The Proof is in – The Switch From Fluxless Solder to Thermal Paste is the Cause of Poor Ivy Bridge Overclocking Temperatures

45

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

JohnP

I still feel the article is misleading. It does not sound like the team compared a delidded and new thermal paste IB with a delidded SB, but a delidded IB against a intact SB. Who knows what SB could do with the same procedure?
IB still has the issue with smaller die, less chance for high o/c. I knew that going in and I still bought them. For me, it does not really matter. I never o/ced my SB over 4.5GHz and I am staying the same on IB. No need to stress the part for that extra marginal gains.
IB is still a worthwhile upgrade. Clock speed alone is not the best way to judge a CPU or GPU.

avatar

pastorbob

Really? Misleading? You must have read a different article than I did John.

avatar

Ghost XFX

Man, a lot of Intel Boy bitching going on here. Begging for AMD to improve? Why should they? Intel fan geeks will only bash them as much as possible, and thump their collective chests about how far superior Intel is to their product. Not to mention, everyone, including AMD fans, knows that AMD can't compete with Intel 's war chest. It's a damn fact and I wish people would stop ignoring it as such.

Here is AMD, hoping to break away from 45nm, and Intel is already looking into 5nm. How do you compete with that? AMD is behind for a reason: Cash Rules Everything Around Microprocessing. And when that doesn't work for Intel, they'll simply cheat the competition and receive a slap on the wrist for having done so.

So how does this mini rant relate to this topic? Isn't it obvious? Intel fans have raved about Intel's abilities for so long that Intel has decided to cheat their supporters, instead of providing their usual quality of work. Will that stop Intel fan from supporting them? Of course not. They'd rather bitch and complain about how AMD isn't giving Intel any incentive to do better. It's a lot like Obama blaming Bush for the economy after 4 years of being in office. At some damn point you need to look within and see the burden of proof, taking responsibility for your own actions.

AMD already paid for their bad service and mounting distrust of their supporters. Where's Intel fans sending a message to their CPU Savior? They wore out AMD at every turn, but allowing Intel to cheat them out of a good quality chip. Sounds like many of you Intel geeks need to do some soul searching on this issue. Once they start, they will find it hard to stop, because they know better than you do.

avatar

Rift2

LOL I thought I had to vent after work today =)

avatar

THE_REAL_MAVERICK

This news kinda makes me wanna go back to AMD, but even their top end chip cant get close to Intels. Sad their isn't any competition or I'd jump the Intel ship over this. Guess I just wont upgrade.

avatar

imagonex

I guess any CPU cracked open and tested with top-end thermal paste would post lower temps.

If people aren't satisfied with this perticular SKU and their perception of Intel's direction with this product, just don't buy it. That's all. Besides, in 6 months they'll have something newer, faster, etc.

Future trends point towards smaller, more energy efficient designs, not power-mad-hog-hungry CPU's. Overclocking, even now, is still a niche. At some point overclocking will go in a downward trend. I can only imagine what processors will be like in 2022.

One also must choose their hardware accordingly to whatever purpose their rig is aimed at. Compared to a LGA2011, the 3770K is still plenty good bang for the money.

Is there a marketing decision behind this manufacturing process? Maybe. Is there an engineer or cost effective reason for this? Maybe. Is Intel out there to make a profit? Of course! They're a lucrative entreprise, not a charity.

The issue here, I take, for some consumers, is they perceive they are being forced into buying a higher priced CPU instead of being able to overclock a lower price point CPU. Maybe I'm totally wrong.

Personally, (and some are allowed to disagree) if you want any company to change, hurt them where it hurts most, their profit. Don't buy it.

avatar

Pruneface

I wonder if AMD uses this type of thermal paste.... maybe this is why FX doesnt overclock as high as SB.

avatar

NavarWynn

This gives Intel an untapped market potential (perhaps one they are already planning on capitalizing on). They can offer an 'unlocked' equivalent by replacing the thermal paste w/ more efficient paste, or solder. An IB package that could perform far better than 'stock' would be quite appealing to OCers (since most don't want to have to dissasemble the chip ;-) ) I'd think.

But you tell us in the only terms that Intel understands: How much *extra* would you pay for an IB package that was as (or more) thermally efficient than equiv. SB?

Obviously using the cheapass paste saves them at least a few cents per box, but anybody got any idea how much it saves them?

avatar

aarcane

I'd pay $5 more for a K series with *NO* ihs. Just to be able to mount a fluid block on a bare CPU for the more efficient thermal exchange.

avatar

Pball1224

If you happen to not care about the warranty, is removing the heat spreader, and mounting your cooler directly against the chip even an option? I would think having one less layer to pass through between the source of heat and cooling might actually be beneficial. Or is it simply too unreliable an interface due to the much smaller surface area that the heatsink could potentially rock on and not contact fully?

avatar

CHR15x94

I searched it up the other day, not for Ivy Bridge chips specifically, but it seems like it is. It's just tricky, and there is risk involved. Gotta use exacto-knives and what not to pry the chip open.

And your temperatures do get better, even a bit over chips that use solder as a bridge.

Google it! People have done it, and I'm sure now that Ivy Bridge is using crappy thermal paste, there will be even more interest in it.

avatar

morrowindsky

Why do people think Intel is slacking off? It's not laziness, it's an underhanded tactic to push enthusiasts to buy more powerful iterations of Ivy Bridge processors instead of overclocking lower tier models to get more performance for less.

It's not that hard to figure out, people. They won't fix it, they'll make their money one way or another.

avatar

pastorbob

Even if overclocked IV chips ran cool as cucumbers I still wouldn't be switching from SB for a couple of years. So perhaps by the time I am ready for a new build they will have a new generation without the heat issues. Or maybe AMD will finally get their act together and offer a worthy alternative??? One can only hope.

avatar

eastbayrae

FYI that's not what 'flux-less solder' is for. Flux-less solder is just that: solder that doesn't require the use of traditional flux in order for the solder to flow between the joints. It is a bit more difficult to work with in that type of solder doesn't flow as nicely as using rosin core solder solder and/or flux. It isn't used for an thermal dissipation agent like thermal paste is.

Intel is to blame for what now? Nothing. You, the end user, are technically abusing the part by pushing it past its designed specs. So really Intel hasn't done anything wrong. I highly doubt they will 'fix' anything. This isn't the same as the SATA issue they had with the chip sets last year. That was faulty product, which they acknowledged and repaired.

avatar

xmichaelx

"You, the end user, are technically abusing the part by pushing it past its designed specs."

Did you miss the 18% part? RIF.

avatar

eastbayrae

That isn't the intended use of the product and you know it. That is no different then people that have their ECU in their car re-flashed for added hp/torque. Sure you can do it BUT it violates the warranty since it isn't intended for you to be doing that.

avatar

chinomon

I understand that ether way this chip is still running faster then their Sandy Bridge counterparts...It's scary to think that the'll start doing this to all the future upcoming processors. All we can do is "Bitch" enough that it goes big, and they will have no choice but to change back to fluxless solder.

SO PLEASE EVERYONE...COMPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

avatar

eastbayrae

Don't look for a fix. The way they see it is if you want a higher clocked chip you will by one.

avatar

chinomon

the sad part is, I'm afraid you're right =(. I can see it now, forums on how to put better thermal paste on your CPU before you put thermal-paste on your CPU. LMAO

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Won't be upgrading to one of these turds. They can do it right, or I can just buy an AMD processor.

avatar

Danthrax66

But an AMD processor that loses to Intel at stock clocks, when AMD is close to a ghz higher with no OC potential? And it isn't like these don't OC they just don't OC as well as SB which were an anomaly in the OC world anyway. These are still 20% faster than SB at stock clocks and still get over 4ghz.

avatar

Rift2

Intresting.......I wonder if they will fix it and people have no way of telling if they do fix it if they got a new or old chip =)

avatar

JLloyd13

are they begging us to stay with amd? if pildrivers good intels going to have some problems

avatar

biggiebob12345

Even AMD doesn't expect piledriver to be competitive with Intel. Intel is 18 months ahead of AMD at this point.

avatar

homersim10

Its disappointing that Intel would punish its first adopters of Ivy Bridge CPU's with a defective thermal interface-especially since its something they could have easily avoided by simply replicating the Sandy Bridge design. I snapped up a i7-3770k the first day they went on sale and am building an entire system around that CPU. I specifically intended to OC (why else get a "K" model?) and got a Corsair H100 cooler for the build because I had read about the thermal problems with OC'g IB but thought it was because of the 22nm redesign, not they're cheaping out on something as simple as fluxless solder. To think that someone who waits to buy the same CPU until after they switch back to solder, will get a superior and undoubtedly less expensive product than the one I just purchased is frustrating to say the least and certainly does not engender loyalty among Intel's enthusiast customer base. I knew I would be paying a price premium being an early IB adopter, but I didn't expect to be buying a defective product. This is just wrong. Intel should make this right.

avatar

Danthrax66

It isn't defective and overclocking isn't covered under warranty anyway. It operates at acceptable thermal levels when running at stock speeds which is the only thing that intel guarantees. It isn't defective since it runs as specified, counting on overclocking potential is always a bad idea.

avatar

acidic

i totally agree that intel is starting to slack off and they need to fix this in upcoming revisions/runs of these chips. although, you can get some pretty high over-clocks while under-volting. i will be trying various volts throughout this week to find the highest clock with lowest voltage on my i5 3570k

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763/undervolting-and-overclocking-on-ivy-bridge

avatar

Jeffredo

Cheap bastards. This is just the beginning with an AMD that can't compete. Surprised it took them this long to start slacking.

avatar

azuza001

I disagree, I think they have been slacking for quite a while now.

