[H] delided a Kaby Lake i7 7700K, the results are .. interesting

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Reduction in Temperature =/= Reduction in Heat/Thermal Energy. The statement is correct.

Believe me when I say this, I've genuinely missed you, lol. Welcome back.

 

6 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

 

 

 

Yeah But This article even quotes the below 

 

Feel like you all are taking that graph a little out of context it was on a 4.9ghz at 1.35V 

I don't understand what he meant by " lot of effort for not much result". It took less than an hour for me to delid, paint my contacts with clearcoat nail polish, clean the die, put CLU on it, and put it back in my system. 22C for an hour worth of work was worth it in my case. We also don't even know what motherboard they used. For all we know, they were limited by the board itself, and could have been why they were unable to hit 5ghz+. If you watch videos from other overclockers, you will see people limited to 4.9ghz on Z170, but the moment they swap out to a Z270 board, they hit 5.1/5.2ghz. 

 

If an article can't be bothered to provide their full testing methodology, they shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

[zMeul]

3 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Unless I've made some horrible error without realizing it, I think you might have misinterpreted it  

40 = 2x 20 does not work in C because 0 is an arbitrary value with not meaning in this context.  With an absolute scale like Kelvin, you can simply multiply a number by two (ie, 200 K = 2x 100 K) because 0 is absolute zero, where there is no heat at all.  It's a good scale for that reason...

that's because you are thinking Kelvin while talking about Celcius

 

when talking Celsius it's quite right that 40deg is twice as hot as 20deg

 

---

 

you say 0deg C is "arbitrary" ... nothing further from the truth

 

and say Kelvin scale is absolute .. ok ...

• 0 Kelvin cannot be achieved in normal circumstances; outer space is 2.7 Kelvin
• is Absolute Zero absolute? temperatures that go below Absolute Zero can be achieved with special methods: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146#/b1

 

---

 

and here's something really funny

293.15 - 273.15 = 20 .. what do you know

313.15 - 293.15 = 20 .. 

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

I've genuinely missed you

WHY?

 

I was even considering getting some bubbly and celebrating his disappearance.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

WHY?

 

I was even considering getting some bubbly and celebrating his disappearance.

You would have to understand the relationship. Batman needs Joker around, and vice versa. Sadly, I can't even tell which one I am anymore given how long this has gone on, lol. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

You would have to understand the relationship. Batman needs Joker around, and vice versa. Sadly, I can't even tell which one I am anymore given how long this has gone on, lol. 

You're Batman if you have to use that analogy.

Although I wouldn't quite call Pat the Joker.

 

If he's any villain, it's the Box Ghost from Danny Phantom.

[Prysin]

6 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Reduction in Temperature =/= Reduction in Heat/Thermal Energy. The statement is correct.

Here he is folks. He is back to make our forums great again!!!

ive missed ya dude.

[Prysin]

13 hours ago, Lays said:

I expect better from you man

you shouldn't expect anything from him, short of a history lesson in nostalgia salt-mining

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

Here he is folks. He is back to make our forums great again!!!

 

It beats having you try to take his place, lol. 

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

It beats having you try to take his place, lol. 

lol, i ain't even trying. Not yet at least. I'm simply making the forums great again!

[MageTank]

Just now, Prysin said:

lol, i ain't even trying. Not yet at least.

I would beg to differ. You even stole his formula. Become a pseudo-expert of all subjects, turn every thread into something you care about (his being Intel, yours being Trump), etc. You gotta find your own thing sir.

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I would beg to differ. You even stole his formula. Become a pseudo-expert of all subjects, turn every thread into something you care about (his being Intel, yours being Trump), etc. You gotta find your own thing sir.

no i'm simply riding the wave of SJW rage. When they stop raging, i'll stop trumping.

 

EDIT: I beg to differ. I'm a pseudo pseudo-expert. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it!!!

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

no i'm simply riding the wave of SJW rage. When they stop raging, i'll stop trumping.

Making every thread about Trump, when nobody else brings him up, makes you just as extreme as they are, only on the opposite side of the spectrum. At least Patrick draws a correlation to Intel (even if it's done through mental gymnastics). 

 

Be yourself friend. You don't need to fill his void anymore.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

Making every thread about Trump, when nobody else brings him up, makes you just as extreme as they are, only on the opposite side of the spectrum. At least Patrick draws a correlation to Intel (even if it's done through mental gymnastics). 

 

Be yourself friend. You don't need to fill his void anymore.

in that case, let's make this about AMD, and their glorious IHS soldering.... And how Intel's TIM is a piece of shit, someone i know speculated if their TIM is made from mud found behind their factory.

 

@patrickjp93 or what ya say?

 

[Prysin]

i see a massive crustacean looming over this thread. Perhaps it wants three fiddy?

Well ye aint havin no three fiddy!!!

What ye can have is a scoop of shitty TIM.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

in that case, let's make this about AMD, and their glorious IHS soldering.... And how Intel's TIM is a piece of shit, someone i know speculated if their TIM is made from mud found behind their factory.

 

@patrickjp93 or what ya say?

 

Intel's TIM is great. Dows Corning gets a bad rep because people are too clueless to understand the process. The TIM itself is fine. It's the variance caused by the glue itself that makes the per-core temperatures suck. It's longevity is second to none, something even CLU struggles with after 1-2 years. Dows Corning can last way beyond that, and has for several years on my older CPU's. EVGA uses it on their GPU's, and everyone boasts about how great EVGA's thermals are, even without swapping the paste.

 

Do yourself a favor, and order a giant tub of Dows Corning on Ebay. It's super cheap, and lasts forever. Test it on the bare die of a freshly delidded CPU, and then come back and say it's garbage. It won't match CLU, but it will still do a great job. Just like Grizzly does a great job on the die, despite still being inferior to CLU. 

 

Also, I will be extremely surprised if AMD's smaller 14nm chips get soldered. Maybe we will see it on the 8c/16t SKU, but I highly doubt we will see solder on anything less.

 

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

i see a massive crustacean looming over this thread. Perhaps it wants three fiddy?

Well ye aint havin no three fiddy!!!

What ye can have is a scoop of shitty TIM.

Again, go do some research, lol.

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

So Celsius sux hairy balls :D?

 

 

So does Kelvin. We've achieved sub-0K in labs many times in the last decade.

 

17 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Making every thread about Trump, when nobody else brings him up, makes you just as extreme as they are, only on the opposite side of the spectrum. At least Patrick draws a correlation to Intel (even if it's done through mental gymnastics). 

 

Be yourself friend. You don't need to fill his void anymore.

See, this is why I took a hiatus. This community has gotten so toxic, especially considering the mods still let you crawl around.

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Intel's TIM is great. Dows Corning gets a bad rep because people are too clueless to understand the process. The TIM itself is fine. It's the variance caused by the glue itself that makes the per-core temperatures suck. It's longevity is second to none, something even CLU struggles with after 1-2 years. Dows Corning can last way beyond that, and has for several years on my older CPU's. EVGA uses it on their GPU's, and everyone boasts about how great EVGA's thermals are, even without swapping the paste.

 

Do yourself a favor, and order a giant tub of Dows Corning on Ebay. It's super cheap, and lasts forever. Test it on the bare die of a freshly delidded CPU, and then come back and say it's garbage. It won't match CLU, but it will still do a great job. Just like Grizzly does a great job on the die, despite still being inferior to CLU. 

 

Also, I will be extremely surprised if AMD's smaller 14nm chips get soldered. Maybe we will see it on the 8c/16t SKU, but I highly doubt we will see solder on anything less.

 

Again, go do some research, lol.

which Grizzly you referring to? Kryo or Conducto? Kryo is not much better then NH-T1 from Noctua. CLU is worse then Grizzlys Conductonaut. No documentation i can find proves otherwise. Liquid PRO is supposedly the best, but it seems Liquid Ultra is the more popular one... as far as i know, Grizzlys metal TIM is less accessible in the state (going by PCPartpicker)

 

Although, so far i only found two places mentioning thermal values...

