Intel's Ivy Bridge Hotter Than Sandy Bridge When Overclocked
This extra heat is a huge drawback when overclocking, allowing Sandy Bridge to hit a much higher frequency and effectively matching the performance levels of Ivy Bridge. The question remains, how is it possible that the more power-hungry Sandy Bridge chips run cooler than Intel's latest Ivy Bridge processors?
According to The Inquirer, Intel has no problem admitting that the Ivy Bridge platform runs hotter than its predecessor, stating that the extra heat is due the 22 nm die shrink, causing increased thermal density. The company noted that it is also using “a different package thermal technology”, that “thermal technology” is known as thermal paste, which replaced a soldered heat spreader used on Sandy Bridge processors. Intel further added that “users may observe higher operating temperatures when overclocking,” but reassured customers that “this is as designed and meets quality and reliability expectations for parts operating under specified conditions.”
So there you have it, Ivy Bridge runs hotter than Sandy Bridge when overclocked but offers reduced power consumption and meets Intel's expectations at stock speeds. If you are interested in overclocking, make certain to purchase an adequate cooling solution or hold off on Ivy Bridge until the next stepping, which may improve overclocking capabilities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Someone will do it without causing damage! Might need a different sort of heat paste to allow for cushioning?
Did you sell them to a museum?
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
I tried, but the museum was out of space. Full up on other outdated chips, like Bulldozer.
... 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.
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.