SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Want to talk about one of the articles in SPCR? Here's the forum for you.
Post Reply
Lawrence Lee
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Vancouver

SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by Lawrence Lee » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:16 pm


quest_for_silence
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
Location: ITALY

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by quest_for_silence » Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:58 am

Thanks or the update, mr. Lee.

If I can afford a naïve question: why, if Sandy Bridge is so efficient, the CPU temperatures are so worse than the previous ones (15-25°C more, with reference to the Athlon II X4 platform)?
Regards,
Luca

Support SPCR, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

Nicias
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:14 am

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by Nicias » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:40 am

Great article. However, I still find the tables confusing, perhaps a graph like CA_Steve posted for your fan roundup would be clearer.

kuzzia
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:41 am
Location: Denmark

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by kuzzia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:00 am

Nicias wrote:Great article. However, I still find the tables confusing, perhaps a graph like CA_Steve posted for your fan roundup would be clearer.
I actually find the tables on the last page very simple and easy to understand.

quest_for_silence
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
Location: ITALY

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by quest_for_silence » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:49 am

kuzzia wrote:I actually find the tables on the last page very simple and easy to understand.

+1
Regards,
Luca

Support SPCR, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

CA_Steve
Moderator
Posts: 7444
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Monterey Bay, CA

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by CA_Steve » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:55 am

Thanks for the updated test platform - VRM monitoring! Woot!
1080p Gaming build: i5-4670K, Mugen 4, Asrock Z97 Anniversary, MSI GTX 1660 Gaming X, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic SSR-550FX. 35W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)

HFat
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by HFat » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:11 am

Thank you Lawrence.
It would be interesting if you could add the difference between CPU and VRM temperatures with the stock heatsinks for comparison. Intel makes a big deal of the need for airflow on the VRM area but we have no reference for what that means in terms of the reported VRM temperature value.
quest_for_silence wrote:why, if Sandy Bridge is so efficient, the CPU temperatures are so worse than the previous ones (15-25°C more, with reference to the Athlon II X4 platform)?
It *is* more efficient, by a large margin.

We don't know the actual temperatures, only what the CPU reports.
Even the actual CPU temperature is not very interesting. The board is the part which is most at risk of overheating with these heatsinks, which is why the reported VRM temperatures are so useful. This gives us real data on which heatsinks are the most dangerous at low fan speeds.

Any difference between actual CPU temperatures is easily explained. Assuming the same heatsink and the same power consumption, the CPU temperature will be mostly determined by the heat transfer between the parts of the CPU which heat up and the contact with the heatsink. If that heat transfer is relatively inefficient, the CPU temperature will be higher.
It stands to reason that a smaller manufacturing process will cause the heat transfer to be less efficient.
Also, a manufacturer of efficient and heat-resilient CPUs would have less incentive to optimize the heat transfer because it's less of an issue with its products than with the products of its competitors. Overclockers might be frustrated by the inefficient heat transfer however...

nutball
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:16 am
Location: en.gb.uk

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by nutball » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:31 am

quest_for_silence wrote:If I can afford a naïve question: why, if Sandy Bridge is so efficient, the CPU temperatures are so worse than the previous ones (15-25°C more, with reference to the Athlon II X4 platform)?
Because temperature and power consumption are not the same thing.

quest_for_silence
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
Location: ITALY

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by quest_for_silence » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:24 pm

If you say so (that it's so "simple")...
Regards,
Luca

Support SPCR, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

limee
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:12 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by limee » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:57 am

For the Noctua NH-L12, when only one fan underneath was mounted, was the fan blowing up or down? If the fan airflow direction was pointed up towards the fins, I'm wondering if it would be possible to test it once the other way to see the difference in temperatures (120 mm reference at full speed would be fine)?

mikeclueby4
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by mikeclueby4 » Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:15 am

quest_for_silence wrote:
If I can afford a naïve question: why, if Sandy Bridge is so efficient, the CPU temperatures are so worse than the previous ones (15-25°C more, with reference to the Athlon II X4 platform)?
In addition to other responses, I should point out that the test platform is both overclocked and overvolted.

quest_for_silence
Posts: 5275
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:12 am
Location: ITALY

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by quest_for_silence » Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:31 am

mikeclueby4 wrote:I should point out that the test platform is both overclocked and overvolted.

Well, this reason looks like more sound than the other ones, as at stock settings the two platforms should have very similar thermals:

Image Image

Thanks, I always forget that not-K SKUs can be overclocked (even when I read an article!).
However, if this is the reason, their oc'ing "attitudes" seem somewhat "inefficient" (and Ivy Bridge looks like even worse).
Regards,
Luca

Support SPCR, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

mikeclueby4
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by mikeclueby4 » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:18 pm

Well, when you overclock you normally try to undervolt as far as possible to reduce the heat generated.

SPCR did exactly the opposite for purposes of simply generating as much heat as possible so they could actually see the difference between the bigger heatsinks.

Conclusion: This test bed is about heatsinks and fans. Ignore the CPU :mrgreen:

MikeC
Site Admin
Posts: 12283
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: SPCR's Updated 2012 Small CPU Heatsink Test Platform

Post by MikeC » Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:16 pm

:!:
mikeclueby4 wrote:Well, when you overclock you normally try to undervolt as far as possible to reduce the heat generated.

SPCR did exactly the opposite for purposes of simply generating as much heat as possible so they could actually see the difference between the bigger heatsinks.

Conclusion: This test bed is about heatsinks and fans. Ignore the CPU :mrgreen:
:!: :idea: :mrgreen:
Mike Chin, SPCR Editor/Publisher
Support SPCR by buying your gear through this link: Amazon

Post Reply