In contrast, a fluxless solder attach like that described in Intel patents was invented for the specific purpose of quickly and effectively radiating heat away from the CPU die. However, it could make sense from a die-protection standpoint. On a fundamental level, it doesn’t make much sense to do things this way from the perspective of optimal cooling. It would be far more beneficial for temperatures to take a more direct route such as:Įxtra heat interfaces are a bad thing, especially when they have relatively low thermal conductivity. CPU Die -> 5 W/mK TIM -> IHS -> 5 W/mK TIM -> Heatsink.Here is a rough diagram of the current heat transfer on Ivy Bridge: Most importantly here, if Intel is using TIM paste between the IHS and CPU die, the IHS effectively becomes a heat barrier rather than a heat spreader. However, these are values representative of solder or TIM paste, and there is a giant gap between how TIM paste and solder perform in regards to conducting heat. That’s your problem right there! Note that these values are not exact, as we don’t know the exact heat conductivity of Intel’s “Secret sauce”. A TIM paste could have a heat conductivity in the range of 5 W/mK. A solder attach could have a heat conductivity in the range of 80 W/mK. When I went to Intel and asked, their polite answer may not surprise you – “Secret sauce”! Given that, we can use some rough approximations. To be technically exact, we would need to know exactly what Intel is using for TIM paste/solder. How does TIM paste generally compare with fluxless solder for conducting heat? Heat conductivity can be measured in watts per meter Kelvin. Ivy Bridge Delidded, showing traditional TIM (Image courtesy of ) Intel is using TIM paste between the Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS) and the CPU die on Ivy Bridge chips, instead of fluxless solder. If you aren’t in the loop, there’s evidence of a considerable temperature difference nearly everywhere you look – we confirmed it by mirroring settings in our Ivy Bridge review, and we have read similar reports in solid testing at Anandtech as well as from other sites. The second answer is jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. The first answer is correct, but wrong at the same time – power density is greater, but it isn’t what is causing temperatures to be as much as 20 ☌ higher on Ivy Bridge compared to Sandy Bridge when overclocked. “Intel has problems with tri-gate/22nm”.“Power density is greater on Ivy Bridge than Sandy Bridge”.Why is Ivy Bridge so hot? Ask that question in any forum currently, and you are likely to receive one of two different popular (but not entirely correct) answers that everyone has been parroting:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |