More Overclocking? Getting Rid Of The Heat Spreader

Ad

The mobile versions of Intel’s Core 2 processors (this is a Core 2 Extreme X7800 for Socket 479) come without a heat spreader. Hence, the cooler is attached directly to the processor die. While this is efficient from a thermal perspective and also necessary considering the space constraints inside compact notebooks, both AMD and Intel have avoided this approach in the desktop segment, because the silicon die is rather fragile and it’s easy to damage it. All desktop-class processors are covered by a metal plate, which is called the heat spreader.

As you hit the limits of an architecture, not yet hitting thermal limits (Wolfdale never got really hot during our testing), one might wonder whether or not it makes sense to remove the processor’s heat spreader in order to directly attach a heat sink in an effort to improve heat dissipation. The heat spreader is the aluminum cover that sits on top of every AMD and Intel desktop processor to both protect the silicon die and to provide a flat surface to attach the CPU cooler to.

Removing the heat spreader doesn’t provide much of an advantage in most cases, as the materials used to attach the heat spreader to the die conduct heat quickly enough to allow for quick heat conduction to the CPU cooler, where the heat gets dissipated by a fan or by a liquid cooling solution. However, extreme overclocking attempts require extreme measures to squeeze out a few more megahertz, which is the reason why hardcore enthusiasts worldwide have continued to remove the heat spreader once in awhile.

With the 45-nm Core 2 Duo Wolfdale, you need to be more careful than before, as the heat spreader is physically soldered to the processor die. Look at the photo below if you want to know what happens when you try to remove the heat spreader without desoldering it beforehand. If you intend to remove it, we recommend that you take a hot air gun and carefully move the heat spreader back and forth until it can be removed without damaging the processor die. We recommend not doing this, since finding a suitable cooling solution is very difficult. Remember, there is the socket 775 with its metal frame, into which the CPU cooler plate must still fit. Lastly, performance gains are marginal.

You will immediately kill your processor if you try to remove the heat spreader. Be aware of the risks if you want to try, and make sure you desolder the heat spreader using a heat gun.


Talkback
mactronix 22/02/2008 11:57
Hide
-0+
mactronix
I will admit to not really being a regular overclocker but isnt the whole point about getting the best out of your hardware and in essance getting something for nothing.
from that view point i would have thought it would have made sence to at least include the 8200 for comparison, If not have done the whole article on it instead of the 8500. Or am i missing the point?
Wild9 24/02/2008 03:02
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Quote :Unlike AMD, which must produce its 90-nm processors closer to their technical and thermal limits to stay competitive, Intel plays on its manufacturing prowess, which is at least 12 months ahead of that of AMD.


Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.

Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour ;)
Wild9 24/02/2008 03:21
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Quote :However, AMD’s overclocking margins haven’t been as large compared to what Intel’s modern processors offer.


Socket 939 90nm Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz) can hit 2.7GHz or more on air. Same for Socket AM2 65nm Athlon64x2 4000+ (2.1GHz).

..not bad considering it's a generation before C2D.
Wild9 24/02/2008 11:54
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Is it me or doesn't there appear ot be much of a difference between the 266 and newer 333MHz FSB speed?
darthpoik 26/02/2008 12:28
Hide
-0+
darthpoik
wild9 :
Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour



Am I wrong in thinking the intel dual core does have inter core communication on chip. It is the quad core that communicates via the fsb for but only between the two core 2 duo dies.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



Google Ads