Slashdot Mirror
IBM Doubles CPU Cooling With Simple Change
Ars Technica is reporting that IBM has discovered a new cooling breakthrough that, unlike several other recent announcements, should be relatively easy and cost-effective to implement. "IBM's find addresses how thermal paste is typically spread between the face of a chip and the heat spreader that sits directly over the core. Overclockers already know how crucial it is to apply thermal paste the right way: too much, and it causes heat buildup. Too little, and it causes heat buildup. It has to be "just right," which is why IBM looked to find the best way to get the gooey stuff where it needs to be and in the right amount, and to make it significantly more efficient in the process."
sure, it does. Less fans = less power consumption.
"You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
Everything about putting together a new computer, or installing a new chip set is pretty straight-forward, except for the thermal paste. While nothing is to complicated, it is the only factor that is not clearly right or wrong depending on how you do it. Couple that with it being the hardest thing to reach in/on the computer, I am glad to see some changes are being made. It would be nice to simplify the process down to be just as easy as setting the fan on top of it.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
When i ordered my Artic Silver compound, the website had some instructions on how to apply the paste depending on what type of CPU you own. These instructions can be applied to any kind of thermal paste.
here's a link.
http://www.arcticsilver.com/instructions.htm
Previewing comments are for sissies!
this isn't taught where I work, and as a result oftentimes we get the units we fixed sent right back for overheating and shutting down. Pop off the heatpipe and fan assemly on the laptop mtherboard, and whoa-nelly! The ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE PROCESSOR'S COATED with thermal paste.
Each tube of thermal paste we get contains about 4CCs worth of thermal paste - MORE than enough to handle about seven or so CPUs. Instead, the entire tube gets shot onto the proc, because the syring is labeled "Single use only" (Yea, that's what I thought.)
Roughing the surface of the core casing seems like a good idea, but I dunno, most thermal compounds are rather gritty as is and wont' fit into those uber-tiny grooves. A more liquid thermal ahesive would see to be a better idea if you're going to mar the surface of the core's protective casing, I would think.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
When will someone get a clue and power CPU fans with Stirling Engines?
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
It doesn't help power consumption, but better cooling = less fans = less noise.
Actually, it helps *very* much with power consumption. Usually, resistance goes up as the tempeature does. For example, this is what an incandescent bulb relies on. What this means, is that as the chip gets hotter, it will resist more, causing a need for higher output to get the same usuable energy. By cooling the chip, its resistance stays low, allowing a higher efficiency in power usuage. IOW, less heat, less energy required.
Secondly, as another commentor pointed out, there's the fans that are use to cool it down, which indirectly allows for a lower power-consumption.
Have you read my journal today?
IBM looked to find the best way to get the gooey stuff where it needs to be and in the right amount
I know some sites with plenty of AVIs that will show you how to do that...
Story is here.
And if you did, you will know that the thermal paste itself is very inefficient for its thermal properties compared to the metal surface of the heatsink. What IBM has found out is a way to cheaply and quickly put a heatsink on the CPU which uses less thermal paste (1/3 less), which results in a 50% increase in cooling capability of the heatsink. What they don't tell you is that the idea way is to spread the paste using a hard straight edge with a uniform height over the cpu itself and apply an extremely smooth heatsink to this. But, this process takes too long for it to be worth it in mass production. It typically takes me 2-3 minutes to spread the thermal compound and mount the heatsink on a chip. In a production line, it needs to take 5-20 seconds.
All IBM has done is develop a better method compared to their previous less efficient method. It is still worse then someone taking the time to lap the heatsink level and smooth and properly spread the true correct amount of thermal compound on the CPU then IBM's new method. To give you an idea, IBM is still using around 10x more thermal compound then is used in hand built systems. As you saw, a 1/3 reduction resulted in 50% increase in performance. Imagine then what a 9/10 reduction would result... The compound itself has the highest/worst thermal co-efficient in the cooling system. It makes a lot of sense that getting less of it in there will increase the performance. The key to reducing this substance is having a heatsink that will fit perfectly flush with the CPU.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Multiply that by a few [hundred] million computers and suddenly you're saving a few [hundred] MW. See also: this post.
I'll never understand why people are so quick to dismiss seemingly trivial power savings. What's trivial on the single-person level is not-so-trivial on a global level.
I hope every one realizes that this has nothing to do with the goop you put on before you snap your heatsink on. This is the thermal grease that goes on the die before they put the cap on processor.