CPU Heatsink info.

Hi all, I'm back again.
I'm now ready to look for an aftermarket CPU heatsink.
Looking at the online reviews, I've found reference to 3RSystems' Iceage 120
HS.
It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU integral
heat spreader.
It seems to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's fast
thermal transients than a massive heat sink would permit.
The problem is, I can't find anyone who actually has this HS for sale!
The mfr site references Just-Pc (http://www.justpcusa.com/) as their
US/North American distributor.
Just-PC do not list this HS on their web site, and have not responded to an
email I sent a few days ago.
Does anyone here have any experience and/or opinions on this HS?
Do you know where it can be bought (and what the price is)?
Thanks in advance,
Jack R

For reference:
System:
MB: ASUS P5N-E SLI BIOS 0505 3/5/07
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
Stock heat sink and fan
RAM: 2x 1GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 PC2 6400, 800MHz, 4,4,4,12,2T
Video: eVga 8800GTS, 320MB 500MHz GPU, 400MHz RAMDAC
Default: Core 513MHz, Mem 792 MHz
Driver: nVidia 7.15.11.5845 5/27/07 (158.45)
PSU: Coolmax CXI 500W 120mm fan set to High
Tower case with side port for CPU cooling. The 'snorkel' has been extended
with tape to better meet with the CPU fan...big improvement!
90mm front and rear case fans
OS: Vista Ultimate 32 bit

Stable OC settings:
CPU: 371 x 9 = 3343GHz (39% OC)
Core V set to +.100v
Memory V set to 2.085v
Memory: 4,4,4,12,2T Trc 22; 426MHz (852MHz x2) (6.5% OC)
Video: Core 625 MHz, Mem 921 MHz (21%/16% OC)

'Jack R.' wrote, in part:
| I'm now ready to look for an aftermarket CPU heatsink.
| Looking at the online reviews, I've found reference to 3RSystems' Iceage
120
| HS.
| It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU integral
| heat spreader.
| It seems to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's fast
| thermal transients than a massive heat sink would permit.
| The problem is, I can't find anyone who actually has this HS for sale!
| The mfr site references Just-Pc (http://www.justpcusa.com/) as their
| US/North American distributor.
| Just-PC do not list this HS on their web site, and have not responded to
an
| email I sent a few days ago.
| Does anyone here have any experience and/or opinions on this HS?
| Do you know where it can be bought (and what the price is)?
_____

"It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU integral
heat spreader.
It seemst to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's fast
thermal transients than a massive heatsink would permit."

This is not a meaningful factor. You want the highest possible heat
transfer and hang the 'transients'.

Phil Weldon

"Jack R" wrote in message
...
| Hi all, I'm back again.
| I'm now ready to look for an aftermarket CPU heatsink.
| Looking at the online reviews, I've found reference to 3RSystems' Iceage
120
| HS.
| It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU integral
| heat spreader.
| It seems to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's fast
| thermal transients than a massive heat sink would permit.
| The problem is, I can't find anyone who actually has this HS for sale!
| The mfr site references Just-Pc (http://www.justpcusa.com/) as their
| US/North American distributor.
| Just-PC do not list this HS on their web site, and have not responded to
an
| email I sent a few days ago.
| Does anyone here have any experience and/or opinions on this HS?
| Do you know where it can be bought (and what the price is)?
| Thanks in advance,
| Jack R
|
| For reference:
| System:
| MB: ASUS P5N-E SLI BIOS 0505 3/5/07
| CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz
| Stock heat sink and fan
| RAM: 2x 1GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 PC2 6400, 800MHz, 4,4,4,12,2T
| Video: eVga 8800GTS, 320MB 500MHz GPU, 400MHz RAMDAC
| Default: Core 513MHz, Mem 792 MHz
| Driver: nVidia 7.15.11.5845 5/27/07 (158.45)
| PSU: Coolmax CXI 500W 120mm fan set to High
| Tower case with side port for CPU cooling. The 'snorkel' has been extended
| with tape to better meet with the CPU fan...big improvement!
| 90mm front and rear case fans
| OS: Vista Ultimate 32 bit
|
| Stable OC settings:
| CPU: 371 x 9 = 3343GHz (39% OC)
| Core V set to +.100v
| Memory V set to 2.085v
| Memory: 4,4,4,12,2T Trc 22; 426MHz (852MHz x2) (6.5% OC)
| Video: Core 625 MHz, Mem 921 MHz (21%/16% OC)
|
|

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
ink.net...
'Jack R.' wrote, in part:
| I'm now ready to look for an aftermarket CPU heatsink.
| Looking at the online reviews, I've found reference to 3RSystems' Iceage
120
| HS.
| It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU integral
| heat spreader.
| It seems to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's
fast
| thermal transients than a massive heat sink would permit.
| The problem is, I can't find anyone who actually has this HS for sale!
| The mfr site references Just-Pc (http://www.justpcusa.com/) as their
| US/North American distributor.
| Just-PC do not list this HS on their web site, and have not responded to
an
| email I sent a few days ago.
| Does anyone here have any experience and/or opinions on this HS?
| Do you know where it can be bought (and what the price is)?
_____

"It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU integral
heat spreader.
It seemst to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's
fast
thermal transients than a massive heatsink would permit."

This is not a meaningful factor. You want the highest possible heat
transfer and hang the 'transients'.

Phil Weldon


--stuff deleted--

Hi Phil,
Thanks for the response.
SpeedFan and others show 15 - 20 deg C near-instantaneous transients in core
temperatures.
If these measurements are real, I'm concerned about long term reliability
issues due to thermal expansion/contraction with this type of continuous
thermal cycling. So, I'd like to see them dampened.
My OC testing shows that these transients are magnified greatly by OC'ing.
At nominal settings, stock HS, they are in the 5 - 10 deg C range
max...probably acceptable.
Of course, only time will tell. If the reliability is reduced from 15 years
to 8 years, then who cares?
But, if it's 10 years to 10 months, then we've got a problem.

Still looking for a source for the Iceage 120...

Thanks,

Jack R

'Jack R.' wrote:
| Thanks for the response.
| SpeedFan and others show 15 - 20 deg C near-instantaneous transients in
core
| temperatures.
| If these measurements are real, I'm concerned about long term reliability
| issues due to thermal expansion/contraction with this type of continuous
| thermal cycling. So, I'd like to see them dampened.
| My OC testing shows that these transients are magnified greatly by OC'ing.
| At nominal settings, stock HS, they are in the 5 - 10 deg C range
| max...probably acceptable.
| Of course, only time will tell. If the reliability is reduced from 15
years
| to 8 years, then who cares?
| But, if it's 10 years to 10 months, then we've got a problem.
|
| Still looking for a source for the Iceage 120...

_____

You are worrying about the wrong thing.

First of all, how would the temperature monitors for the CPU detect an
'instantaneous' temperature change? There is a lag in the A-to-D conversion
that eliminates that possibility. How often do you poll the monitor chip
for temperatures?

Secondly, the mass of the CPU chip is small compared to the heat spreader
and very small compared to the heatsink. You may be reading the temperature
at the internal thermal diode for each CPU, but the temperature of the heat
spreader and heat sink are very different. In fact, contrary to what you
believe, a larger heatsink DAMPS the temperature swings.

What you NEED to worry about is the heat transfer capacity of the cooling
solution, and the temperature of the cold side of the solution. At the
moment, the weak link is heat transfer between the CPU chip and the heat
spreader. The best you can do about that is have the highest reasonable
heat transfer between the heat spreader and the cold side of the cooling
solution. The greater the temperature difference, the more rapid the energy
transfer.

The thermal resistance of copper is low enough that a few millimeters
thickness does not amount to much. In fact, I'd venture that the IceAge 120
arrangement of four flattened heatpipes separated flush with an aluminum
block such that only part of the heat spreader is incontact with the heat
pipes while the rest is only in contact with the aluminum block is LESS
effective than a copper block with embeded heat pipes (the are lots of
websites that can provide the data and equations to figure this out for
youself.

Finally, what is the problem with rapid changes in temperature? What do you
expect will happen?

As for where to find the IceAge 120, why not contact the vendor mentioned in
the 3RSystem webpages?

Phil Weldon

"Jack R" wrote in message
...
|
| "Phil Weldon" wrote in message
| ink.net...
| 'Jack R.' wrote, in part:
| | I'm now ready to look for an aftermarket CPU heatsink.
| | Looking at the online reviews, I've found reference to 3RSystems'
Iceage
| 120
| | HS.
| | It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU
integral
| | heat spreader.
| | It seems to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's
| fast
| | thermal transients than a massive heat sink would permit.
| | The problem is, I can't find anyone who actually has this HS for sale!
| | The mfr site references Just-Pc (http://www.justpcusa.com/) as their
| | US/North American distributor.
| | Just-PC do not list this HS on their web site, and have not responded
to
| an
| | email I sent a few days ago.
| | Does anyone here have any experience and/or opinions on this HS?
| | Do you know where it can be bought (and what the price is)?
| _____
|
| "It has the unique feature of direct heatpipe contact to the CPU
integral
| heat spreader.
| It seemst to me that this will allow much faster response to the CPU's
| fast
| thermal transients than a massive heatsink would permit."
|
| This is not a meaningful factor. You want the highest possible heat
| transfer and hang the 'transients'.
|
| Phil Weldon
|
|
| --stuff deleted--
|
| Hi Phil,
| Thanks for the response.
| SpeedFan and others show 15 - 20 deg C near-instantaneous transients in
core
| temperatures.
| If these measurements are real, I'm concerned about long term reliability
| issues due to thermal expansion/contraction with this type of continuous
| thermal cycling. So, I'd like to see them dampened.
| My OC testing shows that these transients are magnified greatly by OC'ing.
| At nominal settings, stock HS, they are in the 5 - 10 deg C range
| max...probably acceptable.
| Of course, only time will tell. If the reliability is reduced from 15
years
| to 8 years, then who cares?
| But, if it's 10 years to 10 months, then we've got a problem.
|
| Still looking for a source for the Iceage 120...
|
| Thanks,
|
| Jack R
|
|
|
|

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
ink.net...
'Jack R.' wrote:
| Thanks for the response.
| SpeedFan and others show 15 - 20 deg C near-instantaneous transients in
core
| temperatures.
| If these measurements are real, I'm concerned about long term
reliability
| issues due to thermal expansion/contraction with this type of continuous
| thermal cycling. So, I'd like to see them dampened.
| My OC testing shows that these transients are magnified greatly by
OC'ing.
| At nominal settings, stock HS, they are in the 5 - 10 deg C range
| max...probably acceptable.
| Of course, only time will tell. If the reliability is reduced from 15
years
| to 8 years, then who cares?
| But, if it's 10 years to 10 months, then we've got a problem.
|
| Still looking for a source for the Iceage 120...

_____

You are worrying about the wrong thing.

First of all, how would the temperature monitors for the CPU detect an
'instantaneous' temperature change? There is a lag in the A-to-D
conversion
that eliminates that possibility. How often do you poll the monitor chip
for temperatures?

Secondly, the mass of the CPU chip is small compared to the heat spreader
and very small compared to the heatsink. You may be reading the
temperature
at the internal thermal diode for each CPU, but the temperature of the
heat
spreader and heat sink are very different. In fact, contrary to what you
believe, a larger heatsink DAMPS the temperature swings.

What you NEED to worry about is the heat transfer capacity of the cooling
solution, and the temperature of the cold side of the solution. At the
moment, the weak link is heat transfer between the CPU chip and the heat
spreader. The best you can do about that is have the highest reasonable
heat transfer between the heat spreader and the cold side of the cooling
solution. The greater the temperature difference, the more rapid the
energy
transfer.

The thermal resistance of copper is low enough that a few millimeters
thickness does not amount to much. In fact, I'd venture that the IceAge
120
arrangement of four flattened heatpipes separated flush with an aluminum
block such that only part of the heat spreader is incontact with the heat
pipes while the rest is only in contact with the aluminum block is LESS
effective than a copper block with embeded heat pipes (the are lots of
websites that can provide the data and equations to figure this out for
youself.

Finally, what is the problem with rapid changes in temperature? What do
you
expect will happen?

As for where to find the IceAge 120, why not contact the vendor mentioned
in
the 3RSystem webpages?

Phil Weldon

stuff deleted...

Phil,

Thanks for your thoughtful response, it's appreciated.

As to your last suggestion, I sent them email early in the week as I said in
my first posting...no reply.

Jack R

'Jack R.' wrote:
| Thanks for your thoughtful response, it's appreciated.
_____

I believe that, for CPU cooling, heat pipes are mainly useful for
efficiently moving the heat to a convenient distance where larger
dissapation fins and larger, slower fans can be used, and where the
tranfered heat can be dumped further from the motherboard, chipsets, memory,
display adapter ... That's why you don't see heat pipes used with water
cooling for CPUs.

Phil Weldon



"Jack R" wrote in message
...
|
| "Phil Weldon" wrote in message
| ink.net...
| 'Jack R.' wrote:
| | Thanks for the response.
| | SpeedFan and others show 15 - 20 deg C near-instantaneous transients
in
| core
| | temperatures.
| | If these measurements are real, I'm concerned about long term
| reliability
| | issues due to thermal expansion/contraction with this type of
continuous
| | thermal cycling. So, I'd like to see them dampened.
| | My OC testing shows that these transients are magnified greatly by
| OC'ing.
| | At nominal settings, stock HS, they are in the 5 - 10 deg C range
| | max...probably acceptable.
| | Of course, only time will tell. If the reliability is reduced from 15
| years
| | to 8 years, then who cares?
| | But, if it's 10 years to 10 months, then we've got a problem.
| |
| | Still looking for a source for the Iceage 120...
|
| _____
|
| You are worrying about the wrong thing.
|
| First of all, how would the temperature monitors for the CPU detect an
| 'instantaneous' temperature change? There is a lag in the A-to-D
| conversion
| that eliminates that possibility. How often do you poll the monitor
chip
| for temperatures?
|
| Secondly, the mass of the CPU chip is small compared to the heat
spreader
| and very small compared to the heatsink. You may be reading the
| temperature
| at the internal thermal diode for each CPU, but the temperature of the
| heat
| spreader and heat sink are very different. In fact, contrary to what
you
| believe, a larger heatsink DAMPS the temperature swings.
|
| What you NEED to worry about is the heat transfer capacity of the
cooling
| solution, and the temperature of the cold side of the solution. At the
| moment, the weak link is heat transfer between the CPU chip and the heat
| spreader. The best you can do about that is have the highest reasonable
| heat transfer between the heat spreader and the cold side of the cooling
| solution. The greater the temperature difference, the more rapid the
| energy
| transfer.
|
| The thermal resistance of copper is low enough that a few millimeters
| thickness does not amount to much. In fact, I'd venture that the IceAge
| 120
| arrangement of four flattened heatpipes separated flush with an aluminum
| block such that only part of the heat spreader is incontact with the
heat
| pipes while the rest is only in contact with the aluminum block is LESS
| effective than a copper block with embeded heat pipes (the are lots of
| websites that can provide the data and equations to figure this out for
| youself.
|
| Finally, what is the problem with rapid changes in temperature? What do
| you
| expect will happen?
|
| As for where to find the IceAge 120, why not contact the vendor
mentioned
| in
| the 3RSystem webpages?
|
| Phil Weldon
|
| stuff deleted...
|
| Phil,
|
| Thanks for your thoughtful response, it's appreciated.
|
| As to your last suggestion, I sent them email early in the week as I said
in
| my first posting...no reply.
|
| Jack R
|
|

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
k.net...
'Jack R.' wrote:
| Thanks for your thoughtful response, it's appreciated.
_____

I believe that, for CPU cooling, heat pipes are mainly useful for
efficiently moving the heat to a convenient distance where larger
dissapation fins and larger, slower fans can be used, and where the
tranfered heat can be dumped further from the motherboard, chipsets,
memory,
display adapter ... That's why you don't see heat pipes used with water
cooling for CPUs.

Phil Weldon


Heat pipes (in a narrow range of operation) have an equivalent thermal
resistance that is a small fraction of even pure copper. The thin wall of
the heat pipe is an advantage, not a drawback. This is why the thermal
response can be superior to a block of copper.
One of the limitations is that of heat capacity..it's limited with heat
pipes, thus you see multiple pipes being used commonly.
The huge advantage of a water system is just that: heat capacity, limited
mainly by how much water you have in the system (and flow, delta-T, ability
to extract heat, etc.).
Jack R

The main difference between a heat pipe system and water cooling is that the
latter moves heat with a forced (by a pump) movement of the fluid.
Remember, the way heat pipes work is by phase transformation. The liquid
goes into gas phase at the hot point and then gaseously flows away by
itself, to go back to liquid phase at the cool end of the system and flows
back as a liquid to the hot point. What this means is that in a heat pipe
system there *must* be a temp difference between the two ends of the heat
pipes. In other words, there *must* be a temp difference for the system to
work.
This is not the case with water cooling: because the liquid is forced to
flow by a pump, the temp of both ends could well be the same.

"Jack R" wrote in message
...

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
k.net...
'Jack R.' wrote:
| Thanks for your thoughtful response, it's appreciated.
_____

I believe that, for CPU cooling, heat pipes are mainly useful for
efficiently moving the heat to a convenient distance where larger
dissapation fins and larger, slower fans can be used, and where the
tranfered heat can be dumped further from the motherboard, chipsets,
memory,
display adapter ... That's why you don't see heat pipes used with water
cooling for CPUs.

Phil Weldon


Heat pipes (in a narrow range of operation) have an equivalent thermal
resistance that is a small fraction of even pure copper. The thin wall of
the heat pipe is an advantage, not a drawback. This is why the thermal
response can be superior to a block of copper.
One of the limitations is that of heat capacity..it's limited with heat
pipes, thus you see multiple pipes being used commonly.
The huge advantage of a water system is just that: heat capacity, limited
mainly by how much water you have in the system (and flow, delta-T,
ability to extract heat, etc.).
Jack R

| Heat pipes (in a narrow range of operation) have an equivalent thermal
| resistance that is a small fraction of even pure copper. The thin wall of
| the heat pipe is an advantage, not a drawback. This is why the thermal
| response can be superior to a block of copper.
| One of the limitations is that of heat capacity..it's limited with heat
| pipes, thus you see multiple pipes being used commonly.
| The huge advantage of a water system is just that: heat capacity, limited
| mainly by how much water you have in the system (and flow, delta-T,
ability
| to extract heat, etc.).
_____

Wrong way to look at it; the major thermal resistance is silicon / heat
spreader and interface, NOT a few millimeters of a copper heat block. Heat
pipes only transfer heat, and cannot do better than ambient. With the
current Core Duo package, the only counter to that bottle neck is a higher
temperature differential - active phase change, Peltier arrays, water
chiller ...

Even though heat pipes can have lower thermal resistance than any solid,
over a few millimeters distance the increased thermal resistance doesn't add
up to much, over a few centimenter or more it does.

If you will look closely at the 'FrostyTech' review of the IceAge 120 and
other heatsink/fan combinations you will see that their test arrangement is
deeply flawed. 'FrostyTech' is measuring the temperature rise above ambient
of the surface of the hot plate, NOT the temperature rise of a silicon chip
beneath a heatspreader. The numbers 'FrostyTech' develops, while collected
with a snazzy looking instrument, do not represent the numbers the
overclocker will ever see.

If you are ever able to get an IceAge 120, it will be interesting to compare
your results with the ThermalTake i1 I have. The ThermalTake i1 has heat
pipes inbeded in a copper block rather than in an aluminum block and the
exposed area of the heat dissapation fins is much larger than for the IceAge
120 (and the fan has a four-pin connector to mate with the Intel CPU thermal
fan speed control.) My guess is that the ThermalTake i1 will be a better
performer.

