Maybe you can get a stong piece of thick Lexan (or any other clear material) to use as a stand-in for your CPU. That way you can apply the thermal paste and heatsink, and look at the resulting spread from the bottom. I can understand that temperature comparisons are impossible for practical reasons, but with this method a visual comparison will be possible. That would add the "proof" that people are missing from the article at this point.
Originally Posted by mystvearn But I read an article more than 5 years back, says that I should use a Credit card or some flat surface and nicely spread the material.
Quote:
It used to be that the accepted method was to apply a thin coat using a razor blade or the edge of a credit card. Most performance thermal compounds in use today are lightly bulk loaded thin or wet compounds that spread easily, but a compound that has a bulk loading >90% will not spread using the razor blade technique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh I have a suggestion.
Maybe you can get a stong piece of thick Lexan (or any other clear material) to use as a stand-in for your CPU. That way you can apply the thermal paste and heatsink, and look at the resulting spread from the bottom.
Yep i've seen the dodgy spread that the "clamp and twist" method recommended by manufacturers often gives. IMHO it harks back to the days of the exposed core and isn't well suited for the area cooling (as opposed to spot cooling with exposed cores) we deal with today. It's mess free (which is why they recommend it me thinks...) but spreading it yourself will even it out and work the TIM into the CPU IHS before hand and you're garanteed to cover the entire IHS. Then even if there are some uneven thicknesses, the pressure from the HSF will sort them out just like it does for clamping and twisting. Done right, I believe it results in a thinner more evn spread. I've always got much better results using the plastic bag over finger method, often 5 degrees or more with more even temps over numerous cores.
Credit cards are okay but given that the IHS is rarely flat, I've always found they flex and don't spread it around too well and to get decent coverage, you'll usually end up using too much TIM (and have a TIM caked wallet).
Originally Posted by Pookeyhead Say what you like, but while that article may not win a pulitzer any time soon, it's spot on technically. If you're putting a grain of rice size blob down, then just clamping the HSF on, you're an idiot :)
Or you're just following the advice of Arctic Silver, since they you know, make the stuff, I would imagine they know their stuff.
My CPU hasn't burnt out yet, if you think about it, the majority of the heat would be directly over the chip, the periphery of the heat spreader which wouldn't get covered would be at a much lower temperature than the centre unless the heat spreader is crazy efficient.
I can understand the comment about spreading TIM first trapping air .. if you spread it improperly (IE have the outside edges of TIM thicker than the center, or groves, lines, etc.) you could trap air pockets ... how big they are I do not know, but you can't see with your eye the pockets that your using TIM to fill in the first place.
I think I'll try a combination ... use a pea size dollop and spread it so it's 1/4" (6mm) square
Originally Posted by djDEATH ... is it in fact more beneficial to bond them together permanently?
Quote:
I was thinking of something along the lines to something akin to 'copper-solder' in that you would apply the said substance and bond the two surfaces together.
The CPU surface (or heatspreader surface) and the cooler surface (be it aluminum, or copper or whatever) will have different expansion rates when heating up.
Bonding them could cause the brittler one to crack.
This is also what causes the cited "pumping out" of TIM.
Just apply it how you want, its your cpu/heatsink if it works for you then who cares.
I personally use the blob 'n' clamp method, but I give it a few mounts and twists just to make sure. But if I wasn't using ceramique I would probably give it a spread myself.
The method that AS say to use is arguably the easiest and "safest" method, it works and is easy for muggles to do but that doesn't mean it is the best way. If you imagine the pressure required to properly spread evenly, I would guess that it would be far more than the cpu/motherboard would comfortably like to deal with. But then if the heatsink was slightly concave or convex then a pre spread may miss out gaps that a good push wouldn't.
Oh and who are the people who wrote this? Sorry I don't recognise the names. I jumped to the comments after a brief look over, I was slightly surprised to see so many comments, now I see why.
Originally Posted by cpemma As done at the link I just posted? :p
Yep indeed, but insted of just using two sheets of glass, you could put mounting holes in Lexan and actually mount a heatsink to make things less messy and more realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matticus Oh and who are the people who wrote this? Sorry I don't recognise the names. I jumped to the comments after a brief look over, I was slightly surprised to see so many comments, now I see why.
It appears they are Dennis Staff members. I'm a bit confused myself. I thought the Dennis takeover would just have financial implications, but now the team changes too. Not to be overly critical and personal, but i hope you guys are going down the right road...
How much do you actually need the TIM round the edges of the heat spreader? The processing cores are still at its centre, so that is where most of the heat will be produden and therefore where the most thermal contact needs to be.
if you don't have TIM round the edges, the pressure will be higher in the middle so a better contact will be formed that way too.
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh I have a suggestion.
Maybe you can get a stong piece of thick Lexan (or any other clear material) to use as a stand-in for your CPU. That way you can apply the thermal paste and heatsink, and look at the resulting spread from the bottom.
Good idea, but what if the ihs isn't very even? (Which is quite often the case)
Why not just produce a CPU which has a choice of integrated heatsinks, one for air and the other for water... just a though, I'm sure to get shot down in flames though!
Originally Posted by B1GBUD Why not just produce a CPU which has a choice of integrated heatsinks, one for air and the other for water... just a though, I'm sure to get shot down in flames though!
This works perfectly in theory, but in practice the implementation would probably be crappy. Think of integrated graphics (i typo'd craphics :)) when you wonder what happens when intel starts doing other things then producing chips.
They can't even seem to build an IHS that isn't either terribly concave or terribly convex!
I have always spread it out using the method mentioned in this article, and i have always had great temps and zero problems.
I even remove the heatsink (or, in my own computer's case, waterblocks) after mounting, and see a perfect spread. I have never tried a razor blade, so can not comment on that, but the clingfilm/sandwhich bag/no powder glove etc method works very well.
Originally Posted by cpemma Those idiots at Arctic Silver are doing it all wrong then? I'd sooner listen to them than some stupid kid writing a magazine article. ;)
I've tried the 'buttered' v 'line & press' methods on my fairly heavily overclocked E2180, 'line' wins by a small margin. There's another tech site that showed the coverage after various application methods; letting the sink pressure spread the compound worked fine.
Looks like they've applied far too much paste. Even the amount of paste in #4 is more than we've used for the method described in our article which I guess is represented the closest by method #1. However, the difference is that we're not using a razor blade or credit card. :)
I have to agree with Gremlin about the article seemingly having no real end. It just seems like you wanted to publish a multi-part article but forgot to mention that in this part.
The article itself was quite interesting though I have to say the topic isn't the most thrilling. Funny how people start bashing eachother['s methods] here. :)
I can understand how improperly spreading TIM could trap air (IE if TIM is thicker on outside edges, grooves, etc.)
I don't know how much air would be trapped. You can't see with your eye the imperfections on the surface that trap air that your using TIM to fill in the first place, so
I think next time I'll go with the pea size dollop and spread it a bit, 1/4" to 1/2" (6mm to 12mm) square or so
Interesting read. There do seem to be a number of different opinions amongst everyone here. Last time I applied TIM I think I used too much, probably double the amount recommended in the article. So next time I will be a bit less liberal with the paste lol.
One thing I'm curious about though, do you really need to use a branded TIM cleaner? I've used white spirit previously, is that bad?
I don't understand why people are arguing that the manual spreading method is optimal, especially in the face of that overclockers article that cpemma linked and previous experiences. The people that attach the heatsink, twist then remove it in order to check the material has spread correctly confound me even further - you've just created two surfaces of bumpy liquid that're going to catch pockets of air when you press them down again.
Those two processes - prespreading and manually checking - are bound to create small pockets of air in the centre of the heatspreader, though the former can be reduced by better application it'd never be eliminated. If you stop and think about how liquid can trap air bubbles when the air isn't given a chance to escape (imperfections in application + air pockets in the imperfections of the heatsink will remain trapped, no?) it doesn't make sense to do anything other than what the manufacturers currently recommend; the rice/pea method. That is unless I'm completely failing to understand some physics that would force that air out from the centre and fill in the path it makes as it leaves, but if that occurred, people wouldn't care about how you applied the thermal material at all as there'd be no chance of air existing in any setup.
The majority of the heat on the CPU comes from the centre and you're going to want to have zero air pockets there, right? The pea method, as shown in the instructions provided with ArcticSilver5 (and probably others, I don't use anything else), prevents air pockets occurring in the centre or anywhere near it by forcing the air out as the TIM expands radially (and as no compound was pre-applied there's no pockets of it to prevent the air from escaping).
If you're awesome at applying TIM through past experiences and your method works well for you that's fantastic and you're more than welcome to do what you like or feel is best (whether it is or not is something we'll leave to the experts), but why would you write an article telling a beginner to apply the TIM in a way that's proven to be less effective; at least when applied poorly (which a beginner is highly likely to do). It's not like the manufacturers recommend a particular method on a whim, people buying their product are likely to notice heat differences so they're going to tell you the best method for applying it.
Meh, it just seems silly to get a beginner to do things the old, and apparently less effective, way. Why I care is beyond my comprehension.
You mean I've been doing it wrong all along? How do I remove paste from the cpu socket and the pins, as per image linked below??
Is this really all that bad? My friends are saying I'm stupid now... :( http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k151/cburn25/42prosessor1.jpg
Interesting read, but I have to agree with Brulah.
As a side note, Akasa TIM cleaner and Articlean 1 are both basically lemon oil. Articlean 2 is ethylene. Check your suppliers, you may get them cheaper elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Brulath I don't understand why people are arguing that the manual spreading method is optimal, especially in the face of that overclockers article that cpemma linked and previous experiences.
Note that we use none of the techniques in that article and, moreover, we appear to use less TIM than even the most frugal of the application methods in that article.
Originally Posted by Pygo You mean I've been doing it wrong all along? How do I remove paste from the cpu socket and the pins, as per image linked below??
Is this really all that bad? My friends are saying I'm stupid now... :( http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k151/cburn25/42prosessor1.jpg
Originally Posted by Pygo Ya... been working like that for years.
maybe later today I'll try cleaning it up, post a few pics of the cleanup process and some temps. old and new.
Comments 26 to 50 of 109
ReplyMaybe you can get a stong piece of thick Lexan (or any other clear material) to use as a stand-in for your CPU. That way you can apply the thermal paste and heatsink, and look at the resulting spread from the bottom. I can understand that temperature comparisons are impossible for practical reasons, but with this method a visual comparison will be possible. That would add the "proof" that people are missing from the article at this point.
Yep i've seen the dodgy spread that the "clamp and twist" method recommended by manufacturers often gives. IMHO it harks back to the days of the exposed core and isn't well suited for the area cooling (as opposed to spot cooling with exposed cores) we deal with today. It's mess free (which is why they recommend it me thinks...) but spreading it yourself will even it out and work the TIM into the CPU IHS before hand and you're garanteed to cover the entire IHS. Then even if there are some uneven thicknesses, the pressure from the HSF will sort them out just like it does for clamping and twisting. Done right, I believe it results in a thinner more evn spread. I've always got much better results using the plastic bag over finger method, often 5 degrees or more with more even temps over numerous cores.
Credit cards are okay but given that the IHS is rarely flat, I've always found they flex and don't spread it around too well and to get decent coverage, you'll usually end up using too much TIM (and have a TIM caked wallet).
Or you're just following the advice of Arctic Silver, since they you know, make the stuff, I would imagine they know their stuff.
My CPU hasn't burnt out yet, if you think about it, the majority of the heat would be directly over the chip, the periphery of the heat spreader which wouldn't get covered would be at a much lower temperature than the centre unless the heat spreader is crazy efficient.
I think I'll try a combination ... use a pea size dollop and spread it so it's 1/4" (6mm) square
The CPU surface (or heatspreader surface) and the cooler surface (be it aluminum, or copper or whatever) will have different expansion rates when heating up.
Bonding them could cause the brittler one to crack.
This is also what causes the cited "pumping out" of TIM.
:D Xir
All the fuss about how to apply TIM.
Just apply it how you want, its your cpu/heatsink if it works for you then who cares.
I personally use the blob 'n' clamp method, but I give it a few mounts and twists just to make sure. But if I wasn't using ceramique I would probably give it a spread myself.
The method that AS say to use is arguably the easiest and "safest" method, it works and is easy for muggles to do but that doesn't mean it is the best way. If you imagine the pressure required to properly spread evenly, I would guess that it would be far more than the cpu/motherboard would comfortably like to deal with. But then if the heatsink was slightly concave or convex then a pre spread may miss out gaps that a good push wouldn't.
Oh and who are the people who wrote this? Sorry I don't recognise the names. I jumped to the comments after a brief look over, I was slightly surprised to see so many comments, now I see why.
if you don't have TIM round the edges, the pressure will be higher in the middle so a better contact will be formed that way too.
Good idea, but what if the ihs isn't very even? (Which is quite often the case)
They can't even seem to build an IHS that isn't either terribly concave or terribly convex!
I even remove the heatsink (or, in my own computer's case, waterblocks) after mounting, and see a perfect spread. I have never tried a razor blade, so can not comment on that, but the clingfilm/sandwhich bag/no powder glove etc method works very well.
Looks like they've applied far too much paste. Even the amount of paste in #4 is more than we've used for the method described in our article which I guess is represented the closest by method #1. However, the difference is that we're not using a razor blade or credit card. :)
The article itself was quite interesting though I have to say the topic isn't the most thrilling. Funny how people start bashing eachother['s methods] here. :)
I don't know how much air would be trapped. You can't see with your eye the imperfections on the surface that trap air that your using TIM to fill in the first place, so
I think next time I'll go with the pea size dollop and spread it a bit, 1/4" to 1/2" (6mm to 12mm) square or so
One thing I'm curious about though, do you really need to use a branded TIM cleaner? I've used white spirit previously, is that bad?
Those two processes - prespreading and manually checking - are bound to create small pockets of air in the centre of the heatspreader, though the former can be reduced by better application it'd never be eliminated. If you stop and think about how liquid can trap air bubbles when the air isn't given a chance to escape (imperfections in application + air pockets in the imperfections of the heatsink will remain trapped, no?) it doesn't make sense to do anything other than what the manufacturers currently recommend; the rice/pea method. That is unless I'm completely failing to understand some physics that would force that air out from the centre and fill in the path it makes as it leaves, but if that occurred, people wouldn't care about how you applied the thermal material at all as there'd be no chance of air existing in any setup.
The majority of the heat on the CPU comes from the centre and you're going to want to have zero air pockets there, right? The pea method, as shown in the instructions provided with ArcticSilver5 (and probably others, I don't use anything else), prevents air pockets occurring in the centre or anywhere near it by forcing the air out as the TIM expands radially (and as no compound was pre-applied there's no pockets of it to prevent the air from escaping).
If you're awesome at applying TIM through past experiences and your method works well for you that's fantastic and you're more than welcome to do what you like or feel is best (whether it is or not is something we'll leave to the experts), but why would you write an article telling a beginner to apply the TIM in a way that's proven to be less effective; at least when applied poorly (which a beginner is highly likely to do). It's not like the manufacturers recommend a particular method on a whim, people buying their product are likely to notice heat differences so they're going to tell you the best method for applying it.
Meh, it just seems silly to get a beginner to do things the old, and apparently less effective, way. Why I care is beyond my comprehension.
Is this really all that bad? My friends are saying I'm stupid now... :(
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k151/cburn25/42prosessor1.jpg
As a side note, Akasa TIM cleaner and Articlean 1 are both basically lemon oil. Articlean 2 is ethylene. Check your suppliers, you may get them cheaper elsewhere.
Note that we use none of the techniques in that article and, moreover, we appear to use less TIM than even the most frugal of the application methods in that article.
LOL... seriously?
maybe later today I'll try cleaning it up, post a few pics of the cleanup process and some temps. old and new.
Does that even work? :S
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums