of cpu and cooler straight on top?
Someone will do it without causing damage! Might need a different sort of heat paste to allow for cushioning?
 
Well now im curious, some site than can afford to wreck a CPU needs to de-lid the proc and test with the CPU cooler making direct contact(i.e. photo above). That will prove if its the cheapo way of using thermal paste over soldered heat spreader or if its really the 22nm die shrink. Anyone?
 
"Is the end of the world as we know it"

Silicon time is ending... moore's law is not a reality anymore... if you see the charts of next processors generations... they don't have any plans beyond 10nm, and thats because its impractical... 5nm is the fisical limit and 22nm already comes with huge heat problems... try to use Ivy stock cooler, almost impossible to keep it cool, and only way to overclock it properly is sub-zero, when you could easily get 5GHz+ in Sandy with water! I guess 14nm Broadwell, the next in line after Haswell, will come with some better cooler like Corsair's Hydro Series or Antec's H2O just to keep decent temps at stock! ;p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm6ScvNygUU

Welcome molecular computers =D
 
People seem to think it's a matter of TIM but the reality is it's more about the shrink and architecture w/ 3d transistors. Some have delidded and it hasn't made a notable difference (certainly not enough to attribute the TIM as the cause for higher temps).
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Did you sell them to a museum?[/citation]
I tried, but the museum was out of space. Full up on other outdated chips, like Bulldozer.
 
[citation][nom]dreadlokz[/nom]"Is the end of the world as we know it"Silicon time is ending... moore's law is not a reality anymore... if you see the charts of next processors generations... they don't have any plans beyond 10nm, and thats because its impractical... 5nm is the fisical limit and 22nm already comes with huge heat problems... try to use Ivy stock cooler, almost impossible to keep it cool, and only way to overclock it properly is sub-zero, when you could easily get 5GHz+ in Sandy with water! I guess 14nm Broadwell, the next in line after Haswell, will come with some better cooler like Corsair's Hydro Series or Antec's H2O just to keep decent temps at stock! ;phttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm6ScvNygUUWelcome molecular computers =D[/citation]

... Or, Graphene, diamond, or a wide host of other materials could be used to replace silicon. That's all assuming that we can't find a way to use silicon at smaller processes anyway. Furthermore, Moore's law is not dead, far from it. It has nothing to do with silicon and is still going on. All Moore's law is is an observation of the increase in transistor density over time (it's been slowing down ever since Moore brought it up, but it still goes on). I don't think that it has anything to do with what the transistors are made of.
 
[citation][nom]andboomer[/nom]I tried, but the museum was out of space. Full up on other outdated chips, like Bulldozer.[/citation]

That depends on what it's used for. 16 core Bulldozer Opterons make great platforms for high-performance-per-dollar webservers. The Bulldozer FXs can be great for some highly threaded tasks.
 


Proof? Someone do a test with the lid removed, got links?
 
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Its interesting how people think it was a cost saving method when in reality the amount saved by this is probably minimal per CPU since they procude more than anyone else.I don't know why they did but even if they stuck with the solder method, there is no way for anyone to be 100% sure it would be any better since the smaller die size does add to less space to allow for heat dissipation.I read somewhere that Intel is possibly planning on moving back to the solder method and that would be a different stepping but we will have to wait and see if that actually happens and if it does the results will be clearer there.I personally think the only way to see lower temps with IB is to have more cores or more cache.[/citation]

Because it is. sandy bridge is on a larger die and the heat shield is solderd on and it runs cooler then ivy bridge which is a problem because normally with smaller dies comes less heat generated from the cores itself as we seen many times in the past an an example.
 
[citation][nom]spasmolytic46[/nom]TranslationIntel: We have no competition so we crippled them to save cash. We have no longer have any incentive to better than the last processor so we didn't.[/citation]

Well, Ivy never was supposed to be much better than Sandy, mainly just a die shrink with an improved IGP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom