Intel wants to slow down platform changes

Bill Todd wrote:
"Dean Kent" wrote in message
.com...

"Rob Stow" wrote in message
...

Try talking to the guys - including me - who actually repair
the damage. They'll tell you that AMD users tend to buy *upgrades*
for *working* CPUs while Intel users tend to bring in *dead* CPUs
and ask for *replacements*.


Sorry, but I've been on vacation for awhile and just saw this one from

over

a week ago, but...

I think it is somewhat interesting that you say this, since at the last
several AMD Tech Tours I've attended, the support guys emphasize how
important using the proper thermal solution is for AMD processors, and

they

claim that the #1 problem with AMD processors is death due to 'use of
improper thermal solutions' (previously, it was improper installation of
heat sinks - which included the damage of the die due to uneven pressure).
I also find it interesting that AMD recently emphasized that warranties

will

not be honored when anything other than the recommended thermal solutions
are used (including the use of Arctic Silver and such - which is not
recommended).

While it has been quite some time since I did any support, I find it very
difficult to believe that Intel customers "tend to bring in dead CPUs".
From my experience, motherboards were the #1 problem - at about a 1% to 3%
failure rate (depending upon manufacturer), with dead CPUs being a rarity.
With increased power dissipation, I can certainly see more CPU failures -
but the way it is stated, it sounds like in your experience users of AMD
processors rarely, if ever, have 'dead' CPUs (contrary to what AMD says),
while Intel users typically have dead CPUs (which is contrary to my
experience, and common sense).


I don't think anything you've said serves to refute anything Rob said.

Whether some form of heat death is the #1 *problem* with AMD processors is
irrelevant if far more users (likely of the 'enthusiast' variety) choose to
replace working AMD processors than come in with dead ones. And the
relative importance of MB problems for Intel users really says nothing about
the reasons why an Intel owner may want another CPU: it's still entirely
possible that *when* they want one it's usually to replace a dead one, even
if that happens rarely.

Rob's statements could still be true even if (not that I'm suggesting that
this is the case) AMD CPUs failed a lot more frequently than Intel's do: it
would simply indicate that the ratio of AMD enthusiast-replacers to Intel
enthusiast-replacers was even higher.


Bill's last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter. To clarify my point
a little further, lets look separately at the three largest groups of cpu
purchasers:

1.) Upgraders:

The AMD'er goes into the store to buy a processor faster
than the one he currently has, walks out with same, and installs it.
The Intel owner goes into the store with the same intentions and goes
home empty handed because he's already got the fastest cpu his
motherboard can handle or is so close to that limit that an upgrade is
not worthwhile. Intel owners vastly outnumber AMD owners, but AMD
upgraders outnumber Intel upgraders simply because they *can* do a
simple cpu upgrade - no motherboard upgrade required until you want to
try a Barton. The Intel average upgrade costs about twice as much
as an AMD upgrade simply because the processor is more expensive, a
new motherboard is often required, and sometime new RAM is required.



2.) Replacers:

These are the guys who have fried their cpu. There are fewer of them
than you might think: overclockers are more common and more vocal in
newsgroups like this than they are out in the real world. The
overwhelming majority of computer users are too conservative for OC'ing:
the want all the speed they can get, buy not at the risk of sacrificing
reliability. In my experience the number or Intel vs. AMD replacers is
pretty much proportional to the number of Intel vs AMD owners.

The most common sub-category of replacers are the upgraders who botched
the job - this tilts the numbers against AMD, but only because AMD
owners are much more likely to try an upgrade in the first place. AMD
upgraders do *not* seem to be more likely to botch the upgrade - there
are simply more of them.

3.) New buyers:

Buying a processor for building a new system, as opposed to upgrading or
replacing an existing cpu. These buyers are not relevant to this discussion.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Petter Settli wrote:
Dean Kent wrote:
use of Arctic Silver and such - which is not recommended).

What's their problem with Arctic Silver?

I'm not precisely certain. I believe they are worried about
grease being extruded out by differential thermal expansion as
the CPU core heats and cools relative to the cold/hot heatsink.

Personally, I just don't buy it. I don't see why phase-change
material (that AMD recommends) is any less succeptible to
extrusion. And this extrusion can only make a very small
peripheral void that will likely be filled by bleed from
the grease. IMHO, AMD bought a saleman's pitch.

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://users.ev1.net/~redelm

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:45:00 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Petter Settli wrote:
Dean Kent wrote:
use of Arctic Silver and such - which is not recommended).

What's their problem with Arctic Silver?

I'm not precisely certain. I believe they are worried about
grease being extruded out by differential thermal expansion as
the CPU core heats and cools relative to the cold/hot heatsink.

Personally, I just don't buy it. I don't see why phase-change
material (that AMD recommends) is any less succeptible to
extrusion. And this extrusion can only make a very small
peripheral void that will likely be filled by bleed from
the grease. IMHO, AMD bought a saleman's pitch.

I've never used artic silver but every CPU I've removed which had had white
thermal "grease" applied had dried up - the white material (zinc oxide ?)
had turned into a thin cake. Also, I had a tube of the stuff lying in my
tool box for 15years or so and when I opened it a couple of years back
there was umm, significant separation of the liquid and the solid. This
was not Radio Shack brand - I bought it in an electronics parts store.

On the dried-up stuff, used on the CPUs, I could not see any sign of
seepage or staining of the ceramic around the CPU heat spreader and as a
former chemist I was interested in what happened to the oil/liquid
component. Did it evaporate? I didn't see any sign in the "cake" that it
had baked into a thicker binding agent. Certainly if you leave even high
boiling point petroleum type greases or oils sitting around they *do* dry
up - add heat cycling and they "disappear" more quickly - IIRC by
vaporization and oxidation.

Assuming the oil/grease component of traditional white heatsink "compound"
is silicone, I don't think it's susceptible to oxidation but it could
certainly evaporate... albeit extremely slowly. IIRC Artic Silver has a
"synthetic grease" as its carrier for the solid material which I'd think is
likely PAO (polyalphaolefin... as in Mobil1 products) and that's basically
a petroleum compound which is somewhat less susceptible to oxidation than
mineral-based oil.

So do you know: has anyone done any analysis of what actually happens to
the liquid carrier? As for the phase change material, I haven't looked
into exactly what they mean by phase change. Does it phase change
(temporarily) on every heat cycle, i.e. solid to liquid and back on cool
down or does it phase change permanently over the first few applications of
heat, from a paste to a hardish plastic?

Having said all that, I did a "clean-up" on my system's interior the other
day and I noted that the white heatsink compound on the graphics chip
heatsink was still quite "wet" and there was no sign of it turning into a
"cake". I'm puzzled by all this and the "science" seems hard to track down
- complicate by all the folklorish gossip that abounds on Websites.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Yes, a phase change material liquifies when heated and is nearly solid when
cold.

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:45:00 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Petter Settli
wrote:
Dean Kent wrote:
use of Arctic Silver and such - which is not recommended).

What's their problem with Arctic Silver?

I'm not precisely certain. I believe they are worried about
grease being extruded out by differential thermal expansion as
the CPU core heats and cools relative to the cold/hot heatsink.

Personally, I just don't buy it. I don't see why phase-change
material (that AMD recommends) is any less succeptible to
extrusion. And this extrusion can only make a very small
peripheral void that will likely be filled by bleed from
the grease. IMHO, AMD bought a saleman's pitch.

I've never used artic silver but every CPU I've removed which had had
white
thermal "grease" applied had dried up - the white material (zinc oxide ?)
had turned into a thin cake. Also, I had a tube of the stuff lying in my
tool box for 15years or so and when I opened it a couple of years back
there was umm, significant separation of the liquid and the solid. This
was not Radio Shack brand - I bought it in an electronics parts store.

On the dried-up stuff, used on the CPUs, I could not see any sign of
seepage or staining of the ceramic around the CPU heat spreader and as a
former chemist I was interested in what happened to the oil/liquid
component. Did it evaporate? I didn't see any sign in the "cake" that it
had baked into a thicker binding agent. Certainly if you leave even high
boiling point petroleum type greases or oils sitting around they *do* dry
up - add heat cycling and they "disappear" more quickly - IIRC by
vaporization and oxidation.

Assuming the oil/grease component of traditional white heatsink "compound"
is silicone, I don't think it's susceptible to oxidation but it could
certainly evaporate... albeit extremely slowly. IIRC Artic Silver has a
"synthetic grease" as its carrier for the solid material which I'd think
is
likely PAO (polyalphaolefin... as in Mobil1 products) and that's basically
a petroleum compound which is somewhat less susceptible to oxidation than
mineral-based oil.

So do you know: has anyone done any analysis of what actually happens to
the liquid carrier? As for the phase change material, I haven't looked
into exactly what they mean by phase change. Does it phase change
(temporarily) on every heat cycle, i.e. solid to liquid and back on cool
down or does it phase change permanently over the first few applications
of
heat, from a paste to a hardish plastic?

Having said all that, I did a "clean-up" on my system's interior the other
day and I noted that the white heatsink compound on the graphics chip
heatsink was still quite "wet" and there was no sign of it turning into a
"cake". I'm puzzled by all this and the "science" seems hard to track
down
- complicate by all the folklorish gossip that abounds on Websites.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??

My newserver missed George's post.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Neo wrote:
Yes, a phase change material liquifies when heated and is nearly solid when
cold.

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
thermal "grease" applied had dried up - the white material (zinc oxide ?)
had turned into a thin cake. Also, I had a tube of the stuff lying in my

I wouldn't be worried so long as the cake was still a bit
moist. Not dry and powdery. The carrier fluid (silicone,
petroleum, poly alphaolefins or polyester) in thermal grease
doesn't have good conductivity except compared to air.
The solids do most of the work.

All greases bleed, and thermal grease isn't even compounded
to be really stable. I'd fully expect harmless separation
over time. Some may be good in a spring-pressure joint like
HSF onto CPUs. Heat and vibration will cause the grease to
extrude & bleed, giving a thinner, higher conductivity layer.

On the dried-up stuff, used on the CPUs, I could not see any sign of
seepage or staining of the ceramic around the CPU heat spreader and as a
former chemist I was interested in what happened to the oil/liquid

I suspect most of the excess carrier fluid bled onto the
anodized aluminum of the heatsink. From there or the ceramic
it could easily evaporate because the HSF air discharging
from the fins will educt air from under the heatsink.

likely PAO (polyalphaolefin... as in Mobil1 products) and that's basically
a petroleum compound which is somewhat less susceptible to oxidation than
mineral-based oil.

At these cold temps, I'm not sure PAO is more oxidation
resistant than petroleum (with the sulfur in it). In any case,
I don't think either oxidizes.

day and I noted that the white heatsink compound on the graphics chip
heatsink was still quite "wet" and there was no sign of it turning into a
"cake". I'm puzzled by all this and the "science" seems hard to track

Less pressure, vibration or airflow (omnidirectional pin HS).

-- Robert author `cpuburn` http://users.ev1.net/~redelm

Perhaps some use too much, or others may start experiment with other
substances? I think it is a good idea for AMD to simplify what they
warranty. Do what you want at your own risk, or follow the simply
laid out instructions if you want the warranty.

Petter Settli wrote:

Dean Kent wrote:

snip

I also find it interesting that AMD
recently emphasized that warranties will not be honored when anything
other than the recommended thermal solutions are used (including the
use of Arctic Silver and such - which is not recommended).

What's their problem with Arctic Silver?

--PS

Replace offline with online to reply

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 01:45:14 GMT, "Neo" wrote:

Yes, a phase change material liquifies when heated and is nearly solid when
cold.

Well that's *one* type of phase change - a thermoplastic one... i.e.
reversible. I just wondered if the stuff AMD uses/recommends worked like
that... or if it might be thermosetting. I've never had to take the
heatsink off an installed CPU to see what the stuff looks like after it's
been in "action".

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 18:45:00 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Petter Settli
wrote:
Dean Kent wrote:
use of Arctic Silver and such - which is not recommended).

What's their problem with Arctic Silver?

I'm not precisely certain. I believe they are worried about
grease being extruded out by differential thermal expansion as
the CPU core heats and cools relative to the cold/hot heatsink.

Personally, I just don't buy it. I don't see why phase-change
material (that AMD recommends) is any less succeptible to
extrusion. And this extrusion can only make a very small
peripheral void that will likely be filled by bleed from
the grease. IMHO, AMD bought a saleman's pitch.

I've never used artic silver but every CPU I've removed which had had
white
thermal "grease" applied had dried up - the white material (zinc oxide ?)
had turned into a thin cake. Also, I had a tube of the stuff lying in my
tool box for 15years or so and when I opened it a couple of years back
there was umm, significant separation of the liquid and the solid. This
was not Radio Shack brand - I bought it in an electronics parts store.

On the dried-up stuff, used on the CPUs, I could not see any sign of
seepage or staining of the ceramic around the CPU heat spreader and as a
former chemist I was interested in what happened to the oil/liquid
component. Did it evaporate? I didn't see any sign in the "cake" that it
had baked into a thicker binding agent. Certainly if you leave even high
boiling point petroleum type greases or oils sitting around they *do* dry
up - add heat cycling and they "disappear" more quickly - IIRC by
vaporization and oxidation.

Assuming the oil/grease component of traditional white heatsink "compound"
is silicone, I don't think it's susceptible to oxidation but it could
certainly evaporate... albeit extremely slowly. IIRC Artic Silver has a
"synthetic grease" as its carrier for the solid material which I'd think
is
likely PAO (polyalphaolefin... as in Mobil1 products) and that's basically
a petroleum compound which is somewhat less susceptible to oxidation than
mineral-based oil.

So do you know: has anyone done any analysis of what actually happens to
the liquid carrier? As for the phase change material, I haven't looked
into exactly what they mean by phase change. Does it phase change
(temporarily) on every heat cycle, i.e. solid to liquid and back on cool
down or does it phase change permanently over the first few applications
of
heat, from a paste to a hardish plastic?

Having said all that, I did a "clean-up" on my system's interior the other
day and I noted that the white heatsink compound on the graphics chip
heatsink was still quite "wet" and there was no sign of it turning into a
"cake". I'm puzzled by all this and the "science" seems hard to track
down
- complicate by all the folklorish gossip that abounds on Websites.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??



Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??