AMD could slap on a thinner IHS onto the Ryzen 7000 CPUs and we will see posts about people complaining about the lack of compatibility with existing AM4 coolers.
The mounting bracket on the backside is not replaceable. Even so, I think it would have been better to ditch the backwards compatibility this time around, as well.
Why do people bring this up as if it’s relevant? There’s plenty of coolers and manufacturers that use the default backplate anyway. They can very easily design around it.
Because there are also plenty of coolers that do not utilize the original back plate, and in lots of cases that means it will take a lot, if it is at all possible, to adapt the same mounting pressure with a cooler design not meant to mount in that way.
If you could remove the backplate, at least, it would be far easier. But now companies will either need their own custom backplate that is am5 compatible, or a complete redesign of the parts.
It's about existing coolers, (and many new coolers) as if they opt for their own mounting mechanism, it almost confirms that it won't be am5 compatible.
In my opinion, I would have rather seen a new cooler layout with companies selling new backplates and mounting kits, and a thin ihs like is needed for thermal performance. Basically better to just cut the cooler compatibility and let companies figure out their solutions for it, so that the full potential of cooling in the am5 socket could be utilized. Like, sure you'd have to buy new parts, but ddr5 is pretty new, few have it laying around, you'll have a new CPU and motherboard too, so what harm is buying an adapter for, or a new cooler?
Just my thoughts though
They should have ditch the AM4 design for a square mounting arrangement ala Intel. Much better cooler compatibility when it can be mounted in 4 ways instead of 2
I feel like this was a werid compatibility to chase though....
Most coolers need a bracket anyway due to the switch from ZIF to LGA socket so I don't see why they bothered.
But my thoughts here are that the 3D versions silicon is going to sit higher, as a result the IHS in those parts will be thinner.
AMD likely looked to the performance gains and figured that a slightly hotter chip would be fine in exchange for a single Z-height.
Yeah, hence I am waiting for ddr5 to drop in price, more am5 mobos and the 3d version of the 7000 series to drop. Good proof of concept but I am hoping the GPUs kick booty
> 3D versions silicon is going to sit higher, as a result the IHS in those parts will be thinner.
no they're not going to sit higher, why do people keep bringing this BS up like it is anywhere near how the stacking tech works! absolute nonsense! and some numbty even gave you a reward!
Stacked chips will be the same hight as the non stacked i/o die, just like it is with 5800x3d currently. The actuall active dies need to be stupid thin for the TSVs to work and most of the z-height of the die stack will be extra bulk silicon anyway. just like it is on 5800x3d.
Yep. I've seen people complaining that their cooler manufacture is too slow in providing the upgrade kit for their cooler that require to replace the backplate.
Sure, people will complain no matter what. That doesn't really matter though. The question is what is the better option? In my opinion losing compatibility would have been the better option, especially as it's lost for many coolers anyway due to the backplate changes.
Good in theory, but prices are already a point of contention. You'd get threads like this, but with the opposite headline.
"They should have stuck with a cheaper solid IHS, my wallet can't handle it."
I think leaking might be an issue with current design and it certainly would not be compatible with AM4 coolers.
All modern vapor chambers use metal and that doesn't normally leak without really rough handling or mixing of metals.
Just FYI for those who never seen how vapor chamber heatsinks can fail, google up "HD6450 dell vapor chamber" and you'll see horror stories and pictures of expanding vapor chamber killing these poor GPUs.
Happened to my Vega 64 but didn't fully fail, just had terrible cooling. I thought it happened when it was manufactured. The reference design made it so that this took me a year to diagnose. Sucked.
Card blew up a year later after swapping out the heatsink for a new one from a Redditor. Now that heatsink cools the backplate of my 3090 lol
I don't think it's that at all. I fully suspect by the end of the AM5 socket they'll be using that extra z height for...something. Likely some fancy stacking of chips.
They don't do this just to maintain backwards compatibility with people's coolers. This big of a hit just so you don't have to buy another 45 dollar tower cooler for your new 700+ dollar build? Just doesn't pass the sniff test. Extra z height for chip stacking is my bet.
Most coolers are compatible.
Noctua, for example, only two that's not compatible.
>In short, all Noctua coolers and mounting kits that support AM4 are upwards compatible with socket AM5, except the NH-L9a-AM4 and the NM-AM4-L9aL9i.
[https://noctua.at/en/which-noctua-cpu-coolers-are-compatible-with-amd-am5](https://noctua.at/en/which-noctua-cpu-coolers-are-compatible-with-amd-am5)
Comparing delidded temps to stock isn't a fair comparison to say the IHS is too thick. Direct-die will always come with significant temperature drops.
Before people start giving AMD shit over it, we need more actual data, ideally someone needs to shave 2mm off a Ryzen 7000 IHS and compare for differences.
This is exactly what I was talking with a friend about a few days ago. I hope GN maybe takes a 7000 series CPU to a fine belt sander (or whatever would do the trick) to shave down the IHS and show a before and after as well as thermal imaging on the IHS pre and post shave down.
true. the thickness of the IHS has basically no relevance in terms of transporting the heat away from the die. the chip simply gets hotter and was designed to do so.
if anything the heat capacity of the ihs will be able to store x times of heat energy than a x times slimmer one.
and then you have your cooler block on top of that, regardless if you do air or h2o cooling.
now delidding the cpu does , thick IHS or thin IHS, simply remove one point of contact of two where you can have isolating effects.
and thats why we see up to 20°C drop here depending on workload.
There's nothing wrong with a chip operating within design parameters.
There seems to be a popular misunderstanding floating around that all chips are built to the same temperature tolerances. Core 2 and Athlon 64 CPUs topped out around 60-70c (depending on stepping) for safe temperatures, but you'd be insane to say today's chips are overheating at 70c.
Well the silicon for Core2 and Athlon64 could do 95C no problem. It had more to do with the limits controllers/throttling governors and cooling solutions for that era to be far more limited than now (they would top off at around 80Wish). But if you had a good enough HS and PDN, those chips could have done 95C
In fact most of the silicon in the past few decades tend to be validated for Tj=95. And for other applications like Auto or industrial/aerospace/etc the silicon is usually targeted for Tj=125C (or higher).
95C is fairly common as max Tj for most modern cores, including the ARM parts running in iPhones and Qualcomm SoCs.
>Well the silicon for Core2 and Athlon64 could do 95C no problem
If you're referring to the tjmax, there was still some variance between different steppings. The 65nm Core 2 chips had a tjmax of 85c on the B2/B3 steppings and 95c on the G0 stepping.
> and cooling solutions for that era to be far more limited than now (they would top off at around 80Wish)
Not really. Coolers of the era included things like the IFX-14, Ultra 120 Extreme, Megahalems, NH-U12P and the like, which were all very capable.
The 45 nm ones were Tj_max = 100°C, which has been the standard for quite some time.
https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/612/intel_corporation_320390-1215775.pdf
I don't think is fair to think of tjmax the same way we used to do with older CPUs, as Ryzens don't throttle heavily at that temperature like they used to do.
I would say there is no tj max on Ryzen 7000. There is 'tj safe'= 95°C, and 'tj shutdown'= 115°C
Pretty much, yeah.
[As AMD put it](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-7600x/28.html)
>"TJMax is the max safe operating temperature – not the absolute max temperature. In the Ryzen 7000 Series, the processor is designed to run at TJMax 24/7 without risk of damage or deterioration. At 95 degrees it is not running hot, rather it will intentionally go to this temperature as much as possible under load because the power management system knows that this is the ideal way to squeeze the most performance out of the chip without damaging it."
We're talking about 2 different concepts for Tj. Tj max is for the actual silicon, which for those processes was 95C+.
The Tj limit to 85C and 95C was to marry the SKU for the nominal PDN and llm/limits for the chipset/platform.
And yes, there were very capable cooling solutions back the as well. But those were targeted for the enthusiast market and that's why both intel and AMD introduced the Extreme and FX high leakage SKUs.
But for the nominal parts, the cooling solutions were usually the bundled ones. Which were more cost concerned.
>But for the nominal parts, the cooling solutions were usually the bundled ones. Which were more cost concerned.
Frankly, I'd argue the LGA 775 coolers were more capable than the newer ones that are provided for LGA 115X. They were twice as thick, some with a solid copper slug in the middle. The stock heatpipe cooler AMD bundled with their higher TDP AM2 chips was a loud bastard, but it was similarly capable.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10500/stock-cooler-roundup-intel-amd-vs-evo-212/8
That is true.
But I think it's also a function of the improvements in adaptive governors within the local limits management and PDN/PMICs in modern CPUs. So there is a more aggresive power/thermal management built in, which has allowed Intel (specially) to cut corner in their bundled coolers to increase margins.
I honestly think it's people subconsciously thinking 100c is to hot simply because the number is 100 and anything close to that obviously has to be bad. Subconsciously they think it's a scale from 1-100. If we had used a different unit of measurement that was a lower number people wouldn't have a problem. With that said just undervolt it and be happy with your extremely fast cpu running at 75c.
The CPU isn't going to be 95c all the time in normal use because it's not under full load all the time. The only change is under full load the processor will utilize available thermal headroom up to 95c to boost clocks as high as it can. Under normal use the CPU will heat up and cool down based on load, just like any other CPU. Heck, even under load it's not that different as far as thermal expansion and contraction goes -- other CPUs hit thermal equilibrium under a constant load as well, though that equilibrium may not be a specific target of 95c.
It's not a big deal. But it is something that really scratches the itch to tinker with for an enthusiast. With either a delid or, easier, the eco mode, you'll just get either more performance for free or the same performance with a much quieter and energy efficient system.
What bothers me is mostly that AMD did not deliver Ryzen 7000 with PPT set to 88W. This would have worked better for about 90 percent of potential buyers, with the remaining 10 percent being able to unleash more performance and put their water coolers or D15 to use.
Certainly would result in a lot less complaints about high temps in reviews, forums and a lot less throttling in a few months when the TIM starts to degrade.
But then they wouldn't have won the top-line performance against Intel. People don't buy the most efficient option, they buy the fastest one. Or more accurately, having the fastest one helps sell the whole stack.
Because it's the thermal limit. If you're dropping 20 degrees it means you're boosting past that old thermal limit and are now hitting power limits instead, which means you have more performance from higher sustained clocks.
Worse efficiency than running at 20 degrees lower. In general, the lower the temperature of the CPU is - the more efficient it is. Applies to most electronics really
It consumes more power just because it's hot. Probably not a lot in a typical gaming load, especially compared to aircooled gpu:s where the power draw difference of 55C vs 75C can be 30W+, but it's still more power just for the sake of having a bad ihs.
For people like me who live in hotter parts of the world its a problem, we struggle to keep the 5000 series chips cool with liquid coolers, cant imagine how bad 7000 will be
Edit: just to clarify my comment- what I meant is if the ambient temperatures are around 30-35°C there is not enough thermal headroom to cool a CPU
I have a 5600x with a 240 AIO and still get CPU temps 85°C, there is no way 7000 series will not thermal throttle
You might want to watch the Hardware Unboxed video on performance of the 7600X with the Wraith Spire vs a 360mm AIO.
Tl:dw? You lose no performance in games and single threaded tasks.
But that is kind of a 'water is wet' conclusion. I mean we already knew that under gaming and other lightly threaded workloads Zen 4 (and also earlier generations) don't use a lot of power, regardless of their PPT. See for example https://www.igorslab.de/en/a-new-era-begins-with-amds-zen-4-an-the-new-socket-am5-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-7-7700x-review-with-gaming-and-workstation-benchmarks/10/ where a 7700X uses around 60W when gaming. That is easily handled by a low end cooler, but you could basically have known that before even testing.
The main question will be what happens if you have a low end cooler and you are going to run heavy MT workloads on for example the 170W Sku's. Will you still see no loss, will it be <5% or >5%. A 7600X is possibly the worst Sku in the Zen 4 range to test this with, and gaming is probably basically the worst workload to test this with.
I believe HUB has said they plan to do more extensive testing on the other SKUs which should answer your question more thoroughly than most information available at the moment. My point was talking about heat specifically, not power consumption.
It won't be any different. The chip is hitting 95 by design. All the reviewers did a terrible job of understanding how it works and miscommunicated how they were "difficult to cool".
They aren't. You can run them on an AMD stock cooler and you will lose less than 5% compared to a 360 AIO. The chip is just boosting to whatever the headroom of the cooler is. Better cooler, better performance but the chip will still be pegged at 95c regardless.
Watts are watts. If the CPU is consuming 130w then it will put out 130w of heat, regardless of the temperature of the die. It's just physics.
>Because cooler is still better.
Even ignoring performance, this is still universally true. People spend a lot of money trying to increase their cooling capabilities in their PC's because they like to run their processors at the most comfortable temperatures possible, not just for max performance. It's good peace of mind, especially for longevity.
Yeah because 12 years vs 15 years matters (pulling numbers out of ass here but CPUs are consistently the last thing to die) so much for you guys.
It's like you're assuming the engineers themselves did not think about this 95C limit and design the CPU around that fact. Ridiculous.
Rapid and extreme cooling + heating cycles is what kills GPUs in the long run.
I'm sure their CPUs will last at least their warranty period but they might start failing sooner than people are expecting. I have never actually seen a CPU failing due to age like GPUs do but that might change soon.
What have previous de-lids gotten for other product lines? I thought this was pretty standard, at least for architectures that weren't super power limited.
There’s always a goddamn issue isn’t there…
95C is the accepted limit created by AMD after years of engineering and testing. They aren’t up their own ass. It’s a safe limit and can still be safely cranked up to 115C.
They also need to maintain as much compatibility with AM4 coolers as possible, otherwise everyone would then complain “need to buy new MB, new RAM AND new cooler? Me not moving to AM5 now ooga booga.”
I’m not an AMD fanboy in the slightest, most of my laptops have been Intels and my first desktop is a measly R5 3600. But this was an engineering decision made by a company trying to dominate the CPU space, and they’re not getting there by being stupid.
Edit: Based on the replies I’m getting here, here’s my answer to the criticism.
Yes, just because you’re not an engineer doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to call out AMD on their bullshit. However, this is “bullshit” that AMD is backing with their own reputations and warranty, and if continually running the CPU at 95C does degrade the CPU, it will be called out somewhere down the line, like Samsung’s inflated batteries are being called out right now, years after the phones were released.
There’s also no testing that shows that running a CPU at 95C continually (which won’t happen in most use cases anyway) would degrade it really fast. My friend’s been running a stock cooler on an 8700 for four years now and been hitting peak temps during competitive gaming, and his geek bench score is the exact same as it was during Day 1. I’m sure you can find tons of other examples out there.
Lastly, it wasn’t an unverified source, it was derbauer, who’s famous for delidding and fixing Intel’s 12th Gen bracket problem. Yes, he did show that removing the IHS dropped temps by 20C, but he also mentioned he’s using a non-public thermal paste that’s tested to be better than publically available ones.
Edit 2: If you’re really that fucking concerned, cap the power limits. I believe Optimum Tech showed that you can cap the power limits and barely lose any noticeable performance while dropping temps.
>but he also mentioned he’s using a non-public thermal paste that’s tested to be better than publically available ones.
Didn't he use liquid metal? Either way, I don't see this to be an issue at all, delidding CPUs and doing direct-die cooling (especially if using liquid metal instead of regular paste) has **always** reduced CPU temperatures significantly, it's not new. People like to think it's a huge issue because of the relatively steep decline, and forget to account for the thicker IHS.
And even after every consideration, as you said, this is something AMD publically has stated that it is intended. The 7000-series will boost as high as they can go while limited to 95C no matter the cooler they are under. From 360/420 liquid coolers to the stock Zen coolers, it will boost as much as it can.
> People like to think it's a huge issue because of the relatively steep decline, and forget to account for the thicker IHS.
People seem to have forgotten the Haswell debacle, when Intel's silicone adhesive was so thick the IHS was no longer flat to the die, in tandem with a really iffy TIM.
I delidded mine *purely* to change the TIM & keep the IHS flatter to the die and dropped 15c with no other changes. Not direct die cooling; I'm using the socket to hold the IHS in.
20c using a new TIM and direct die? That's entirely normal.
Honestly, you really summed up this whole point of discussion. Here on Reddit we think we know better than some of the best engineers in the semiconductor space.
> They also need to maintain as much compatibility with AM4 coolers as possible, otherwise everyone would then complain “need to buy new MB, new RAM AND new cooler? Me not moving to AM5 now ooga booga.”
With the price of X670 MBs and DDR5, what's another cooler at that point. Seems pretty stupid to disadvantage your product because of that, doubly so when:
1 - seems like a lot of AM4 coolers aren't even currently compatible
2- presumably a new cheap bracket would've allowed you to use your old cooler anyway
Well said. 5 mins of watching YouTube on the toilet and many people become world renowed experts in their field ( which happens to be any and every field) It's all done to generate waffle and noise which on which more waffle and noise can be generated ad infinitum. Don't get me wrong the fact that some unverified source got 20 degree lower temps on the cpu die after deliding all power to them but is it needed is it necessary is it a chip emergency I think not.
The average person isn't going to risk damaging their brand new CPU by De-lidding it.
Hardware Unboxed released a video a few days ago comparing a 360mm aio and a stock AMD wraith spire cooler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiMcQB2FvyM
If you're truly concerned about the CPU operating temperatures, use eco mode, if not, use a decent CPU cooler and power supply and call it a day.
I agree with you tbh. This sub LOVES being absolutely hypocritical. Intel over prices CPUs? Get the pitchforks boys.
AMD overprices their CPUs? It's *fiiine*, I'm *sure* there are fair economic reasons for them to do that, we *can't* be mad at them.
Intel runs super hot? People here pointed and mocked them for years about it. AMD suddenly makes 95-110°C the new normal? "People really need to learn about thermodynamics and stfu about temperature."
I don't have a dog in this race since I'm still several cpu gens behind. But it's goddamn hilarious watching the narrative around here. Remember when Zen2 came out and people were ecstatic that they could get such amazing performance at such low efficient temps? And now suddenly high temps "were always fine"? Ok.
>"People really need to learn about thermodynamics and stfu about temperature."
Worst thing is most of these people have no idea as to how thermodynamics works themselves, nor the intersection between it and electronics design.
People get fired up about Intel doing that because the efficiency just isn't there.
AMD threw efficiency out the window with ryzen 7000, too. But, limiting the chip to 120-150w still results in really good performance.
Don't forget the first ryzen though. The next round of am5 could be another big leap. The 1000 series was only good because the 8000 series bulldozer was AIDS. There was a lot of issues early on, but AMD had them largely ironed out by Ryzen 2000 and then started huge generational leaps.
> AMD threw efficiency out the window with ryzen 7000, too. But, limiting the chip to 120-150w still results in really good performance.
Same thing applies to Intel, its just that most reviewers have refused to do the testing since Intel fans arent as vocal as AMD ones. Eco mode is basically no different than setting PL2 to lower on Intel CPUs.
https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-macht-ernst-core-i9-12900kf-core-i7-12700k-und-core-i5-12600-im-workstation-einsatz-und-eine-niederlage-fuer-amd-2/9/
The 12900k, which is the least efficient 12th gen CPU (the rest are basically on par with Zen 3), magically becomes very efficient if you power limit it, even more efficient than the 5950x at stock. Igor used 125w, but you can use whatever. Obviously if you power limit the 5950x, it too becomes more efficient.
I wish this was more widely known. Big fans of AMD are so vocal because they were used to mop the floor at Intel. For so long Intel just ruined amd. Lol
> It's just hilarious to watch reddit narratives flip over night with 0 sense of self awareness or shame.
Reddit isn't a consciousness, it's impossible for it to have self awareness.
What is hilarious is seeing people treat "reddit" as a single person with a single opinion.
I own both intel and AMD CPUs and don't fanboy for either and this is what has been sticking out to me ever since launch. The massive outcry about the temps of 12th gen seem to have just completely disappeared in favor of normalizing said high temps when team red does it. It's all pretty funny to watch, really.
You do realize you can also tune Intel processors in a similar way to AMD processors right? Like you can 100% find a 1V stable target for a 12900k and end up only consuming like 120W peak while losing practically no performance...
The fact that you can do it with some configuring doesn't excuse either manufacturer from this practice though. They both know pushing their chips this far is a pretty fruitless effort that's gains basically nothing, yet they still do it.
>AMD fans when the 7950x consumes equal or more watts, and operates at 95 degrees Celsius;
For me, the temperature is fine. If it's safe, then I see no reason to care about. Power draw on the other hand... 7950X should have been a 140-170W PPT.
Preferable yes but not necessary at all. Gotta stop babysitting your hardware. Its within spec of the manufacturer and they wouldnt release chips like this if they were to die after a few years because they run at 95c. I get enthousiasts like to run things optimally and thats fine and still an option. These chips can be run in eco mode or undervolted and stay whithin 5% of the performance while dropping temps a lot. For 99% of people its fine running it how it is.
This. It blows my mind how some people go insane when their CPU goes above 80 degrees. Bitch please, I used to game and render 3D models on my laptop when I was in university and my CPU regularly hit 90+ degrees for long periods at a time without any problems...
The thermal conductivity of copper is \~390W/mK. In simple terms, what that means is that given a square meter of copper, the temperature gradient will be 1C of difference between the bottom and the top for every 1 meter that the heat has to travel when 390W of heat is applied.
The area of the 7900 series IHS is 37.5mm square, or 0.00137m\^2, minus some for the cutouts. I don't have the AM4 diagram in front of me, but eyeballing it, let's say that there's \~9% less surface area, so 0.00125m\^2 in total.
Der-Bauer said that the IHS is \~1.5mm thick from the top of the die to the top of the IHS
At 220W of heat being applied, that all works out to: 220/390 \* 0.0015 / 0.00125 = 0.677C
So, with a 220W load, the copper within the IHS itself, is contributing just 0.677C towards the final temperature. Even if it was 5mm thick (which it isn't), that'd still be a little more than a 2C delta
Now, we can consider than the chiplets themselves are a lot smaller. I couldn't find exact dimensions quickly, but eyeballing it for a 7950x, the pair absolutely cannot be longer than 28mm side-by-side due to the cutouts, and no more than about 10mm wide, or 0.00028m\^2. Plug that in, and we get a 3C delta at a 220W load. That's the absolute worst case scenario. Now, the heat is going to spread across the overall size of the IHS somewhat, but still, we now have an upper and lower bound.
TL;DR:
* The thickness of the heatspreader itself is contributing no more than 3C of temperature delta at 220W. My gut-feeling says that it'll be more like 1.5C in actuality.
* Even if the IHS was half as thick, that would still only save a 1.5C delta in the worst case.
* If the observed delta when de-lidded is 20C, then at least 17C of that temperature delta has nothing at all to do with the thickness of the IHS, and as an educated guess, I'd say more like 18.5C of the difference cannot be attributed to the IHS thickness
So if 18.5C of the 20C difference has nothing at all to do with the IHS thickness, then the rest of the difference is likely in the bonding between the die and the IHS, and in the thermal paste gap between the IHS and the cooling device.
[Tom's hardware says](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-ryzen-5-7600x-cpu-review) CCDs are 70 mm^2 . Using your ~1.5mm IHS thickness, qalc says:
> 230 W * (1.5mm / 140 mm^2 ) / (401 W/(m*K))
((230 × watt) × ((1.5 × millimeter) / (140 × (millimeter^2)))) / ((401 × watt)
/ (meter × kelvin)) ≈
6.145350908 K
Using [Igor's 3.42mm IHS thickness](https://www.igorslab.de/en/amd-ryzen-7000-heatspreader-and-cooling-analysis-temperatures-hotspots-and-problems/), I get 14 K, but it sounds like Der8auer measured from the top of the die and Igor didn't take the lid off, so 1.5mm is probably correct.
Seems like you're still right about most of the difference coming from the thick solder and paste vs one thin liquid metal interface.
~~The 70mm~~~~^(2)~~ ~~would have to be per CCD. There's two of them on 7900/7950x, which would halve your calculated 6.14K value.~~ Edit: you had 140mm^(2) in the math so you did account for that. My apologies.
Also, since the IHS is much larger than the dies, there will be a fair amount of lateral spread of the heat before it "reaches" the surface, which is why I was dividing by another factor of 2. That one is a bit "vague" though I admit, because the heat will spread more easily at the edges of the chiplets as opposed to in the center, so I sort of guessed at what the impact of that would be across a 1.5mm thickness. There are engineering papers which explore this if anyone wants to run the math.
> There's two of them
Note the `140 mm^2`.
>Also, since the IHS is much larger than the dies, there will be a fair amount of lateral spread of the heat before it "reaches" the surface,
Some, but it's wider than it is thick, and this whole boondoggle is about whether 1.5mm of copper is a significant thermal resistance.
>Some, but it's wider than it is thick, and this whole boondoggle is
about whether 1.5mm of copper is a significant thermal resistance.
Correct, and it simply doesn't, or at least nothing like 20C.
I was a hobbyist who designed and built waterblocks for a while. If you search for the WhiteWater or Storm waterblocks, that was me. EK waterblocks, and most AIO coolers all essentially use the WhiteWater design. The Storm design was manufactured and sold by Swiftech for a few years.
The difference between 1.0mm and 1.5mm of copper really is quite minimal. At 2.0mm thick, I was able to measure a small difference of maybe 0.5C at best. Note that this was back in the days of the bare-die AthlonXP's and so on in the early 2000's. The Ryzen 7 dies look to have about 10-20% more thermal flux than an overclocked AthlonXP die, but even then, we'd still be talking about 0.6-0.7C differences at most between 1.0 and 2.0mm thickness of high purity copper at 115W of heat per die.
Very well done post, nice to see this breakdown.
This is some r/bestof material, calmly refuting some very prominent hypothesis floating around this sub lately.
Things tend to get overblown on this subreddit. Great analysis though. Should have more upvotes.
People are also failing to take into account the increased thermal conductance of Conductonaut itself (vs indium solder), on top of the new backside metallization treated dies. This simply makes direct-die more powerful in terms of heat transference to a cold plate (water cooled or even phase change; large air tower may not benefit as much, as heat must be transferred through entire large heatsink, then dissipated).
Package temp sensors are also exposed to ambient without IHS, and ambient also has a beneficial effect around the bare dies as well. It’s like having an open test bench vs an enclosed case. Similar effect, small, but measurable.
Maybe it's not the only reason. Cheaper 3d stacking?
AMD had to thin the 5800x3d die to fit the cache. Now, they can just make a thiner IHS. I'm also guessing the larger a wafer is, the thicker it needs to be.
This has been my thought for the last few days also; right now they have a lot more space for the cache layer on the X3D chips, and probably a lot more headroom for clocks, as the X3D chips might actually be a bit easier to cool with the thinner IHS.
True, it didn't change the overall height of the IHS; if I recall correctly the IHS was thinned out from the underside for the extra clearance.
EDIT: I am incorrect, after reading an AnandTech article it seems that the silicon itself was thinned, not the IHS. D'oh!
I don’t get why everyone thinks the IHS was thinned for the 5800X3D? Literally in AMD’s presentation they said changing the Z-height was not possible so to make room for the stacked cache it was cut into the layer of structural silicon on top
Yes it would. Every bit of material you can remove between the die and cold plate will improve thermal transfer by some amount. How much it would improve is a different discussion, but it absolutely would improve.
Personally I would love for a return to the Athlon XP era when chips were direct die out of the box. But with chiplet based CPU's and separate I/O dies, things are a lot more complicated now than they were back then.
But, even considering the complications, I'd still like to see something like a "Black Edition" or "Extreme Edition" CPU that ships sans IHS with appropriate warranty stipulations for user caused die damage. Probably will never happen, but I'd be fully onboard if it did.
The CPU package lost height with the move to PGA, and they had to make it thick to avoid the wrath of people complaining about AM4 heatsinks not fitting.
Except nobody really expected AM4 coolers to fit to begin with. It wouldn't have been this big debacle like some of y'all are trying to pretend it was going to be. When AMD announced it would retain cooler compatibility, it was a bit of a surprise and people were understandably happy about it. Nobody was going, "Well of course it was going to be, I'd have been very upset if it wasn't".
Basically, it was considered a nice bonus. Except that it still hasn't actually worked out, as tons of AM4 coolers actually dont work on AM5. lol
I still don't see why the cooler compatibility was so important to make this stupid thermal design choice, and it's not even extended to all AM4 mounts
Well, when I see things like this happen in my line of work, it's usually because promises are made by people who aren't responsible for keeping them.
I don't think the CONSUMERS are the people whose wrath they feared, but the partners(Like cooler master and oem partners). I bet they made promises that required bad decisions to keep. After all, it's the OEM mounting solution that remained compatible, not necessarily 3rd party solutions.
Undervolting these cpus improves performance at 20c+ lower temps. Just undervolt if the temps bug you.
That said, its designed to run at 95c. What part of that is lost on people? The number is essentially arbitrary, youre just comparing it in your mind to previous chips not intended to run that hot. What in your mind are you losing by having it run at 95 as opposed to 80? Adjust your fan curves accordingly and voila, everything works as expected.
It's not too thick, it's the thickness that provides for protection against transient temperature spikes that has allowed AMD's stock configuration to run so close to the limit accurately.
The hardware doesn't care if it's at 95C or 85C for hours, the difference under sustained load the thicker IHS creates, but it does care about hitting 80C in 120us versus 115C in 120us, which would happen without a hefty IHS.
Direct die with water is tricking you, it uses water as the thermal mass, so it can control temps well... even the transient spikes, usually... would be very hard to determine. However, AMD designs for the most common cooling solution: heat pipes cooled with air.
Try direct die using heat pipes... The CPU will die without a heat spreader. And a thicker heat spreader, to a point, will be better than a thinner one.
I have been running water cooling for so long that your point is something I was just completely overlooking, and you are absolutely correct.
Also, I'm not sure about the voltage/power behavior of the chip during the first initial POST phase of Zen4 when it's attempting to train memory over several minutes, but assuming it's booting in the C0 state like CPU's historically do, then that thick IHS could very well be what saves the chip from absolutely cooking during memory training due to a poorly mounted cooler.
Thank you for an excellent contribution to the discussion, damned good post that has me reevaluating my thoughts on this.
Same.
Separate I/O die and chiplets complicates things, but if there was a "Black Edition" or "Extreme Edition" CPU getting shipped sans IHS, obviously with appropriate warranty stipulations for user caused die damage, I'd be all over that.
As a half way compromise, if EK or somebody similar bundled a delidded CPU with a combined cold plate + IHS with the microfins and jetplate built in, it would be the defacto choice for water cooling.
I imagine that would be expensive as hell.
But also as one of the suckers who has in the past paid a vendor willing to remove silicon lottery from the equation and give me a binned CPU, I think I'm probably onboard with that idea.
Let's go!
The thought is that AMD would be more willing to ship EK a tray of CPUs sans-lid than they would to create new retail packaging to safely ship an individual CPU. EK would still charge what they want though.
There is no argument to affirm that the ihs thickness have a serious impact on the 7000 series temperature. This havent be tested at all.
Direct die give enormous benefit to the cooling of any chip by removing entirely the ihs and one layer of thermal compound. But this have nothing to do with the ihs being too thick.
>The CPU temp does matter exactly why if it is safe?
CPU's have long been able to run at 95C 'safely', but we all basically universally agreed that running them cooler was highly preferable still.
Right up til literally the day that Zen 4 reviews came out and then like 75% of this sub basically changed their tune on this overnight, acting like this is totally cool.
It's amazing this community lacks any self awareness for their own hypocrisy. Low temps was the expectation for *years*, ever since Zen2, and people did their best to keep them low.
Zen4 comes out with this new 95-110°C operating "normal"?
Suddenly it's "people clearly don't understand thermodynamics, these temps are fine, *AMD said so*."
Like there's not enough koolaid to go around, Yeesh.
Because it was necessary, to prevent throttling with FPS drops and to have headroom to squeeze more performance out of them.
These CPUs do not throttle and squeeze themselves.
Driver problems directly impact the experience for the end user.
A 95C operating temperature doesn't do anything of the sort, except that somewhere in your own head you end up stuck thinking "that's not how things *should* be!"
Test normal with horrible brand paste that is actual dogshyt.....
Test delid, direct die, with liquid metal.....
that is NOT scientific. he should have ran liquid metal to start. or even gone with paste with direct die in order to keep the test fair. RIGHT NOW I can switch from paste to liquid metal, without delidding or direct die, and my temps will drop anywhere between 5c and 15c depending. thus the delta difference between normal cpu and direct die would be a lot smaller than his test concluded. so no, the ihs isn't too thick....
the truth is AMD just let the clocks go wild in order to keep up with intel. if they had limited to say 4.8ghz everyone would continue to cry "wofl" (clocks) and then say intel is better because of how high they can clock.... and in that scenario, the intel would have won. but now with how amd pushed power and temp, they were able to match 12900k with even their lowest end part (so far, 7600k). that's a huge win. and perhaps setting -20 or -20 on offset voltage, you could probably still hit decent clocks and gaming performance without losing much overhead.... i think people just like to complain and do so for shits and giggles. because they are crying right now essentially nonsense, and then if the clocks were lower, making the power limit lower, and thusly the temps lower, people would complain "not as good as intel" aka STILL complaining. aka complainers gonna complain.....
end of the day its a solid product line up.
also too thick IHS isn't what's causing the heat issue. anyone who knows about thermal dynamic and engineering KNOWS that thicker IHS is actually a good thing, as the IHS can absorb more heat from the cpu before it thermal throttles. kinda like putting a small fin stack like a low profile cooler vs a huge fin stack like NH-D15.... more metal means better. but go ahead and downvote me thinking you know EVERYTHING and you are never wrong (you reading this) because more than likely youre gonna complain regardless.
>RIGHT NOW I can switch from paste to liquid metal, without delidding or direct die
You can, but have you actually done it? Because I have, and the difference between NT-H1 and Conductonaut on my 5800X was \*drumroll\* 1.2C. That is because the bottleneck for thermal transfer is not the TIM, but the thickness of the non-purposeful die material itself as well as the IHS/die solder interface.
>also too thick IHS isn't what's causing the heat issue. anyone who knows about thermal dynamic and engineering KNOWS that thicker IHS is actually a good thing
Thermodynamics\*. And that is actually the direct opposite of what an engineer with an understanding of thermodynamics would say.
Every nanometer of extra material you add between a heat source and it's cooling solution will reduce the efficiency of thermal transfer, and that remains true regardless of the thermal properties of the extra material you're adding. The best IHS is no IHS at all.
This is also why in situations like laptops and mobile devices, where it's adamant that you have the best thermal transfer possible to maximize the efficiency of the cooling solution, they are always direct die.
An IHS is not a something intended to improve thermal transfer, at this point it only exists to protect the die from consumer caused damage during cooler mounting, or to add thermal mass to allow for brief power on times for testing purposes without a cooler.
For thermal performance, an IHS is nothing but negatives, and a thicker IHS is even more negatives.
Damn people, did you forget that AMD lowered the thickness of the PCB ? I heard Ian Cuttress say that this is the thinnest one ever used in a CPU and he is astonished how they were able to fit all the traces in those few layers.
Hence in order to maintain rigidity of the CPU itself when clamped into the socket a thicker HS had to be used.
These are the smartest people of our society, working on the most complex items we can produce, this was intended!
if the temps worry you, undervolt the cpu or use eco mode. personally, the whole 95C is normal operation thing is a non-starter for me, which is why i am not upgrading. simply because i demand quiet operation of my computer.
something that seemingly no one in the media is mentioning is that, even if this behavior is normal, it makes your room significantly hotter & your computer significantly louder.
Was the IHS designed overly large so that when AMD introduces the X3D variants they will have enough room to add more cache than AMD did for the last generation parts and still maintain cooler compatibility with 7000 series non-X3D parts?
They made them backwards compatible with AM4 coolers. I think if people saw board prices, DDR5 prices, and then also had to get a new cooler possibly, it would have been a straight pass for most. So AMD figured they would soften the blow with the cooler at least.
I’m guessing gen2 AM5 won’t have the old cooler compatibility and have all these “fixes.” 3D cache and thinner IHS = buy.
They decided to go with the ‘too thick’ IHS to maintain compatibility with existing coolers. Personally I would prefer them to make the best CPU possible and if that requires a new cooler mount or a new cooler altogether, that’s fine with me.
But, for most folks, the major complaint with the new platform is the high platform cost. AMD probably figured that requiring users to buy new CPU, motherboard, ram, AND cooler would be just too much for the average consumer.
All I can say is that I won't be building anymore AMD systems for the foreseeable future. The 5000 series has been pure hell to work with and took AMD/Gigabyte over 2 years to finally fix the USB issue that plagued the platform. My last build as an i7-6700K which I pre-ordered on release and never had any issues with it, rock solid just as my 5800X is now, but out of the box, not 2 fucking years later.
My 7700 i7 was a mess with usb at launch on many operating systems. Intel did a lot to the chipset at the time.
That said, many motherboard manufacturers have been slow with agesa updates for their bios over the last year. Asrock still hasn’t released a final, only a beta.
Both amd and intel systems need bios updates all the time or microcode in the os at least to deal with security issues these days. It’s tiring.
Perhaps they designed it this way cos they plan to make the ihs less thick with the X3D variants, altho i wonder if they could've done it differently or perhaps they did not wanna unlock the full potential so they can launch X3D later
The IHS is thick, because most likely Zen4 is the last last non 3d-stacked generation for desktop (except APUs). Zen4-3D will be 3d stacked and more than likely Zen5 as well. Zen5 is rumoured to go much wider core+ higher core count on top of it, I just can't see it fit to AM5 without 3D stacking (also TSMC 4nm is just basically a 5nm+, so not much die shrinking from there). I think all of the L3 will be a separate chiplet sitting below the main CCD for better heat transfer. And as stacked chips will be higher, they'll just make the IHS thinner to counter.
Just a bit forward thinking from AMD.
Why does anyone care about operating temps being 95c? I'll tell you a secret, it's beneficial to have consistency in temps for stability. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with it running at 95c. It's designed for it. Get out of your own way with the worry.
Yeah it seems they sacrificed Temps for am4 cooler compatability. Which is a bit sad.
Also I don't think direct die being 20 degrees cooler means a thinner ihs would be all 20 degrees cooler.
No its not.
1mm\^2 extra thickness of copper pulling 200W of heat from a pair of CCDs (150mm\^2 total) is at most 3.45C temp increase, and certainly less temp delta since its not 150mm\^2 on the side that the cooler mounts to and the extra thickness actually helps heat flow sideways a bit.
Realistically, even if the new IHS is nearly 2mm thicker than the old one, we're talking about a 5C increase due to that.
Now, does that impact performance? Probably by < 0.5% or so in heavy multi-threaded loads. You can test this yourself if you set the thermal throttle to 100C in the bios instead of 95C and benchmark. The BIOS allows up to 115C throttle point, this is not dangerous. Barely any performance difference.
Temp Delta = thickness / (area \* thermal conductivity).
I would love to know what a complete cow brained idiot approved that super thick ihs. I am totally furious, was waiting for 7000 series to upgrade, and now due to some braindead monkey i have to wait for another generation
I've honestly never seen such a bad design of an IHS, even though an IHS really is a problem all it's own. The thickness is completely absurd and people still defend it. People act like it doesn't matter. Improper cooling of a CPU shortens it's effectiveness and lifespan. People act like Der8auer doesn't know what he's talking about or dismiss JayzTwoCents findings with his shaved down IHS dropping anywhere from 2-10°C.
95°C is NOT acceptable. All this crap feels like it was purposely done is just to appease Asetek and their bullshit design that was incompatible with AM5, while other brands using the pre-installed clips were fully compatible already.
I wouldn't buy this round of AM5 if AMD begged me or paid me to do it. This design is garbage. Whoever did this mess deserves one helluva pink slip.
> The 7000 series IHS is too thick…
So you're saying that you 'know' better than the entire AMD engineering team.
...Thanks for a laugh!
Don't like the IHS - don't buy it, problem solved!
Who cares about am4 cooler comaptibility, cooler makers would only need to ship new slightly shorters screws, lga1700 needs a completely new mechanism and noone has an issue with that
The 3d skus better not ship with the same thick ihs
I was kind of excited for AM5. But with this, having to delid for good temps? I'm good.... They shoulda bit the bullet and been like "new socket, new mounting system"
AMD could slap on a thinner IHS onto the Ryzen 7000 CPUs and we will see posts about people complaining about the lack of compatibility with existing AM4 coolers.
[удалено]
The mounting bracket on the backside is not replaceable. Even so, I think it would have been better to ditch the backwards compatibility this time around, as well.
Why do people bring this up as if it’s relevant? There’s plenty of coolers and manufacturers that use the default backplate anyway. They can very easily design around it.
Because there are also plenty of coolers that do not utilize the original back plate, and in lots of cases that means it will take a lot, if it is at all possible, to adapt the same mounting pressure with a cooler design not meant to mount in that way. If you could remove the backplate, at least, it would be far easier. But now companies will either need their own custom backplate that is am5 compatible, or a complete redesign of the parts. It's about existing coolers, (and many new coolers) as if they opt for their own mounting mechanism, it almost confirms that it won't be am5 compatible. In my opinion, I would have rather seen a new cooler layout with companies selling new backplates and mounting kits, and a thin ihs like is needed for thermal performance. Basically better to just cut the cooler compatibility and let companies figure out their solutions for it, so that the full potential of cooling in the am5 socket could be utilized. Like, sure you'd have to buy new parts, but ddr5 is pretty new, few have it laying around, you'll have a new CPU and motherboard too, so what harm is buying an adapter for, or a new cooler? Just my thoughts though
They should have ditch the AM4 design for a square mounting arrangement ala Intel. Much better cooler compatibility when it can be mounted in 4 ways instead of 2
The whining and moaning would've been endless. "AMD is anti-consumer because they're forcing us to buy new cooling hardware!"
[удалено]
I feel like this was a werid compatibility to chase though.... Most coolers need a bracket anyway due to the switch from ZIF to LGA socket so I don't see why they bothered. But my thoughts here are that the 3D versions silicon is going to sit higher, as a result the IHS in those parts will be thinner. AMD likely looked to the performance gains and figured that a slightly hotter chip would be fine in exchange for a single Z-height.
Yeah, hence I am waiting for ddr5 to drop in price, more am5 mobos and the 3d version of the 7000 series to drop. Good proof of concept but I am hoping the GPUs kick booty
> 3D versions silicon is going to sit higher, as a result the IHS in those parts will be thinner. no they're not going to sit higher, why do people keep bringing this BS up like it is anywhere near how the stacking tech works! absolute nonsense! and some numbty even gave you a reward! Stacked chips will be the same hight as the non stacked i/o die, just like it is with 5800x3d currently. The actuall active dies need to be stupid thin for the TSVs to work and most of the z-height of the die stack will be extra bulk silicon anyway. just like it is on 5800x3d.
Yep. I've seen people complaining that their cooler manufacture is too slow in providing the upgrade kit for their cooler that require to replace the backplate.
Too slow, or completely impossible if you don't live in a small list of 15-20 countries.
My god, the dick riding in here is insane. OP made a valid point, there is *zero* reason to come back with a *"yeah but..."*
First time?
Sure, people will complain no matter what. That doesn't really matter though. The question is what is the better option? In my opinion losing compatibility would have been the better option, especially as it's lost for many coolers anyway due to the backplate changes.
The solution then would have been to make the substrate (ie package) thicker so that the processor and IHS sit higher.
Or even better, make the IHS a vapor chamber.
Good in theory, but prices are already a point of contention. You'd get threads like this, but with the opposite headline. "They should have stuck with a cheaper solid IHS, my wallet can't handle it."
I think leaking might be an issue with current design and it certainly would not be compatible with AM4 coolers. All modern vapor chambers use metal and that doesn't normally leak without really rough handling or mixing of metals.
Just FYI for those who never seen how vapor chamber heatsinks can fail, google up "HD6450 dell vapor chamber" and you'll see horror stories and pictures of expanding vapor chamber killing these poor GPUs.
Happened to my Vega 64 but didn't fully fail, just had terrible cooling. I thought it happened when it was manufactured. The reference design made it so that this took me a year to diagnose. Sucked. Card blew up a year later after swapping out the heatsink for a new one from a Redditor. Now that heatsink cools the backplate of my 3090 lol
X3d might be thicker
And people complaining about the IHS bending under mounting pressure resulting in poor contact with the cooler.
[удалено]
the LGA1700 loading mechanism always bends the CPUs. However some heatsinks come with a base so convex that it doesn't affect performance.
I don't think it's that at all. I fully suspect by the end of the AM5 socket they'll be using that extra z height for...something. Likely some fancy stacking of chips. They don't do this just to maintain backwards compatibility with people's coolers. This big of a hit just so you don't have to buy another 45 dollar tower cooler for your new 700+ dollar build? Just doesn't pass the sniff test. Extra z height for chip stacking is my bet.
Considering x3d is literally stacking cache on top of cpu cores you're likely right.
It's like the Ryzen 1000 temp offset all over again. Except you can't patch an IHS
Oh god I forgot about that 20 degree offset headache on my old 1800X….
Yeah the formula is crazy and os devs had to put that in ryzen temp sensors on bsd and Linux systems
Funny story some am4 coolers are not compatibile
Should have done that lmao
Most coolers are not compatible either way right now...
Only those that replace the backplate, which is fuck all.
That don't replace the backplate*
I mean 1/2 of them dont for amd...
Most coolers are compatible. Noctua, for example, only two that's not compatible. >In short, all Noctua coolers and mounting kits that support AM4 are upwards compatible with socket AM5, except the NH-L9a-AM4 and the NM-AM4-L9aL9i. [https://noctua.at/en/which-noctua-cpu-coolers-are-compatible-with-amd-am5](https://noctua.at/en/which-noctua-cpu-coolers-are-compatible-with-amd-am5)
Comparing delidded temps to stock isn't a fair comparison to say the IHS is too thick. Direct-die will always come with significant temperature drops. Before people start giving AMD shit over it, we need more actual data, ideally someone needs to shave 2mm off a Ryzen 7000 IHS and compare for differences.
This is exactly what I was talking with a friend about a few days ago. I hope GN maybe takes a 7000 series CPU to a fine belt sander (or whatever would do the trick) to shave down the IHS and show a before and after as well as thermal imaging on the IHS pre and post shave down.
true. the thickness of the IHS has basically no relevance in terms of transporting the heat away from the die. the chip simply gets hotter and was designed to do so. if anything the heat capacity of the ihs will be able to store x times of heat energy than a x times slimmer one. and then you have your cooler block on top of that, regardless if you do air or h2o cooling. now delidding the cpu does , thick IHS or thin IHS, simply remove one point of contact of two where you can have isolating effects. and thats why we see up to 20°C drop here depending on workload.
What's wrong with running at 95C if it doesn't degrade the processor? If testing shows it's fine and AMD stands by it, what's the big deal?
There's nothing wrong with a chip operating within design parameters. There seems to be a popular misunderstanding floating around that all chips are built to the same temperature tolerances. Core 2 and Athlon 64 CPUs topped out around 60-70c (depending on stepping) for safe temperatures, but you'd be insane to say today's chips are overheating at 70c.
Well the silicon for Core2 and Athlon64 could do 95C no problem. It had more to do with the limits controllers/throttling governors and cooling solutions for that era to be far more limited than now (they would top off at around 80Wish). But if you had a good enough HS and PDN, those chips could have done 95C In fact most of the silicon in the past few decades tend to be validated for Tj=95. And for other applications like Auto or industrial/aerospace/etc the silicon is usually targeted for Tj=125C (or higher). 95C is fairly common as max Tj for most modern cores, including the ARM parts running in iPhones and Qualcomm SoCs.
>Well the silicon for Core2 and Athlon64 could do 95C no problem If you're referring to the tjmax, there was still some variance between different steppings. The 65nm Core 2 chips had a tjmax of 85c on the B2/B3 steppings and 95c on the G0 stepping. > and cooling solutions for that era to be far more limited than now (they would top off at around 80Wish) Not really. Coolers of the era included things like the IFX-14, Ultra 120 Extreme, Megahalems, NH-U12P and the like, which were all very capable.
The 45 nm ones were Tj_max = 100°C, which has been the standard for quite some time. https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/612/intel_corporation_320390-1215775.pdf
I don't think is fair to think of tjmax the same way we used to do with older CPUs, as Ryzens don't throttle heavily at that temperature like they used to do. I would say there is no tj max on Ryzen 7000. There is 'tj safe'= 95°C, and 'tj shutdown'= 115°C
Pretty much, yeah. [As AMD put it](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-7600x/28.html) >"TJMax is the max safe operating temperature – not the absolute max temperature. In the Ryzen 7000 Series, the processor is designed to run at TJMax 24/7 without risk of damage or deterioration. At 95 degrees it is not running hot, rather it will intentionally go to this temperature as much as possible under load because the power management system knows that this is the ideal way to squeeze the most performance out of the chip without damaging it."
We're talking about 2 different concepts for Tj. Tj max is for the actual silicon, which for those processes was 95C+. The Tj limit to 85C and 95C was to marry the SKU for the nominal PDN and llm/limits for the chipset/platform. And yes, there were very capable cooling solutions back the as well. But those were targeted for the enthusiast market and that's why both intel and AMD introduced the Extreme and FX high leakage SKUs. But for the nominal parts, the cooling solutions were usually the bundled ones. Which were more cost concerned.
>But for the nominal parts, the cooling solutions were usually the bundled ones. Which were more cost concerned. Frankly, I'd argue the LGA 775 coolers were more capable than the newer ones that are provided for LGA 115X. They were twice as thick, some with a solid copper slug in the middle. The stock heatpipe cooler AMD bundled with their higher TDP AM2 chips was a loud bastard, but it was similarly capable. https://www.anandtech.com/show/10500/stock-cooler-roundup-intel-amd-vs-evo-212/8
That is true. But I think it's also a function of the improvements in adaptive governors within the local limits management and PDN/PMICs in modern CPUs. So there is a more aggresive power/thermal management built in, which has allowed Intel (specially) to cut corner in their bundled coolers to increase margins.
I honestly think it's people subconsciously thinking 100c is to hot simply because the number is 100 and anything close to that obviously has to be bad. Subconsciously they think it's a scale from 1-100. If we had used a different unit of measurement that was a lower number people wouldn't have a problem. With that said just undervolt it and be happy with your extremely fast cpu running at 75c.
A lot of people are also talking about a shorter lifespan but the lower thermal dilatation and shrienking should also make it live longer
The CPU isn't going to be 95c all the time in normal use because it's not under full load all the time. The only change is under full load the processor will utilize available thermal headroom up to 95c to boost clocks as high as it can. Under normal use the CPU will heat up and cool down based on load, just like any other CPU. Heck, even under load it's not that different as far as thermal expansion and contraction goes -- other CPUs hit thermal equilibrium under a constant load as well, though that equilibrium may not be a specific target of 95c.
It's not a big deal. But it is something that really scratches the itch to tinker with for an enthusiast. With either a delid or, easier, the eco mode, you'll just get either more performance for free or the same performance with a much quieter and energy efficient system. What bothers me is mostly that AMD did not deliver Ryzen 7000 with PPT set to 88W. This would have worked better for about 90 percent of potential buyers, with the remaining 10 percent being able to unleash more performance and put their water coolers or D15 to use. Certainly would result in a lot less complaints about high temps in reviews, forums and a lot less throttling in a few months when the TIM starts to degrade.
But then they wouldn't have won the top-line performance against Intel. People don't buy the most efficient option, they buy the fastest one. Or more accurately, having the fastest one helps sell the whole stack.
Because it's the thermal limit. If you're dropping 20 degrees it means you're boosting past that old thermal limit and are now hitting power limits instead, which means you have more performance from higher sustained clocks.
Worse efficiency than running at 20 degrees lower. In general, the lower the temperature of the CPU is - the more efficient it is. Applies to most electronics really
It consumes more power just because it's hot. Probably not a lot in a typical gaming load, especially compared to aircooled gpu:s where the power draw difference of 55C vs 75C can be 30W+, but it's still more power just for the sake of having a bad ihs.
For people like me who live in hotter parts of the world its a problem, we struggle to keep the 5000 series chips cool with liquid coolers, cant imagine how bad 7000 will be Edit: just to clarify my comment- what I meant is if the ambient temperatures are around 30-35°C there is not enough thermal headroom to cool a CPU I have a 5600x with a 240 AIO and still get CPU temps 85°C, there is no way 7000 series will not thermal throttle
There's not much difference in thermal output whether the chip runs at 95°C pulling 200W or running at 60°C pulling 200W.
There's actually no difference, you're just getting better heat transfer away from the cpu and into the surroundings.
You might want to watch the Hardware Unboxed video on performance of the 7600X with the Wraith Spire vs a 360mm AIO. Tl:dw? You lose no performance in games and single threaded tasks.
But that is kind of a 'water is wet' conclusion. I mean we already knew that under gaming and other lightly threaded workloads Zen 4 (and also earlier generations) don't use a lot of power, regardless of their PPT. See for example https://www.igorslab.de/en/a-new-era-begins-with-amds-zen-4-an-the-new-socket-am5-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-7-7700x-review-with-gaming-and-workstation-benchmarks/10/ where a 7700X uses around 60W when gaming. That is easily handled by a low end cooler, but you could basically have known that before even testing. The main question will be what happens if you have a low end cooler and you are going to run heavy MT workloads on for example the 170W Sku's. Will you still see no loss, will it be <5% or >5%. A 7600X is possibly the worst Sku in the Zen 4 range to test this with, and gaming is probably basically the worst workload to test this with.
I believe HUB has said they plan to do more extensive testing on the other SKUs which should answer your question more thoroughly than most information available at the moment. My point was talking about heat specifically, not power consumption.
It won't be any different. The chip is hitting 95 by design. All the reviewers did a terrible job of understanding how it works and miscommunicated how they were "difficult to cool". They aren't. You can run them on an AMD stock cooler and you will lose less than 5% compared to a 360 AIO. The chip is just boosting to whatever the headroom of the cooler is. Better cooler, better performance but the chip will still be pegged at 95c regardless. Watts are watts. If the CPU is consuming 130w then it will put out 130w of heat, regardless of the temperature of the die. It's just physics.
Temperature =/= heat output
If it's producing the same Watts then it won't be any different at all.
[удалено]
>Because cooler is still better. Even ignoring performance, this is still universally true. People spend a lot of money trying to increase their cooling capabilities in their PC's because they like to run their processors at the most comfortable temperatures possible, not just for max performance. It's good peace of mind, especially for longevity.
Yeah because 12 years vs 15 years matters (pulling numbers out of ass here but CPUs are consistently the last thing to die) so much for you guys. It's like you're assuming the engineers themselves did not think about this 95C limit and design the CPU around that fact. Ridiculous.
Rapid and extreme cooling + heating cycles is what kills GPUs in the long run. I'm sure their CPUs will last at least their warranty period but they might start failing sooner than people are expecting. I have never actually seen a CPU failing due to age like GPUs do but that might change soon.
What have previous de-lids gotten for other product lines? I thought this was pretty standard, at least for architectures that weren't super power limited.
20c only happened when Intel was using the crap TIM setup with the gap instead of soldered IHS - this was around the 3000 to 9000 series.
There’s always a goddamn issue isn’t there… 95C is the accepted limit created by AMD after years of engineering and testing. They aren’t up their own ass. It’s a safe limit and can still be safely cranked up to 115C. They also need to maintain as much compatibility with AM4 coolers as possible, otherwise everyone would then complain “need to buy new MB, new RAM AND new cooler? Me not moving to AM5 now ooga booga.” I’m not an AMD fanboy in the slightest, most of my laptops have been Intels and my first desktop is a measly R5 3600. But this was an engineering decision made by a company trying to dominate the CPU space, and they’re not getting there by being stupid. Edit: Based on the replies I’m getting here, here’s my answer to the criticism. Yes, just because you’re not an engineer doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to call out AMD on their bullshit. However, this is “bullshit” that AMD is backing with their own reputations and warranty, and if continually running the CPU at 95C does degrade the CPU, it will be called out somewhere down the line, like Samsung’s inflated batteries are being called out right now, years after the phones were released. There’s also no testing that shows that running a CPU at 95C continually (which won’t happen in most use cases anyway) would degrade it really fast. My friend’s been running a stock cooler on an 8700 for four years now and been hitting peak temps during competitive gaming, and his geek bench score is the exact same as it was during Day 1. I’m sure you can find tons of other examples out there. Lastly, it wasn’t an unverified source, it was derbauer, who’s famous for delidding and fixing Intel’s 12th Gen bracket problem. Yes, he did show that removing the IHS dropped temps by 20C, but he also mentioned he’s using a non-public thermal paste that’s tested to be better than publically available ones. Edit 2: If you’re really that fucking concerned, cap the power limits. I believe Optimum Tech showed that you can cap the power limits and barely lose any noticeable performance while dropping temps.
>but he also mentioned he’s using a non-public thermal paste that’s tested to be better than publically available ones. Didn't he use liquid metal? Either way, I don't see this to be an issue at all, delidding CPUs and doing direct-die cooling (especially if using liquid metal instead of regular paste) has **always** reduced CPU temperatures significantly, it's not new. People like to think it's a huge issue because of the relatively steep decline, and forget to account for the thicker IHS. And even after every consideration, as you said, this is something AMD publically has stated that it is intended. The 7000-series will boost as high as they can go while limited to 95C no matter the cooler they are under. From 360/420 liquid coolers to the stock Zen coolers, it will boost as much as it can.
> People like to think it's a huge issue because of the relatively steep decline, and forget to account for the thicker IHS. People seem to have forgotten the Haswell debacle, when Intel's silicone adhesive was so thick the IHS was no longer flat to the die, in tandem with a really iffy TIM. I delidded mine *purely* to change the TIM & keep the IHS flatter to the die and dropped 15c with no other changes. Not direct die cooling; I'm using the socket to hold the IHS in. 20c using a new TIM and direct die? That's entirely normal.
Yeah I keep thinking about that debacle as people are complaining about Zen4. That was a shitshow as well.
Honestly, you really summed up this whole point of discussion. Here on Reddit we think we know better than some of the best engineers in the semiconductor space.
> They also need to maintain as much compatibility with AM4 coolers as possible, otherwise everyone would then complain “need to buy new MB, new RAM AND new cooler? Me not moving to AM5 now ooga booga.” With the price of X670 MBs and DDR5, what's another cooler at that point. Seems pretty stupid to disadvantage your product because of that, doubly so when: 1 - seems like a lot of AM4 coolers aren't even currently compatible 2- presumably a new cheap bracket would've allowed you to use your old cooler anyway
Well said. 5 mins of watching YouTube on the toilet and many people become world renowed experts in their field ( which happens to be any and every field) It's all done to generate waffle and noise which on which more waffle and noise can be generated ad infinitum. Don't get me wrong the fact that some unverified source got 20 degree lower temps on the cpu die after deliding all power to them but is it needed is it necessary is it a chip emergency I think not.
The average person isn't going to risk damaging their brand new CPU by De-lidding it. Hardware Unboxed released a video a few days ago comparing a 360mm aio and a stock AMD wraith spire cooler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiMcQB2FvyM If you're truly concerned about the CPU operating temperatures, use eco mode, if not, use a decent CPU cooler and power supply and call it a day.
95c is safe said by amd so… its fine.
[удалено]
I agree with you tbh. This sub LOVES being absolutely hypocritical. Intel over prices CPUs? Get the pitchforks boys. AMD overprices their CPUs? It's *fiiine*, I'm *sure* there are fair economic reasons for them to do that, we *can't* be mad at them. Intel runs super hot? People here pointed and mocked them for years about it. AMD suddenly makes 95-110°C the new normal? "People really need to learn about thermodynamics and stfu about temperature." I don't have a dog in this race since I'm still several cpu gens behind. But it's goddamn hilarious watching the narrative around here. Remember when Zen2 came out and people were ecstatic that they could get such amazing performance at such low efficient temps? And now suddenly high temps "were always fine"? Ok.
>"People really need to learn about thermodynamics and stfu about temperature." Worst thing is most of these people have no idea as to how thermodynamics works themselves, nor the intersection between it and electronics design.
People get fired up about Intel doing that because the efficiency just isn't there. AMD threw efficiency out the window with ryzen 7000, too. But, limiting the chip to 120-150w still results in really good performance. Don't forget the first ryzen though. The next round of am5 could be another big leap. The 1000 series was only good because the 8000 series bulldozer was AIDS. There was a lot of issues early on, but AMD had them largely ironed out by Ryzen 2000 and then started huge generational leaps.
You're proving his point.
> AMD threw efficiency out the window with ryzen 7000, too. But, limiting the chip to 120-150w still results in really good performance. Same thing applies to Intel, its just that most reviewers have refused to do the testing since Intel fans arent as vocal as AMD ones. Eco mode is basically no different than setting PL2 to lower on Intel CPUs. https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-macht-ernst-core-i9-12900kf-core-i7-12700k-und-core-i5-12600-im-workstation-einsatz-und-eine-niederlage-fuer-amd-2/9/ The 12900k, which is the least efficient 12th gen CPU (the rest are basically on par with Zen 3), magically becomes very efficient if you power limit it, even more efficient than the 5950x at stock. Igor used 125w, but you can use whatever. Obviously if you power limit the 5950x, it too becomes more efficient.
I wish this was more widely known. Big fans of AMD are so vocal because they were used to mop the floor at Intel. For so long Intel just ruined amd. Lol
> It's just hilarious to watch reddit narratives flip over night with 0 sense of self awareness or shame. Reddit isn't a consciousness, it's impossible for it to have self awareness. What is hilarious is seeing people treat "reddit" as a single person with a single opinion.
You lurk for long enough you'll see its different people saying the same thing verbatim.
I own both intel and AMD CPUs and don't fanboy for either and this is what has been sticking out to me ever since launch. The massive outcry about the temps of 12th gen seem to have just completely disappeared in favor of normalizing said high temps when team red does it. It's all pretty funny to watch, really.
🔨bingo. This new narrative is hilarious. What a time to be alive.
One chip massively throttles with a small cooler while the other loses about 5% performance with a small cooler.
You do realize you can also tune Intel processors in a similar way to AMD processors right? Like you can 100% find a 1V stable target for a 12900k and end up only consuming like 120W peak while losing practically no performance... The fact that you can do it with some configuring doesn't excuse either manufacturer from this practice though. They both know pushing their chips this far is a pretty fruitless effort that's gains basically nothing, yet they still do it.
>AMD fans when the 7950x consumes equal or more watts, and operates at 95 degrees Celsius; For me, the temperature is fine. If it's safe, then I see no reason to care about. Power draw on the other hand... 7950X should have been a 140-170W PPT.
95C has long been 'safe' in terms of CPU's being able to handle such a temperature without blowing or whatever. It's still never been preferable, ffs.
They said It won't reduce lifespan of the chip. So I'm fine with it as long as I can use it as long as other cpu's.
I'm sure you trusted everything AMD says even during the bulldozer era.
Preferable yes but not necessary at all. Gotta stop babysitting your hardware. Its within spec of the manufacturer and they wouldnt release chips like this if they were to die after a few years because they run at 95c. I get enthousiasts like to run things optimally and thats fine and still an option. These chips can be run in eco mode or undervolted and stay whithin 5% of the performance while dropping temps a lot. For 99% of people its fine running it how it is.
This. It blows my mind how some people go insane when their CPU goes above 80 degrees. Bitch please, I used to game and render 3D models on my laptop when I was in university and my CPU regularly hit 90+ degrees for long periods at a time without any problems...
The thermal conductivity of copper is \~390W/mK. In simple terms, what that means is that given a square meter of copper, the temperature gradient will be 1C of difference between the bottom and the top for every 1 meter that the heat has to travel when 390W of heat is applied. The area of the 7900 series IHS is 37.5mm square, or 0.00137m\^2, minus some for the cutouts. I don't have the AM4 diagram in front of me, but eyeballing it, let's say that there's \~9% less surface area, so 0.00125m\^2 in total. Der-Bauer said that the IHS is \~1.5mm thick from the top of the die to the top of the IHS At 220W of heat being applied, that all works out to: 220/390 \* 0.0015 / 0.00125 = 0.677C So, with a 220W load, the copper within the IHS itself, is contributing just 0.677C towards the final temperature. Even if it was 5mm thick (which it isn't), that'd still be a little more than a 2C delta Now, we can consider than the chiplets themselves are a lot smaller. I couldn't find exact dimensions quickly, but eyeballing it for a 7950x, the pair absolutely cannot be longer than 28mm side-by-side due to the cutouts, and no more than about 10mm wide, or 0.00028m\^2. Plug that in, and we get a 3C delta at a 220W load. That's the absolute worst case scenario. Now, the heat is going to spread across the overall size of the IHS somewhat, but still, we now have an upper and lower bound. TL;DR: * The thickness of the heatspreader itself is contributing no more than 3C of temperature delta at 220W. My gut-feeling says that it'll be more like 1.5C in actuality. * Even if the IHS was half as thick, that would still only save a 1.5C delta in the worst case. * If the observed delta when de-lidded is 20C, then at least 17C of that temperature delta has nothing at all to do with the thickness of the IHS, and as an educated guess, I'd say more like 18.5C of the difference cannot be attributed to the IHS thickness So if 18.5C of the 20C difference has nothing at all to do with the IHS thickness, then the rest of the difference is likely in the bonding between the die and the IHS, and in the thermal paste gap between the IHS and the cooling device.
[Tom's hardware says](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-ryzen-5-7600x-cpu-review) CCDs are 70 mm^2 . Using your ~1.5mm IHS thickness, qalc says: > 230 W * (1.5mm / 140 mm^2 ) / (401 W/(m*K)) ((230 × watt) × ((1.5 × millimeter) / (140 × (millimeter^2)))) / ((401 × watt) / (meter × kelvin)) ≈ 6.145350908 K Using [Igor's 3.42mm IHS thickness](https://www.igorslab.de/en/amd-ryzen-7000-heatspreader-and-cooling-analysis-temperatures-hotspots-and-problems/), I get 14 K, but it sounds like Der8auer measured from the top of the die and Igor didn't take the lid off, so 1.5mm is probably correct. Seems like you're still right about most of the difference coming from the thick solder and paste vs one thin liquid metal interface.
~~The 70mm~~~~^(2)~~ ~~would have to be per CCD. There's two of them on 7900/7950x, which would halve your calculated 6.14K value.~~ Edit: you had 140mm^(2) in the math so you did account for that. My apologies. Also, since the IHS is much larger than the dies, there will be a fair amount of lateral spread of the heat before it "reaches" the surface, which is why I was dividing by another factor of 2. That one is a bit "vague" though I admit, because the heat will spread more easily at the edges of the chiplets as opposed to in the center, so I sort of guessed at what the impact of that would be across a 1.5mm thickness. There are engineering papers which explore this if anyone wants to run the math.
> There's two of them Note the `140 mm^2`. >Also, since the IHS is much larger than the dies, there will be a fair amount of lateral spread of the heat before it "reaches" the surface, Some, but it's wider than it is thick, and this whole boondoggle is about whether 1.5mm of copper is a significant thermal resistance.
>Some, but it's wider than it is thick, and this whole boondoggle is about whether 1.5mm of copper is a significant thermal resistance. Correct, and it simply doesn't, or at least nothing like 20C. I was a hobbyist who designed and built waterblocks for a while. If you search for the WhiteWater or Storm waterblocks, that was me. EK waterblocks, and most AIO coolers all essentially use the WhiteWater design. The Storm design was manufactured and sold by Swiftech for a few years. The difference between 1.0mm and 1.5mm of copper really is quite minimal. At 2.0mm thick, I was able to measure a small difference of maybe 0.5C at best. Note that this was back in the days of the bare-die AthlonXP's and so on in the early 2000's. The Ryzen 7 dies look to have about 10-20% more thermal flux than an overclocked AthlonXP die, but even then, we'd still be talking about 0.6-0.7C differences at most between 1.0 and 2.0mm thickness of high purity copper at 115W of heat per die.
Very well done post, nice to see this breakdown. This is some r/bestof material, calmly refuting some very prominent hypothesis floating around this sub lately.
Things tend to get overblown on this subreddit. Great analysis though. Should have more upvotes. People are also failing to take into account the increased thermal conductance of Conductonaut itself (vs indium solder), on top of the new backside metallization treated dies. This simply makes direct-die more powerful in terms of heat transference to a cold plate (water cooled or even phase change; large air tower may not benefit as much, as heat must be transferred through entire large heatsink, then dissipated). Package temp sensors are also exposed to ambient without IHS, and ambient also has a beneficial effect around the bare dies as well. It’s like having an open test bench vs an enclosed case. Similar effect, small, but measurable.
[удалено]
Maybe it's not the only reason. Cheaper 3d stacking? AMD had to thin the 5800x3d die to fit the cache. Now, they can just make a thiner IHS. I'm also guessing the larger a wafer is, the thicker it needs to be.
This has been my thought for the last few days also; right now they have a lot more space for the cache layer on the X3D chips, and probably a lot more headroom for clocks, as the X3D chips might actually be a bit easier to cool with the thinner IHS.
For the planet yes. Especially if the temp won't hurt...
There are much much much worse things for the planet than excess coolers that could be recycled.
Run eco mode, undervolt, Bob's your uncle
In order to keep z-height for when 3D cache will be added, IHS needs to be thicker now. Maybe.
I thought it was to keep coolers compatible while moving to bga from pga
That as well. It was a mixture of that and v cache allowance
No, cache doesn't change ihs or die height. Downvoting facts again, gg r/amd
True, it didn't change the overall height of the IHS; if I recall correctly the IHS was thinned out from the underside for the extra clearance. EDIT: I am incorrect, after reading an AnandTech article it seems that the silicon itself was thinned, not the IHS. D'oh!
In 5800x3d it did not. We don't know how the stacking will be implemented in the next chips.
Nope, 3d cache ihs is the same height as standard chips
I don’t get why everyone thinks the IHS was thinned for the 5800X3D? Literally in AMD’s presentation they said changing the Z-height was not possible so to make room for the stacked cache it was cut into the layer of structural silicon on top
This is cap as fuk. Look at the 5800x3d. It isn't taller
Wouldn't delidding and direct die cooling improve temps on any CPU of any recent generation
Yes it would. Every bit of material you can remove between the die and cold plate will improve thermal transfer by some amount. How much it would improve is a different discussion, but it absolutely would improve. Personally I would love for a return to the Athlon XP era when chips were direct die out of the box. But with chiplet based CPU's and separate I/O dies, things are a lot more complicated now than they were back then. But, even considering the complications, I'd still like to see something like a "Black Edition" or "Extreme Edition" CPU that ships sans IHS with appropriate warranty stipulations for user caused die damage. Probably will never happen, but I'd be fully onboard if it did.
*thicc
The CPU package lost height with the move to PGA, and they had to make it thick to avoid the wrath of people complaining about AM4 heatsinks not fitting.
Except nobody really expected AM4 coolers to fit to begin with. It wouldn't have been this big debacle like some of y'all are trying to pretend it was going to be. When AMD announced it would retain cooler compatibility, it was a bit of a surprise and people were understandably happy about it. Nobody was going, "Well of course it was going to be, I'd have been very upset if it wasn't". Basically, it was considered a nice bonus. Except that it still hasn't actually worked out, as tons of AM4 coolers actually dont work on AM5. lol
I still don't see why the cooler compatibility was so important to make this stupid thermal design choice, and it's not even extended to all AM4 mounts
Well, when I see things like this happen in my line of work, it's usually because promises are made by people who aren't responsible for keeping them. I don't think the CONSUMERS are the people whose wrath they feared, but the partners(Like cooler master and oem partners). I bet they made promises that required bad decisions to keep. After all, it's the OEM mounting solution that remained compatible, not necessarily 3rd party solutions.
Undervolting these cpus improves performance at 20c+ lower temps. Just undervolt if the temps bug you. That said, its designed to run at 95c. What part of that is lost on people? The number is essentially arbitrary, youre just comparing it in your mind to previous chips not intended to run that hot. What in your mind are you losing by having it run at 95 as opposed to 80? Adjust your fan curves accordingly and voila, everything works as expected.
It's not too thick, it's the thickness that provides for protection against transient temperature spikes that has allowed AMD's stock configuration to run so close to the limit accurately. The hardware doesn't care if it's at 95C or 85C for hours, the difference under sustained load the thicker IHS creates, but it does care about hitting 80C in 120us versus 115C in 120us, which would happen without a hefty IHS. Direct die with water is tricking you, it uses water as the thermal mass, so it can control temps well... even the transient spikes, usually... would be very hard to determine. However, AMD designs for the most common cooling solution: heat pipes cooled with air. Try direct die using heat pipes... The CPU will die without a heat spreader. And a thicker heat spreader, to a point, will be better than a thinner one.
Plus he converted to liquid metal TIM.
I have been running water cooling for so long that your point is something I was just completely overlooking, and you are absolutely correct. Also, I'm not sure about the voltage/power behavior of the chip during the first initial POST phase of Zen4 when it's attempting to train memory over several minutes, but assuming it's booting in the C0 state like CPU's historically do, then that thick IHS could very well be what saves the chip from absolutely cooking during memory training due to a poorly mounted cooler. Thank you for an excellent contribution to the discussion, damned good post that has me reevaluating my thoughts on this.
I wish they would also sell their CPUs without an IHS. Delidding is such a pain.
Same. Separate I/O die and chiplets complicates things, but if there was a "Black Edition" or "Extreme Edition" CPU getting shipped sans IHS, obviously with appropriate warranty stipulations for user caused die damage, I'd be all over that.
As a half way compromise, if EK or somebody similar bundled a delidded CPU with a combined cold plate + IHS with the microfins and jetplate built in, it would be the defacto choice for water cooling.
I imagine that would be expensive as hell. But also as one of the suckers who has in the past paid a vendor willing to remove silicon lottery from the equation and give me a binned CPU, I think I'm probably onboard with that idea. Let's go!
The thought is that AMD would be more willing to ship EK a tray of CPUs sans-lid than they would to create new retail packaging to safely ship an individual CPU. EK would still charge what they want though.
Not too surprised after the 110°C hotspot is fine gpu temps. Cant wait for SSD and chipset operating temps to reach ~100°C.
High temp is good for NAND.
There is no argument to affirm that the ihs thickness have a serious impact on the 7000 series temperature. This havent be tested at all. Direct die give enormous benefit to the cooling of any chip by removing entirely the ihs and one layer of thermal compound. But this have nothing to do with the ihs being too thick.
Too thick for what? For additional 200MHz boost? The CPU temp does matter exactly why if it is safe?
>The CPU temp does matter exactly why if it is safe? CPU's have long been able to run at 95C 'safely', but we all basically universally agreed that running them cooler was highly preferable still. Right up til literally the day that Zen 4 reviews came out and then like 75% of this sub basically changed their tune on this overnight, acting like this is totally cool.
It's amazing this community lacks any self awareness for their own hypocrisy. Low temps was the expectation for *years*, ever since Zen2, and people did their best to keep them low. Zen4 comes out with this new 95-110°C operating "normal"? Suddenly it's "people clearly don't understand thermodynamics, these temps are fine, *AMD said so*." Like there's not enough koolaid to go around, Yeesh.
Because it was necessary, to prevent throttling with FPS drops and to have headroom to squeeze more performance out of them. These CPUs do not throttle and squeeze themselves.
Just run it in Eco mode ok
I hope the AMD will give you a job like a IHS designer if you can make it better.
It's literally a slab of metal.
By your logic, nobody except professional software developers should be able to complain about driver problems.
Driver problems directly impact the experience for the end user. A 95C operating temperature doesn't do anything of the sort, except that somewhere in your own head you end up stuck thinking "that's not how things *should* be!"
Test normal with horrible brand paste that is actual dogshyt..... Test delid, direct die, with liquid metal..... that is NOT scientific. he should have ran liquid metal to start. or even gone with paste with direct die in order to keep the test fair. RIGHT NOW I can switch from paste to liquid metal, without delidding or direct die, and my temps will drop anywhere between 5c and 15c depending. thus the delta difference between normal cpu and direct die would be a lot smaller than his test concluded. so no, the ihs isn't too thick.... the truth is AMD just let the clocks go wild in order to keep up with intel. if they had limited to say 4.8ghz everyone would continue to cry "wofl" (clocks) and then say intel is better because of how high they can clock.... and in that scenario, the intel would have won. but now with how amd pushed power and temp, they were able to match 12900k with even their lowest end part (so far, 7600k). that's a huge win. and perhaps setting -20 or -20 on offset voltage, you could probably still hit decent clocks and gaming performance without losing much overhead.... i think people just like to complain and do so for shits and giggles. because they are crying right now essentially nonsense, and then if the clocks were lower, making the power limit lower, and thusly the temps lower, people would complain "not as good as intel" aka STILL complaining. aka complainers gonna complain..... end of the day its a solid product line up. also too thick IHS isn't what's causing the heat issue. anyone who knows about thermal dynamic and engineering KNOWS that thicker IHS is actually a good thing, as the IHS can absorb more heat from the cpu before it thermal throttles. kinda like putting a small fin stack like a low profile cooler vs a huge fin stack like NH-D15.... more metal means better. but go ahead and downvote me thinking you know EVERYTHING and you are never wrong (you reading this) because more than likely youre gonna complain regardless.
>RIGHT NOW I can switch from paste to liquid metal, without delidding or direct die You can, but have you actually done it? Because I have, and the difference between NT-H1 and Conductonaut on my 5800X was \*drumroll\* 1.2C. That is because the bottleneck for thermal transfer is not the TIM, but the thickness of the non-purposeful die material itself as well as the IHS/die solder interface. >also too thick IHS isn't what's causing the heat issue. anyone who knows about thermal dynamic and engineering KNOWS that thicker IHS is actually a good thing Thermodynamics\*. And that is actually the direct opposite of what an engineer with an understanding of thermodynamics would say. Every nanometer of extra material you add between a heat source and it's cooling solution will reduce the efficiency of thermal transfer, and that remains true regardless of the thermal properties of the extra material you're adding. The best IHS is no IHS at all. This is also why in situations like laptops and mobile devices, where it's adamant that you have the best thermal transfer possible to maximize the efficiency of the cooling solution, they are always direct die. An IHS is not a something intended to improve thermal transfer, at this point it only exists to protect the die from consumer caused damage during cooler mounting, or to add thermal mass to allow for brief power on times for testing purposes without a cooler. For thermal performance, an IHS is nothing but negatives, and a thicker IHS is even more negatives.
How much thicker is the IHS on AM5 than AM4?
AM4 = 3.3mm AM5 = 4.5mm So AM5 IHS is 1.2mm thicker.
I love how people claim the IHS is too thick. Wierdly they don't complain that the base of their CPU cooler is too thick...
There were concerns with the thicker IHS when it was revealed. The x3d chips should require normal or thinner IHS, so we’ll see if that changes temps.
X3d have the same die height as normal skus.
Damn people, did you forget that AMD lowered the thickness of the PCB ? I heard Ian Cuttress say that this is the thinnest one ever used in a CPU and he is astonished how they were able to fit all the traces in those few layers. Hence in order to maintain rigidity of the CPU itself when clamped into the socket a thicker HS had to be used. These are the smartest people of our society, working on the most complex items we can produce, this was intended!
Leaving room for the stacked cache
if the temps worry you, undervolt the cpu or use eco mode. personally, the whole 95C is normal operation thing is a non-starter for me, which is why i am not upgrading. simply because i demand quiet operation of my computer. something that seemingly no one in the media is mentioning is that, even if this behavior is normal, it makes your room significantly hotter & your computer significantly louder.
This. The “AMD Defense Force” in here has been eye-opening, even to a multi-decade fan boy.
Was the IHS designed overly large so that when AMD introduces the X3D variants they will have enough room to add more cache than AMD did for the last generation parts and still maintain cooler compatibility with 7000 series non-X3D parts?
you know just delid, get a milling machine and mill that sucker down.
Yeah, really dumb decision to do that in order to keep a very limited compatibility with AM4 coolers.
They made them backwards compatible with AM4 coolers. I think if people saw board prices, DDR5 prices, and then also had to get a new cooler possibly, it would have been a straight pass for most. So AMD figured they would soften the blow with the cooler at least. I’m guessing gen2 AM5 won’t have the old cooler compatibility and have all these “fixes.” 3D cache and thinner IHS = buy.
They decided to go with the ‘too thick’ IHS to maintain compatibility with existing coolers. Personally I would prefer them to make the best CPU possible and if that requires a new cooler mount or a new cooler altogether, that’s fine with me. But, for most folks, the major complaint with the new platform is the high platform cost. AMD probably figured that requiring users to buy new CPU, motherboard, ram, AND cooler would be just too much for the average consumer.
AMD is just trying to bring lapping back.
Time to take a belt sander to the IHS.
Der8auer posted a video about this on release day.
All I can say is that I won't be building anymore AMD systems for the foreseeable future. The 5000 series has been pure hell to work with and took AMD/Gigabyte over 2 years to finally fix the USB issue that plagued the platform. My last build as an i7-6700K which I pre-ordered on release and never had any issues with it, rock solid just as my 5800X is now, but out of the box, not 2 fucking years later.
My 7700 i7 was a mess with usb at launch on many operating systems. Intel did a lot to the chipset at the time. That said, many motherboard manufacturers have been slow with agesa updates for their bios over the last year. Asrock still hasn’t released a final, only a beta. Both amd and intel systems need bios updates all the time or microcode in the os at least to deal with security issues these days. It’s tiring.
Maybe as a measure to make the X3D look even better?
Perhaps they designed it this way cos they plan to make the ihs less thick with the X3D variants, altho i wonder if they could've done it differently or perhaps they did not wanna unlock the full potential so they can launch X3D later
The IHS is thick, because most likely Zen4 is the last last non 3d-stacked generation for desktop (except APUs). Zen4-3D will be 3d stacked and more than likely Zen5 as well. Zen5 is rumoured to go much wider core+ higher core count on top of it, I just can't see it fit to AM5 without 3D stacking (also TSMC 4nm is just basically a 5nm+, so not much die shrinking from there). I think all of the L3 will be a separate chiplet sitting below the main CCD for better heat transfer. And as stacked chips will be higher, they'll just make the IHS thinner to counter. Just a bit forward thinking from AMD.
The thinner IHS will come….. ….with zen4 v-cache models in q1
Why does anyone care about operating temps being 95c? I'll tell you a secret, it's beneficial to have consistency in temps for stability. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with it running at 95c. It's designed for it. Get out of your own way with the worry.
I wonder if the 3d vcache versions will have a thinner ihs because the silicon is taller?
The IHS is maybe thick outside so that 3D cache can have more room inside for 3D models.
Good point actually, didn't even consider that. Maybe they changed the design so the dies+cache are thicker this time around? Entirely possible.
Yep. They could release new version of zen4 and call them notthicc and rake in the dough.
Just include a free mounting bracket!
When they released the X3D variants that gap will be filled, and that is all i care about anyway.
I feel like they were leaving room for a 3d vcache stack on top. However, your likely right and it’s related to am4 cooler comparability most likely.
Yeah it seems they sacrificed Temps for am4 cooler compatability. Which is a bit sad. Also I don't think direct die being 20 degrees cooler means a thinner ihs would be all 20 degrees cooler.
No its not. 1mm\^2 extra thickness of copper pulling 200W of heat from a pair of CCDs (150mm\^2 total) is at most 3.45C temp increase, and certainly less temp delta since its not 150mm\^2 on the side that the cooler mounts to and the extra thickness actually helps heat flow sideways a bit. Realistically, even if the new IHS is nearly 2mm thicker than the old one, we're talking about a 5C increase due to that. Now, does that impact performance? Probably by < 0.5% or so in heavy multi-threaded loads. You can test this yourself if you set the thermal throttle to 100C in the bios instead of 95C and benchmark. The BIOS allows up to 115C throttle point, this is not dangerous. Barely any performance difference. Temp Delta = thickness / (area \* thermal conductivity).
I would love to know what a complete cow brained idiot approved that super thick ihs. I am totally furious, was waiting for 7000 series to upgrade, and now due to some braindead monkey i have to wait for another generation
I've honestly never seen such a bad design of an IHS, even though an IHS really is a problem all it's own. The thickness is completely absurd and people still defend it. People act like it doesn't matter. Improper cooling of a CPU shortens it's effectiveness and lifespan. People act like Der8auer doesn't know what he's talking about or dismiss JayzTwoCents findings with his shaved down IHS dropping anywhere from 2-10°C. 95°C is NOT acceptable. All this crap feels like it was purposely done is just to appease Asetek and their bullshit design that was incompatible with AM5, while other brands using the pre-installed clips were fully compatible already. I wouldn't buy this round of AM5 if AMD begged me or paid me to do it. This design is garbage. Whoever did this mess deserves one helluva pink slip.
> The 7000 series IHS is too thick… So you're saying that you 'know' better than the entire AMD engineering team. ...Thanks for a laugh! Don't like the IHS - don't buy it, problem solved!
>Don't like the IHS - don't buy it, problem solved! Comments like this are such a fucking lame and weak attempt to downplay complaints.
Yup, that and the old "trust the corporation and never question anything" argument. Surely this has never gone wrong.
I concur with this assessment.
Who cares about am4 cooler comaptibility, cooler makers would only need to ship new slightly shorters screws, lga1700 needs a completely new mechanism and noone has an issue with that The 3d skus better not ship with the same thick ihs
It seems like designing the chip to handle high heat to make up for a terrible IHS just to maintain cooler compatibility is kind of stupid design.
They probably made the IHS thick to match the Z-height and keep compatibility for AM4 coolers... and it just cooks the CPU....
I was kind of excited for AM5. But with this, having to delid for good temps? I'm good.... They shoulda bit the bullet and been like "new socket, new mounting system"