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/liquid-metal-showdown-thermal-grizzly-conductonaut-vs-cool-laboratory-liquid-ultra-pro.791489/

http://www.overclock.net/t/1351984/coollaboratory-liquid-ultra-vs-liquid-pro-vs-phobya-liquid-metal#post_19106740

 

Also the last part wasn't referring to you, by may have referred to someone else who's username begins with the same letter as yours. Said person may or may not be watching this thread anymore.

[vanished]

30 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's because you are thinking Kelvin while talking about Celcius

 

when talking Celsius it's quite right that 40deg is twice as hot as 20deg

In what way?  How does that make any sense?  Sure, the number is twice as large but what's the physical meaning of that?  Nothing.  And that's why I'm saying it a stupid thing to say.

30 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you say 0deg C is "arbitrary" ... nothing further from the truth

 

and say Kelvin scale is absolute .. ok ...

• 0 Kelvin cannot be achieved in normal circumstances; outer space is 2.7 Kelvin
• is Absolute Zero absolute? temperatures that go below Absolute Zero can be achieved with special methods: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146#/b1

In this context it is.  As I mentioned, what would probably have made the most sense would be for them to measure their load temps relative to idle - not to 0 C, and not even to 0 K frankly.  But no, they randomly decided that because 68 C is ~25% less than 91 C, that statement has some inherent value and it absolutely does not.  It is completely arbitrary and meaningless in this context.  What if they had measured in F instead of C?  They could just as well have said 154.4 F (68 C) was 21.1% lower than 195.8 F (91 C), but they arbitrarily chose to measure in C relative to 0 and so the number was 25.28% instead.  Or should we do it in another scale?  Perhaps you'd prefer Rømer?  I don't really care; the statement is equally meaningless in all of them.  At least with an absolute scale, the percent change in number equates to the percent change in thermal energy (more or less), but what they've done here makes no sense.  That 25.28% number may as well have been completely made up because it contains absolutely no useful information.

30 minutes ago, zMeul said:

and here's something really funny

293.15 - 273.15 = 20 .. what do you know

313.15 - 293.15 = 20 .. 

If you think I'm not aware of that you didn't read everything I've posted so far:

3 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I wouldn't say that.  It's a lot better for scientific purposes than something like Fahrenheit imo but you will see Kelvin used more commonly still for the reason I mentioned.  Of course, in certain equations there's no difference (ie, if you're taking the difference between two temperatures), but generally you want to be consistent to be safe.

 

[zMeul]

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

-

in Kelvin

is the difference from going 273.15 to 313.15  twice as big as going from 273.15 to 293.15 ? yes it is

 

in Celcius

is the difference from going from 0 to 40 twice as big as going from 0 to 20? yes it is

 

then what are we talking about? 

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

in Kelvin

is the difference from going 273.15 to 313.15  twice as bit as going from 273.15 to 293.15 ? yes it is

 

in Celcius

is the difference from going from 0 to 40 twice as big as going from 0 to 20? yes it is

 

then what are we talking about? 

No, that's not quite what I was getting at.  The core of my complaint is this: they claimed they lowered the temperature by 25.28%, but because of what that's based on it's a meaningless statement.  Yes, they lowered the number that represents its temperature by that much in one particular scale, but what does that actually tell us?  What physical meaning does that have?  I wouldn't have even brought percent difference into this if I were them, but I was forced to, I would have done it relative to idle temps.  As in, if it idled at 30 C (or any unit for that matter since it won't matter in the end - a factor of great importance here), and they got it down from 90 C load to 60 C load, I'd say "we made it idle at half the temperature" in a tongue in cheek sort of way is at least passable and holds some value.  But when you do that kind of thing using 0 in whatever temperature scale you're in, it means nothing, as demonstrated by the fact that changing scales changes the percentage!  

[goodtofufriday]

14 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

In what way?  How does that make any sense?  Sure, the number is twice as large but what's the physical meaning of that?  Nothing.  And that's why I'm saying it a stupid thing to say.

