Fixing Ivy Bridge CPU temps: IHS removal

DLD · *Last edited by DLD; 08-20-2012 at 22:59.*

Now it's been quite a while since people realized the problem. Let's just refresh our minds regarding the huge problems to which Intel exposed their customers lately:

1. Chipset P67 has had a major problem with the SATA2 controler
2. A few SSD series had a major problem with the controler/firmware
3. Now this blunder - soooo loudly announced, all mighty 3D transistors within the processor which is using an internal thermal paste as efficient as the monkey sh*t!

Great job, Intel. Just remember that people, when it comes the next time they plan some upgrade, will be very shy in terms of giving Intel's CPU the chance ('who knows what kind of DIRTY trick they packed this time')...

***http://*******/qMxnJ***

DLD · 08-20-2012, 23:00 | posts: 455 | Location: Serbia

[QUOTE=DLD;4390573]Now it's been quite a while since people realized the problem. Let's just refresh our minds regarding the huge problems to which Intel exposed their customers lately:

1. Chipset P67 has had a major problem with the SATA2 controler
2. A few SSD series had a major problem with the controler/firmware
3. Now this blunder - soooo loudly announced, all mighty 3D transistors within the processor which is using an internal thermal paste as efficient as the monkey sh*t!

Great job, Intel. Just remember that people, when it comes the next time they plan some upgrade, will be very shy in terms of giving Intel's CPU the chance ('who knows what kind of DIRTY trick they packed this time')...

h t t p : / / g o o . gl/qMxnJ

(without spaces)

BLEH! · **Memory**: 24GB @ 1600 @ 9-10-9-27

Double post not necessary but seems reasonable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXs0I5kuoX4

Proper link

---TK--- · 08-20-2012, 23:17 | posts: 14,938 | Location: New Jersey, USA

[QUOTE=DLD;4390577]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLD

Now it's been quite a while since people realized the problem. Let's just refresh our minds regarding the huge problems to which Intel exposed their customers lately:

1. Chipset P67 has had a major problem with the SATA2 controler
2. A few SSD series had a major problem with the controler/firmware
3. Now this blunder - soooo loudly announced, all mighty 3D transistors within the processor which is using an internal thermal paste as efficient as the monkey sh*t!

Great job, Intel. Just remember that people, when it comes the next time they plan some upgrade, will be very shy in terms of giving Intel's CPU the chance ('who knows what kind of DIRTY trick they packed this time')...

h t t p : / / g o o . gl/qMxnJ

(without spaces)

please feel free to boycott intel and buy amd cpu`s

sykozis · 08-20-2012, 23:21 | posts: 13,632 | Location: US East Coast

So, what exactly is the point of this thread?

DLD · *Last edited by DLD; 08-21-2012 at 00:51.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

So, what exactly is the point of this thread?

...that is, I want to express my revolt against Intel's latest trend - wanting to involve itself in the production of every kind of stuff, just to make a few bucks more, instead of keeping on being a RELIABLE producer of CPUs and chipsets...

@---TK---, your comment is called "defeatism". I DON'T want THAT kind of freedom (freedom to run away from the problem, freedom to avoid instead of DEALING WITH the problem...).

@BLEH, stewpid mouse click failed me - I wanted to "edit", but quoted myself instead...

---TK--- · 08-21-2012, 00:50 | posts: 14,938 | Location: New Jersey, USA

ok so whats the point of this thread then?

DLD

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---TK---

ok so whats the point of this thread then?

in the form of asking questions (and probably answering them) in the repetitive manner. Do you do that while standing in front of a mirror?

---TK--- · 08-21-2012, 01:05 | posts: 14,938 | Location: New Jersey, USA

I am trying to understand the point of this thread, since your no help, I must assume your a kid with anger issues? close?

sykozis · 08-21-2012, 01:08 | posts: 13,632 | Location: US East Coast

I dunno. The title says something about fixing IB temp....yet, the first post is flaming Intel.

Enmity · 08-21-2012, 07:01 | posts: 1,118 | Location: New Zealand

Well, this was very informative and interesting. Can we close this waste of forum space now? the very obvious point to this thread, like everyone else, i am not getting. OP, what in the world is the meaning of this monstrousity?

