Skip to main content

Tom's Hardware's Custom Core i9 De-Lidder

Soon We Test!

Now the tool is 100% functional, but it lacks a name...you can comment below if you have ideas. A big thank you to Ludovic for his help with the programming and machining. We hope that you like this report and that it demonstrates, if you had any doubt, that overclockers do more than just press buttons! We will present the results of the delidding operation in an article dedicated to overclocking the 7900X. Meanwhile, a small tease: our tests with the GTX 1080 Ti Lightning under liquid nitrogen are coming very soon!


MORE: Best CPUs


MORE: De-Lidding and Overclocking Core i7-7700K


MORE: Extreme Overclocking: 10 Ryzen CPUs Under LN2

  • AndrewJacksonZA
    Hmmm... Taking inspiration from both the big X cross-bar and the fact that it's Skylake-X, I say "The X-inator!"

    "Delid with me if you want to live!"
    Reply
  • Kridian
    Hmm, Firefox does not like your image carousel Tom's. Works with Opera & Chrome - no problem.
    Reply
  • SockPuppet
    It's BS that this needs to even be a thing in the first place. Intel management couldn't possibly get any dumber. What a <mod edit>.

    <Moderator Warning: Watch your language on this site>
    Reply
  • doesitmatter
    Building on AndrewJacksonZA's idea to use the X in the name, I personally like "The Skylake-X-poser" (or more succinctly, "The X-poser"), since the idea is to expose the die.
    Reply
  • ElMojoMikeo
    There is usually some common sense attached to Intel decisions. Not always appreciated at the time but usually when you look back you can see why. As an example the XEON 2687W vs 3970X. Essentially the same processor the XEON eight cores and locked. The X processor six cores ( two disabled ) and unlocked. The reasoning behind the two disabled cores was clock speed increases on eight cores caused thermal problems.

    At the time Intel were accused of doing this as a marketing strategy. Well it would appear that it was just good old common sense. Why did they remove the solder? It could be for any number of reasons.

    We can safely say that Intel know exactly what they are doing, because they alone have all the information and data required to make such a decision. I would guess it caused a problem that outweighed the thermal benefits it offered.

    I remember a previous thread ended up with some very expensive cooling solutions. I seem to remember some time ago someone was attempting to make a processor socket cooler. The processor pins made the normal contact with the metal in the socket holes and a ceramic under side that was actively cooled. The pins of course go all the way up to the processor die. The socket cooler was on the underside and a liquid AIO cooler fitted normally.

    In theory this looked a good way to move forward. This would also avoid having to delid the processor. Why are there so few socket cooling solutions?
    Reply
  • silvermoongoddess
    Why have an X in the name? - Is it some 1960s-throwback-macho-thing? "Overclocker's CPU Upgrade Assistant" sounds good to me; if perhaps maybe a little long-winded.
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    I'd love to see thermal benchmarks on a Skylake X that's been delidded.
    Reply
  • killerchickens
    How about "Crap TIM Removers".
    Reply
  • killerchickens
    20153172 said:
    There is usually some common sense attached to Intel decisions. Not always appreciated at the time but usually when you look back you can see why. As an example the XEON 2687W vs 3970X. Essentially the same processor the XEON eight cores and locked. The X processor six cores ( two disabled ) and unlocked. The reasoning behind the two disabled cores was clock speed increases on eight cores caused thermal problems.

    At the time Intel were accused of doing this as a marketing strategy. Well it would appear that it was just good old common sense. Why did they remove the solder? It could be for any number of reasons.

    We can safely say that Intel know exactly what they are doing, because they alone have all the information and data required to make such a decision. I would guess it caused a problem that outweighed the thermal benefits it offered.

    I remember a previous thread ended up with some very expensive cooling solutions. I seem to remember some time ago someone was attempting to make a processor socket cooler. The processor pins made the normal contact with the metal in the socket holes and a ceramic under side that was actively cooled. The pins of course go all the way up to the processor die. The socket cooler was on the underside and a liquid AIO cooler fitted normally.

    In theory this looked a good way to move forward. This would also avoid having to delid the processor. Why are there so few socket cooling solutions?

    Yes I'm sure there is a good reason they use the worst thermal paste they can find too.
    Reply
  • Altherix
    20153172 said:
    There is usually some common sense attached to Intel decisions. Not always appreciated at the time but usually when you look back you can see why. As an example the XEON 2687W vs 3970X. Essentially the same processor the XEON eight cores and locked. The X processor six cores ( two disabled ) and unlocked. The reasoning behind the two disabled cores was clock speed increases on eight cores caused thermal problems.

    At the time Intel were accused of doing this as a marketing strategy. Well it would appear that it was just good old common sense. Why did they remove the solder? It could be for any number of reasons.

    We can safely say that Intel know exactly what they are doing, because they alone have all the information and data required to make such a decision. I would guess it caused a problem that outweighed the thermal benefits it offered.

    I remember a previous thread ended up with some very expensive cooling solutions. I seem to remember some time ago someone was attempting to make a processor socket cooler. The processor pins made the normal contact with the metal in the socket holes and a ceramic under side that was actively cooled. The pins of course go all the way up to the processor die. The socket cooler was on the underside and a liquid AIO cooler fitted normally.

    In theory this looked a good way to move forward. This would also avoid having to delid the processor. Why are there so few socket cooling solutions?
    I use to think that too, but you apply logic to it and it doesn't make any sense other than a Big Business Strategy.

    It is true that if you get soldering wrong, it can make the CPU unusable with time, using TIM is a better idea as it's more tolerant of mistakes and flaws in application. For run of the mill CPUs it makes perfect sense to use paste instead of soldering. On server CPUs, with 24/7 use a good thermal solution is necessary, so soldering is used, this is also why there's a premium on Intel server CPUs. 24/7 usage and warranty for normal use.

    With this processor, we're talking, "Enthusiast's" you're already paying a premium for an unlocked processor to overclock, why not solder which IS the best thermal transfer solution and just charge a premium cost on top of that?

    Big Business decision, "Enthusiast's" are going to push their CPU to the limits, so any flaws in the solder job will become apparent. This is a risk to the CPU manufacturer, having to warranty, "Enthusiast's" CPUs, putting in TIM means a real, "Enthusiast's" is going to delid the processor for the best thermal performance, thus voiding the warranty. Even if they don't, they don't have to deal with solder failure either, it's a win for them lose for the customer.

    Enthusiasts, are a very small portion of the market, Intel isn't going to go broke soldering "Enthusiast's" CPUs and warranty them. This is just a big middle-finger to the "Enthusiasts" and plain greed, the only reason that makes sense.
    Reply