I wish I had the numbers to back me up, but lets look at the difference between the Core 2 Quads and the new Intels for gaming. What kind of FPS boost do you really get in gaming on a Core I7 3000k over a Core 2 Quad 9550 Oced to 3.8+? (yes you can OC the Core I7). Is it at most 20%? Now that sounds great but really 20% is what, the difference between 60 fps and 69 fps? 9 Frames is not that big of a deal when it comes to the cost of a new motherboard/ram/processor/after market cooler.

Unless your doing media intensive stuff and time is money to you the core 2 quads still trade blows with AMD's FX line, and they are what 3 or 4 years old at this point?

It's just not a game to them anymore, it's a blowout. And really what's AMD's options here? They can focus on becoming profitable in the lower end / laptop apu market and with their Radeon cards so that they could try and invest in a 100% new design and retake the performance crown. But if they become profitable just doing low end / laptop stuff what real reason would they have to try and fight Intels bigger things? Wouldn't that just chasing bad money with good money?

I really do hope that one day AMD takes back the top spot, even for a short while. Intel's just getting too cocky where they are, removing all real overclocking options from their Sandy Bridge series (unless you go K) was the first step, this is the second. What will the next one be?

avatar

khalladay

dgrmouse is right, anything to dog Intel (and microsoft) as usual. Let the product speak for itself. The top dog is usually the easiest target. Overclocking has never been reccomended, people have just gotten spoiled in the past, the product still meets the specs Intel publishes.

avatar

dgrmouse

You're dogging Intel for improving their IPC by 20% in a single generation while cutting prices by more than half? It's a heck of a lot better than anyone else is doing, so I'm quite baffled. AMD has done the opposite by losing IPC while raising prices, and even the graphics guys are charging 50%+ for 20% upgrades.

Yes, Ivy Bridge would be a better chip if the thermals were more easily controllable. On the other hand, it already sips power and shows minimal thermals relative to everything else on the PC scene, so this is only a factor for the small minority of folks compelled to overclock (and yes, even among enthusiasts it is a very small minority).

avatar

aarcane

So do you replace the heat spreader AND the thermal paste, or do you just put fresh thermal paste on, and use the CPU without the head spreader?

avatar

Budman_NC

aarcane, you would need to pop the top and replace the thermal compound with the fluxless solder and then place the IHS back on. I read where modern heat sinks are not designed to sink heat away from such a small area as the die size of the IB chip. You need the superior thermal conductivity of the fluxless solder in conjunction with the increased surface area of the IHS to adequately remove the heat from the die. IOW, best to just hang on to your 2600K unless you just plan to run IB at stock clocks.

avatar

Danthrax66

I'm pretty sure you can't just put fluxless solder on there. Since you would still need to heat up the IHS to melt the solder and let it flow. You would simply replace the TIM with a better brand.

avatar

Astrognome

Would Arctic Silver do nicely?

avatar

Shadow Death

This is what happens when you cut corners. You provide flawed designs and acquire a bad reputation for it. You guys can think what you want but to me this just means that they are getting squeezed by AMD on the price department. Keep in mind I didn't say they were losing by performance, only price wise.

avatar

ocnier

You are probably more correct than you know. Intel has monolithic overhead in terms of salaries and R&D costs in comparison to AMD, but yet is still able to meet them on price. Something had to give. To be the 800lb gorilla no one can beat also means that your moving 800lbs just to go to restroom. Eventually it takes its toll on your knees LOL. So you start short cutting things to make life more pleasant.

avatar

Danthrax66

Intel just doesn't want people overclocking.

avatar

siramic

That too was my thought when reading this. That Intel wants to discourage it, why, so maybe you have to buy the next processor up to gain greater performance in lieu of higher clock-ability?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Just change the Logo

Crap Inside!

avatar

axiomatic

Time to step up and fix this Intel. I just put a big order on hold as I dont want to either mod this CPU or deal with the high heat. The cat is out of the bag, your move Intel. The enthusiast market is too big to ignore this.

avatar

B.A.Frayd

The enthusiast market is very enthusiastic, but they are hardly big. In fact, they are quite small compared to the mainstream market. The extreme majority of people who buy this chip will never overclock it, and as long as this design decision doesn't cause any problems at stock speeds, they will never notice this "issue".

avatar

SilverSurferNHS

ur def right - i don't think enthusiasts have jumped on the ivy bridge wagon yet... maybe this junk will be corrected by the time Ivy E is out, but they will hardly be pressured to fix them right now, or in the near future. people buying ivy bridge, i would assume (and i don't doubt that i might be wrong), are just buying the latest best buy computer w/ 2yr geek squad contract.

avatar

Danthrax66

Someone should start a service to replace the TIM with fluxless solder.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

If you don't mind getting your CPU back in 6 pieces, just sign the waiver relinquishing the service firm of all liability

I'm sure somebody would gladly void your warranty for a couple hundred bucks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously,
This needs to be fixed by Intel !

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.