DLD · *Last edited by DLD; 08-21-2012 at 14:11.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enmity

Well, this was very informative and interesting. Can we close this waste of forum space now? the very obvious point to this thread, like everyone else, i am not getting. OP, what in the world is the meaning of this monstrousity?

I don't find anything monstrous in my post. If somebody is trying NOT to understand, it is their right (a right to be stubborn)...
But, to be sure that I did all that I could, I'll put it this way:

1. Since the appearance of first stepping of Ivy Bridge, testers were surprised with unexpectedly high temperatures of it's core(s). This was especially weird
because Intel claimed that the die-shrink introduced with IvyB will bring lower dissipation and lower temperatures (compared to earlier members of "Core i" family).
The '"issue" have been heavily discussed on thousands of forums during the last few months and different "theories" have been made.

2. Finally, the problem has been tracked down - Intel is using much worse and, supposedly less expensive material (compared to what has been used for assembling Sandy Bridge and earlier processors) as a thermal conductor between the cores and the heat spreader. This "solution'' makes cores unnecessary hotter and renders CPU's heatsink less efficient. This, among the other things, results with the CPU being less capable of overclocking.
---------------------------
So, here is my point: I want to inform the other people interested in this matter, and I want to express and share my dissatisfaction regarding Intel's obvious negligence in assembling Ivy Bridge processors. FLAMING, my post is DEFINITELY NOT (for the last 15 years or so I used almost exclusively Intel's CPUs for my desktop machines while maintaining/servicing other people's computers based on Intel as well as on AMD's technology, so I've gained some knowledge along the way and I know exactly what I'm writing here about).
I posted this within the ''Intel CPUs'' division of our forum.

What did I do wrong?

Octopuss · 08-21-2012, 18:10 | posts: 82

Thank you for wasting two minutes of my life reading this nonsense children raging about... nothing. You don't even make any sense. I mean none at all.

Mufflore · 08-21-2012, 19:12 | posts: 9,833 | Location: UK

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLD

Now it's been quite a while since people realized the problem. Let's just refresh our minds regarding the huge problems to which Intel exposed their customers lately:

If we were at school and you were our tutor this might be an appropriate style of writing.

Quote:

1. Chipset P67 has had a major problem with the SATA2 controler

Nothing to do with your thread.

Quote:

2. A few SSD series had a major problem with the controler/firmware

Nothing to do with your thread.

Quote:

3. Now this blunder - soooo loudly announced, all mighty 3D transistors within the processor which is using an internal thermal paste as efficient as the monkey sh*t!

Is there really a need to use expletives?
We know they didnt solder the die to the heatsink (for reliability) and maybe could have used a paste with better thermal conductivity.
But they have no need to push the boat out, what is on the market is damned fast despite there being no high end competition!
You arent compelled to buy IB and there arent many applications that need the extra horsepower you will get from an extra 100MHz overclock anyway.

So really this is about your being annoyed that you cant get the last little bit out of an overclock of something you dont own.
Fair enough, but this thread is OTT.

Quote:

Great job, Intel. Just remember that people, when it comes the next time they plan some upgrade, will be very shy in terms of giving Intel's CPU the chance ('who knows what kind of DIRTY trick they packed this time')...

Life has some serious events.
This isnt one of them.
Dirty tricks eh

thatguy91 · 08-21-2012, 21:15 | posts: 2,968 | Location: Australia

Using cheap thermal past just equals stupidity. Surely they thought they'd save say, $1000 on the contract for the paste, but this could have been more than easily made up for by selling the CPU's for half a cent more (probably grossly overestimating the extra cost on the CPU). I would have gladly paid an extra $1 (no more) for it to be done right, and even by the time you count back the profits to Intel on that $1, they'd still pay for that thermal paste many times over.

Say you pay $10 for a tube of paste that does say, 4 applications. That's $2.50 an application. Considering the fact that $10 makes for an expensive paste, and that you are paying retail, not straight from the manufacturer like Intel, it just goes to show the extend of the pure stupidity and greed on Intel's behalf.

