Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Cooling Processors quietly

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by xan_user » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:59 pm

Happy Hopping wrote:
but if the CPU temperature can be lower by 6 deg., that CPU last longer
where did you come up with that notion? current CPU's will throttle clock speed before high temps have any negative impact on lifespan.

Happy Hopping
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:38 am

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Happy Hopping » Sun Nov 03, 2013 4:52 am

any electronics that runs cooler last longer. From your DVD recorder to your CPU

Abula
Posts: 3628
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:22 pm
Location: Guatemala

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by Abula » Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:44 am

Happy Hopping wrote:any electronics that runs cooler last longer. From your DVD recorder to your CPU
I agree with you, heat is the worst enemy of electric components, but if you maintain your CPU with in what the manufacturer recommends, then there is very little impact on the longevity of it, this is one of the reasons we see such bad stock cooler, and even pushing it over the limits, sometimes it will last you over what the hardware is useful for most. Either way im not contradicting your statement, as its true, but the impact on CPUs is very little, i mainly look for bigger coolers and better tim to spin my fans down as low as i can, temp i don't care as long as its with in what the manufacturer suggests.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Re: Is carbon based TIM better than Ceramic based?

Post by xan_user » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:32 am

Happy Hopping wrote:any electronics that runs cooler last longer. From your DVD recorder to your CPU
true, with some electronics for sure. but with a CPU it is not a concern. if you had a CPU that starts to throttle at say 75c, running at 70c vs 35c will not effect the life span of the CPU in any tangible way. even running it at 75 wont effect its lifespan, it will just throttle to prevent damage.

***im picking 75c out of the air. you have to check what your particular CPU can get up to before it throttles to know what number to keep it under. ****

sure, my system only gets up to about 10 degrees under throttle threshold, but thats because i cant hear the fans at that temp, so why bother slowing them anymore?

it is a myth that a (modern) cpu that is allowed to run hot, but within specs, will fail any sooner than one kept cool.

on a side note, google found that running HDD's hotter did not effect life span negatively. interestingly they even found that drives kept cooler than 'normal' had higher failure rates than drive allowed to run hot.

http://static.googleusercontent.com/ext ... ilures.pdf

also, how long do you really need a CPU to work? I have an old amd k-6 from the 90's that i overclocked it till it blue screened and shut down the system countless times, it still works fine. -of course its completely useless today despite its ability to still function.

I cant recall reading anything or hearing about anyone ever having a CPU fail from running it within specs. Can anyone in SPCR land remember one failing prematurely (in spec)?

Post Reply