April 26, 201214 yr The original article is posted here: http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures This is definitely a solvable problem. However, we have to ask the following: 1) does Intel care? 2) will they actually solve it? In the meantime, anyone feeling adventurous enough can de-lid their IB and have their heat issues remedied. Should get similar temps to SB then, allowing for similar overclocks. IB has become interesting again.
April 26, 201214 yr My thoughts are IB was designed for laptops and workstations and not with the enthusiast in mind. Most ticks are this way. Plus I think there is some credibility to the die size playing a factor. 22nm just doesn't take a whole lot of volts which is required to sustain high OC's.
April 26, 201214 yr My thoughts are IB was designed for laptops and workstations and not with the enthusiast in mind. Most ticks are this way. Plus I think there is some credibility to the die size playing a factor. 22nm just doesn't take a whole lot of volts which is required to sustain high OC's. While there is some measure of truth in the idea that the 22nm process is less likely to be able to sustain as high voltages as the 32nm process, I have to question whether or not you read the linked article... The heat issues with IB are stemming from a packaging decision Intel made in order to save on cost, it is not a process or chip limitation and is entirely solvable.
April 26, 201214 yr Wait for the next chip is my best guess...ie hanswell will have sorted most of this out and hopefully and hopefully with architecture change improvements. Intel will make most of its money on laptop units for Ib anyhow and this will guide their decision... Simon
April 26, 201214 yr Wait for the next chip is my best guess...ie hanswell will have sorted most of this out and hopefully and hopefully with architecture change improvements. Intel will make most of its money on laptop units for Ib anyhow and this will guide their decision... This isn't an architectural problem inherent to Ivy Bridge. it is a manufacturing issue which is easy to solve. Even if Intel chooses not to solve it, the user can solve it on their own by de-lidding the CPU.
April 26, 201214 yr This isn't an architectural problem inherent to Ivy Bridge. it is a manufacturing issue which is easy to solve. Even if Intel chooses not to solve it, the user can solve it on their own by de-lidding the CPU. They are aware of the way they designed the chips and they were designed that way for a reason.... Simon
April 26, 201214 yr While there is some measure of truth in the idea that the 22nm process is less likely to be able to sustain as high voltages as the 32nm process, I have to question whether or not you read the linked article... The heat issues with IB are stemming from a packaging decision Intel made in order to save on cost, it is not a process or chip limitation and is entirely solvable. Uhm....don't see how my comments were attempting to disprove that it is not because of manufacturing. I was adding validity to the article by saying Intel designed the chips for laptops and workstations, ie: CHEAP. If they cared about enthusiast Intel would have changed the design from the get go. This product was aimed at maintstream users. IB is a win for Intel (more processors from each wafer) and it benefits them to make them as cheaply as possible. They won't fix it because they don't have too. The 22nm chips will be limited in number of volts compared to larger processes. Oh and good luck de-lidding the CPU.
April 26, 201214 yr They are aware of the way they designed the chips and they were designed that way for a reason.... Uhm....don't see how my comments were attempting to disprove that it is not because of manufacturing. I was adding validity to the article by saying Intel designed the chips for laptops and workstations, ie: CHEAP. If they cared about enthusiast Intel would have changed the design from the get go. This product was aimed at maintstream users. IB is a win for Intel (more processors from each wafer) and it benefits them to make them as cheaply as possible. They won't fix it because they don't have too. The 22nm chips will be limited in number of volts compared to larger processes. Oh and good luck de-lidding the CPU. It's not a "design" issue, at least not in the sense that it is a chip problem. It's a simple choice made in manufacturing the product. They don't have to go back to the drawing board to fix this one, all they need to do is make a small change on the assembly line. It's like Ford putting lower quality tires on their Explorers back in the 90's. Did they need to redesign the Explorer to fix it? No, they put on different tires and the problem was solved.
April 26, 201214 yr Alot of chips have been manufactured already for desktop units... Nowhere near the total number of chips that will be manufactured over the product life cycle.
April 26, 201214 yr I'm hoping that for some reason Intel just made the samples or first batch this way, but it's a mystery why they would do so. Flightsim rig: CPU: AMD 5900x | Mobo: MSI X570 MEG Unify | RAM: 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo | GPU: Gigabyte RTX 3090 | Storage: M.2 (2 & 4 TB) | PSU: Corsair RM850x | Case: Fractal Define 7 XL Display: Acer Predator x34 3440x1440 | Speakers: Logitech Z906 Controllers: Fulcrum One Yoke | MFG Crosswind v2 pedals | Honeycomb Bravo Quadrant |Thrustmaster TCA Quadrant | Stream Deck XL & Plus | TrackIR 5 Tobii eye tracking
April 26, 201214 yr Here is a theory: I think Intel on purpose made bad cooling solution - it's probably cheaper, because IB is not THAT much better than SB, meaning not many people are going to jump over. On ther other side, for Notebooks, a great deal, less power drain and more power. Now, making users stay with SB is possibly a good tactic, because up to the next cycle, where the chips make another big jump, everyone is going to want to change - all enthusiasts and notebook makers. Then you are looking at another story - can't make a cheap cooling, have to show yourself in the best light. Time to go full awesomeness. End theory.
April 26, 201214 yr Here is a theory: I think Intel on purpose made bad cooling solution - it's probably cheaper, because IB is not THAT much better than SB, meaning not many people are going to jump over. On ther other side, for Notebooks, a great deal, less power drain and more power. Now, making users stay with SB is possibly a good tactic, because up to the next cycle, where the chips make another big jump, everyone is going to want to change - all enthusiasts and notebook makers. Then you are looking at another story - can't make a cheap cooling, have to show yourself in the best light. Time to go full awesomeness. End theory. I'd say it's more likely a tactic to push people into Socket 2011 SB-E systems, if it was anything other than a simple cost-saving measure.
April 26, 201214 yr Hardly. Those are too expensive and Intel is aware of the general public, I am, so they must be too. Only hardcore enthusiasts with money to throw away are gonna be ready for that. It's not a major market. I think we are talking simple cost saving here, with a bit of background thinking.
Create an account or sign in to comment