In this context it is.  As I mentioned, what would probably have made the most sense would be for them to measure their load temps relative to idle - not to 0 C, and not even to 0 K frankly.  But no, they randomly decided that because 68 C is ~25% less than 91 C, that statement has some inherent value and it absolutely does not.  It is completely arbitrary and meaningless in this context.  What if they had measured in F instead of C?  They could just as well have said 154.4 F (68 C) was 21.1% lower than 195.8 F (91 C), but they arbitrarily chose to measure in C relative to 0 and so the number was 25.28% instead.  Or should we do it in another scale?  Perhaps you'd prefer Rømer?  I don't really care; the statement is equally meaningless in all of them.  At least with an absolute scale, the percent change in number equates to the percent change in thermal energy (more or less), but what they've done here makes no sense.  That 25.28% number may as well have been completely made up because it contains absolutely no useful information.

If you think I'm not aware of that you didn't read everything I've posted so far:

 

Being genuine here. I dont really understand? 

If thw cpu was X temp before TIM

And then is Y temp after TIM,  why is it not okay to calculate the percentage differwnt between the two relative to zero? I think that a range of "0 - > max load temp"  makes perfect sense. 

 

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

No, that's not quite what I was getting at.  The core of my complaint is this: they claimed they lowered the temperature by 25.28%, but because of what that's based on it's a meaningless statement.  Yes, they lowered the number that represents its temperature by that much in one particular scale, but what does that actually tell us?  What physical meaning does that have?  I wouldn't have even brought percent difference into this if I were them, but I was forced to, I would have done it relative to idle temps.  As in, if it idled at 30 C (or any unit for that matter since it won't matter in the end - a factor of great importance here), and they got it down from 90 C load to 60 C load, I'd say "we made it idle at half the temperature" in a tongue in cheek sort of way is at least passable and holds some value.  But when you do that kind of thing using 0 in whatever temperature scale you're in, it means nothing, as demonstrated by the fact that changing scales changes the percentage!  

it sounds to me that you are actually debating the legitimacy of the Celcius scale rather than the temperature differences 

 

no Celsius, not anything else,  just a X scale from 0 to 100

on that scale is 91 at a 25.(274725)% from 68?

[vanished]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

it sounds to me that you are actually debating the legitimacy of the Celcius scale rather than the temperature differences 

Not at all.  I'm debating their use of it.  They based their percent changes on 0, when 0 in that scale (or any scale really) has no inherent meaning in this context.  The only "0" that I could be convinced makes any sense would be the idle temperature.

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

Being genuine here. I dont really understand? 

If thw cpu was X temp before TIM

And then is Y temp after TIM,  why is it not okay to calculate the percentage differwnt between the two relative to zero? I think that a range of "0 - > max load temp"  makes perfect sense. 

But why 0?  We have to think of the physical meaning of this.  0 C is 32 F.  Who's 0 is "real 0"?  Maybe 0 K?  That's generally accepted to be a good point but as has been mentioned, there are reasons you might not want to simply accept it as gospel either.  I'm saying they should have picked a temperature with meaning in the context of the test, like, for example, idle temps, rather than what they did.  In this context, 0 is no more special than any other number.

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Not at all.  I'm debating their use of it.  They based their percent changes on 0, when 0 in that scale (or any scale really) has no inherent meaning in this context.  The only "0" that I could be convinced makes any sense would be the idle temperature.

But why 0?  We have to think of the physical meaning of this.  0 C is 32 F.  Who's 0 is "real 0"?  Maybe 0 K?

that's exactly why I say you're debating the Celsius scale and not the temp differences 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

that's exactly why I say you're debating the Celsius scale and not the temp differences 

If they had done the same thing in F or any other scale I would have made the same complaint.  Well, perhaps not if they had used an absolute scale like Kelvin on Rankine, but if they had done that, their % difference comment would be near-meaningless for another reason; who cares about the total thermal energy in everyday life?