Going by the end result you can be sure of a couple of things:
- they tied themselves into a contract
- they didn't test the effectiveness of the thermal compound beforehand
- although it may be cheaper than their previous method, they are no doubt grossly overpaying for the product they are using
- they don't really give a crap, since there is no competition
- they provide only 2 SATA3 ports on their latest high end chipsets, whereas AMD have 6 SATA3 ports on their low end APU's, and 8 on the upcoming APU chipsets

The last point I have pointed out several times before, but lets look at the end result. Intel saves a dollar or two, BUT it costs you a lot more because the board manufacturers have to include a third party chip. The TIM issue on Ivy Bridge is getting the spotlight, but I think the SATA3 issue should also get the spotlight, since its another 'screw the customer' thing that ends up being potentially detrimental to performance, and definitely costs you more for the need of third party alternatives.

sykozis · 08-21-2012, 21:20 | posts: 13,632 | Location: US East Coast

@OP...

Item 1 in your first post. Intel recalled ALL affected chipsets and covered the cost of replacing motherboards based on those chipsets.

Item2 in your first post. Sandforce based SSDs have had vastly more issues than any other SSD on the market.

Ivy Bridge uses a new manufacturing process, using an entirely new transistor type. **** happens. Look at AMD's claims with Bulldozer and how far they were off their claims. Bulldozer doesn't perform anywhere near what AMD's marketing team claimed it would. At least Ivy Bridge matched the performance estimates handed out by Intel's marketing department. Also, why would Intel claim lower dissipation? Lower heat dissipation wouldn't be worth advertising as that's a very bad thing. Your first post doesn't even match the thread title. Your thread title is about fixing the Ivy Bridge temp issues, yet your first post is attacking Intel....

airbud7 · 08-21-2012, 21:33 | posts: 2,066 | Location: Evans Ga,USA

Yeah, What He Said^^^

DLD · *Last edited by DLD; 08-21-2012 at 22:31.*

"my point". Thank you - from reading your very elaborate reply I conclude that you're the guy who knows a thing or two about hardware. That does not apply to other colleagues who replied.

But, dear Mufflore, excuse me for English not being my native language - therefore I might have used a rather preposterous form ("tutor-like")...

As for the SSD and SATA controler related problem, I mentioned them only to illustrate the TREND (which ends up with this Ivy thing, for the time being).
My fear is that this latest problem is a symptom of Intel's activities becoming too dispersed, resulting with such blunders. It's like "we would like to produce CPUs, pancakes, guitar picks, DVD players...". OK, but then you would not be Intel anymore, but Dunlop, or Sony, instead...

Enmity · 08-21-2012, 22:28 | posts: 1,118 | Location: New Zealand

we are all aware of the thermals this new tech produces, its well known and we still make our own decisions to purchase it or not, ive got a 3570k and im well aware it needs adequate cooling for a mediocre overclock but the fact remains this product is the best available option for the price point.

Initially, yeah i was annoyed a little with the slight improvement in per clock performance vs sandy and the decreased overclockability but hey, thats how it is. The thermal paste isnt the only reason for the heat too. Its a mixture of that, the smaller die being more difficult to efficiently dissipate the heat and intels use of tri gate transistors.

I still chose to buy one coz its the best option and the fastest option for the price. I still fail to see what the purpose of your thread is other than to bitch about the well known issue which have been beaten to death by every tech forum on the net already. If you dont like it, dont buy it, buy the slower, cooler option of your choice.

---TK--- · 08-21-2012, 22:45 | posts: 14,938 | Location: New Jersey, USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

@OP...

Item 1 in your first post. Intel recalled ALL affected chipsets and covered the cost of replacing motherboards based on those chipsets.

Item2 in your first post. Sandforce based SSDs have had vastly more issues than any other SSD on the market.

Ivy Bridge uses a new manufacturing process, using an entirely new transistor type. **** happens. Look at AMD's claims with Bulldozer and how far they were off their claims. Bulldozer doesn't perform anywhere near what AMD's marketing team claimed it would. At least Ivy Bridge matched the performance estimates handed out by Intel's marketing department. Also, why would Intel claim lower dissipation? Lower heat dissipation wouldn't be worth advertising as that's a very bad thing. Your first post doesn't even match the thread title. Your thread title is about fixing the Ivy Bridge temp issues, yet your first post is attacking Intel....

yeah this thread and the title makes 0 sense.