Phil Weldon

"Jack R" wrote in message
...
|
| "Phil Weldon" wrote in message
| k.net...
| 'Jack R.' wrote:
| | Thanks for your thoughtful response, it's appreciated.
| _____
|
| I believe that, for CPU cooling, heat pipes are mainly useful for
| efficiently moving the heat to a convenient distance where larger
| dissapation fins and larger, slower fans can be used, and where the
| tranfered heat can be dumped further from the motherboard, chipsets,
| memory,
| display adapter ... That's why you don't see heat pipes used with water
| cooling for CPUs.
|
| Phil Weldon
|
|
| Heat pipes (in a narrow range of operation) have an equivalent thermal
| resistance that is a small fraction of even pure copper. The thin wall of
| the heat pipe is an advantage, not a drawback. This is why the thermal
| response can be superior to a block of copper.
| One of the limitations is that of heat capacity..it's limited with heat
| pipes, thus you see multiple pipes being used commonly.
| The huge advantage of a water system is just that: heat capacity, limited
| mainly by how much water you have in the system (and flow, delta-T,
ability
| to extract heat, etc.).
| Jack R
|
|

"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
nk.net...
| Heat pipes (in a narrow range of operation) have an equivalent
thermal
| resistance that is a small fraction of even pure copper. The thin
wall of
| the heat pipe is an advantage, not a drawback. This is why the
thermal
| response can be superior to a block of copper.
| One of the limitations is that of heat capacity..it's limited with
heat
| pipes, thus you see multiple pipes being used commonly.
| The huge advantage of a water system is just that: heat capacity,
limited
| mainly by how much water you have in the system (and flow, delta-T,
ability
| to extract heat, etc.).
_____

Wrong way to look at it; the major thermal resistance is silicon /
heat
spreader and interface, NOT a few millimeters of a copper heat block.
Heat
pipes only transfer heat, and cannot do better than ambient. With the
current Core Duo package, the only counter to that bottle neck is a
higher
temperature differential - active phase change, Peltier arrays, water
chiller ...

Even though heat pipes can have lower thermal resistance than any
solid,
over a few millimeters distance the increased thermal resistance
doesn't add
up to much, over a few centimenter or more it does.

If you will look closely at the 'FrostyTech' review of the IceAge 120
and
other heatsink/fan combinations you will see that their test
arrangement is
deeply flawed. 'FrostyTech' is measuring the temperature rise above
ambient
of the surface of the hot plate, NOT the temperature rise of a silicon
chip
beneath a heatspreader. The numbers 'FrostyTech' develops, while
collected
with a snazzy looking instrument, do not represent the numbers the
overclocker will ever see.

If you are ever able to get an IceAge 120, it will be interesting to
compare
your results with the ThermalTake i1 I have. The ThermalTake i1 has
heat
pipes inbeded in a copper block rather than in an aluminum block and
the
exposed area of the heat dissapation fins is much larger than for the
IceAge
120 (and the fan has a four-pin connector to mate with the Intel CPU
thermal
fan speed control.) My guess is that the ThermalTake i1 will be a
better
performer.

Phil Weldon

I have seen the 'transient' spikes Jack is speaking of even with my
water cooled C2D setup. Under load, I have seen spikes jump from 45c up
to 55-60c and immediately back to 45c using CoreTemp on one core or the
other but have never seen it happen on both at the same time. These
spikes last only one cycle (I forget the default timings of CoreTemp's
readings) and I really don't look at a few m.s. of temperature rise as a
problem. I don't even know if they are real or just an anomoly of the
sensors/software so I really don't care...:-).
Looking at reviews of both the Ice Age 120 and Thermaltake i1, I
like the theory behind the Ice Age 120, but am also leerie about the
FrostyTech method of testing. I think an actual test using "real"
silicon might be better. I also have reservations about the base design
of the Ice Age 120 with the gaps there. They say it leaves space for
excess thermal compound to go, but I think they are there because that
is the only way to have direct contact of the heat pipes to the heat
spreader on the processor using their design....:-). The TT i1 uses a
more tried and true method with the copper block and large dissipation
area that has proven successful for some time. I would also like to see
a comparison of the two in real life usage.

Ed